Destiny and Free will

[Manopolus]

Irrelevant is right. Absolutely none of this addresses anything in my post.

Oh? Not even to the first line?

Sort of how believers can access the existence of God internally, even though it makes absolutely no sense.

You'll have to explain it to me better if that wasn't it. Feel free. I read it as a primary motivation.

 

[Olmstead]

Oh? Not even to the first line?

Unless you're trying to tell me that "I know God exists because I can feel it" is a perfectly reasonable statement and argument, then no.

And I don't think that's what you're saying. Is that what you're saying?

Because you have provided no argument for why your statement and the religious statement aren't equivalent.

 

[Manopolus]

Unless you're trying to tell me that "I know God exists because I can feel it" is a perfectly reasonable statement and argument, then no.

And I don't think that's what you're saying. Is that what you're saying?

Because you have provided no argument for why your statement and the religious statement aren't equivalent.

No, it is perfectly reasonable. What isn't reasonable is claiming that you know anything whatsoever about that being, assuming it exists. I know that feeling. I share it. But that doesn't excuse the rest of the dogma.

 

[Olmstead]

No, it is perfectly reasonable. What isn't reasonable is claiming that you know anything whatsoever about that being, assuming it exists. I know that feeling. I share it. But that doesn't excuse the rest of the dogma.

What about your dogma on free will based on a feeling? All you can say for sure is that you feel like you have free will, none of which is based on logic or scientific observation.

 

[Manopolus]

What about your dogma on free will based on a feeling? All you can say for sure is that you feel like you have free will, none of which is based on logic or scientific observation.

Well, it's not dogma. It's just life. It's the understanding that you exist and can do things. Not complicated. Basic. Foundational. I can't detect whether you have that, but I can detect that I do. Maybe you don't. I don't know. Solipsism had the answer all along, if so.

 

[Olmstead]

Well, it's not dogma. It's just life. It's the understanding that you exist and can do things. Not complicated. Basic. Foundational. I can't detect whether you have that, but I can detect that I do. Maybe you don't. I don't know. Solipsism had the answer all along, if so.

That's no understanding, that's your extremely fallible senses giving you an illusion of something that goes against everything we know about the world, as well as everything we can possibly imagine about the world.

In other words, dogma based on a feeling.

 

[Manopolus]

That's no understanding, that's your extremely fallible senses giving you an illusion of something that goes against everything we know about the world, as well as everything we can possibly imagine about the world.

In other words, dogma based on a feeling.

No, you don't get to take the word "dogma" and change its meaning. I didn't get this notion from someone else. That immediately disqualifies it as dogma. It's entirely mine. More so than anything else I've noticed exists. It's literally the only thing in me you can't even touch if you tried.

 

[Olmstead]

No, you don't get to take the word "dogma" and change its meaning. I didn't get this notion from someone else. That immediately disqualifies it as dogma.

You used that word for someone's internal feeling about God. Whether such a feeling was influenced by external experiences is irrelevant, as the same is true for your sense of free will.

If you don't think that word applies, you shouldn't have used it like that.

 

[Manopolus]

You used that word for someone's internal feeling about God. Whether such a feeling was influenced by external experiences is irrelevant, as the same is true for your sense of free will.

If you don't think that word applies, you shouldn't have used it like that.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Dogma and the mere notion of God or something divine are two separate things. When I mentioned dogma, I was talking about the books, stories, and other cultural artifacts that religion is based on, and proposing a whole morality system to go with it. That's different from merely proposing a deity. Completely different. There are no "shoulds" or unproven descriptive matter or disproven history in the equation of "God" as a standalone concept.

Dogma is what hijacks that concept and uses it for social control.

 

[Olmstead]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Dogma and the mere notion of God or something divine are two separate things. When I mentioned dogma, I was talking about the books, stories, and other cultural artifacts that religion is based on, and proposing a whole morality system to go with it. That's different from merely proposing a deity. Completely different. There are no "shoulds" or unproven descriptive matter or disproven history in that equation.

You don't get it. It's not about some hypothetical deity. They feel internally that the very specific deity described in their very specific holy book is true, with all that goes with it. Just go and ask them, and see what they tell you.

But we can keep it much simpler if you want. Many "spiritual" people will tell you that they are the reincarnated whatever. No dogma, no religion, just an internal feeling. Is that reasonable?

 

[Manopolus]

You don't get it. It's not about some hypothetical deity. They feel internally that the very specific deity described in their very specific holy book is true, with all that goes with it. Just go and ask them, and see what they tell you.

But we can keep it much simpler if you want. Many "spiritual" people will tell you that they are the reincarnated whatever. No dogma, no religion, just an internal feeling. Is that reasonable?

Well, I guess it's fine if they feel that way. That doesn't mean I'll jump on board. Doesn't fit anything I've experienced.

You don't get it. I don't have to control them. Therefore, I don't take the position that I must manipulate them. Thus, determinism is useless to me. That's my motivation in brief vs what I'm hearing from you.

So take that and ask which sounds more like what dogma does. Dogma is a control mechanism.

And those are also the societal ramifications of your position.

 

[Olmstead]

Well, I guess it's fine if they feel that way. That doesn't mean I'll jump on board. Doesn't fit anything I've experienced.

I don't care if it's fine, I'm asking if it's a worthwhile argument for reincarnation.

You don't get it. I don't have to control them. Therefore, I don't take the position that I must manipulate them. Thus, determinism is useless to me. That's my motivation in brief vs what I'm hearing from you.

So take that and ask which sounds more like what dogma does. Dogma is a control mechanism.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Whether free will exists isn't about control, it's simply a scientific question and should be treated that way.

 

[Manopolus]

I don't care if it's fine, I'm asking if it's a worthwhile argument for reincarnation.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Whether free will exists isn't about control, it's simply a scientific question and should be treated that way.

It works for explaining their position. It doesn't work for convincing anybody else unless that someone else has a deep need to fit in somewhere.

 

[Olmstead]

It works for explaining their position. It doesn't work for convincing anybody else unless that someone else has a deep need to fit in somewhere.

It's a completely useless statement in a discussion on reincarnation, just as the internal feeling of free will is completely useless in a discussion on free will.

Will you just accept their feeling, or will you bring actual science and logic into the discussion?

 

[Manopolus]

It's a completely useless statement in a discussion on reincarnation, just as the internal feeling of free will is completely useless in a discussion on free will.

Will you just accept their feeling, or will you bring actual science and logic into the discussion?

It's not a science and logic discussion. It's philosophy. Science intentionally blinds itself to much of the human experience. That's useful, but it doesn't grant authority any more than pretending you know god's will. As a former philosophy major and a former art major, it won't do much for me.

If you want to keep the authority it does grant you, you've got to stay in your lane.

 

[Olmstead]

It's not a science and logic discussion. It's philosophy. Science intentionally blinds itself to much of the human experience. That's useful, but it doesn't grant authority any more than pretending you know god's will. As a former philosophy major and a former art major, it won't do much for me.

No, the fact that your cells and experiences completely predetermine all you do is absolutely science and logic. Philosophy is the question of whether the choices of such a creature can still count as free will, but that still requires a coherent argument, which I am yet to see.

 

[Manopolus]

No, the fact that your cells and experiences completely predetermine all you do is absolutely science and logic. Philosophy is the question of whether the choices of such a creature can still count as free will, but that still requires a coherent argument, which I am yet to see.

Okay, so extrapolate the reason I blinked just now (intentionally) all the way back to the Big Bang. I dare you. Give me the full reductionist, mechanistic description. Use math.

And then tell me why Occam's Razor prefers your version.

Be sure to include concepts like why I blinked rather than standing up and jumping up and down.

See the problem yet?

You probably don't see the biggest problem. I call it cause-stealing. And it's what parents often do when they take credit for their children's behavior. Older brothers do it, too. What you have to do to achieve it is to deny the fact that the other party has agency. Must be a pre-existing mindset before handling the experiment. It's the first-child mentality... hero complex.

So if you want to be "deterministic" about it, I'm guessing that's why you think that way and I don't.

But that's an influence. It isn't proof against choice.

 

[Olmstead]

Okay, so extrapolate the reason I blinked just now (intentionally) all the way back to the Big Bang. I dare you. Give me the full reductionist, mechanistic description. Use math.

And then tell me why Occam's Razor prefers your version.

Be sure to include concepts like why I blinked rather than standing up and jumping up and down.

See the problem yet?

Why would I need to go back to the Big Bang, or give you a description of such exhaustiveness that it would clearly require some sort of invasive surgery?

The problem is already solved through basic logic, even before we go into concrete examples of how different brains respond to different stimuli: there is nothing else but nature and nurture, which means that those two things completely control the person we end up being. How could it be otherwise?

It's not Occam's Razor, it's quite simply the only logical explanation.

You probably don't see the biggest problem. I call it cause-stealing. And it's what parents often do when they take credit for their children's behavior. Older brothers do it, too. What you have to do to achieve it is to deny the fact that the other party has agency. Must be a pre-existing mindset before the experiment.

That's not a problem for the argument, it just means that you don't like the implications.

 

[Manopolus]

there is nothing else but nature and nurture

Unless you know everything that is, that's an argument from ignorance. Clearly. It's right freaking there on the surface.

 

[Manopolus]

That's not a problem for the argument, it just means that you don't like the implications.

And this. How did you like me stealing your cause from you? Feel good? That was the point. You don't even know what you're doing with this one, can't prove diddly and are acting on deep internal motivations that go all the way back to the big bang.

So I guess you're an NPC. How quaint. I'm not. I choose not to be of my own free will. I don't know if you have such a thing or not, but if you do, it's a pretty freaking weak one. Typical. You're just trying to fit in with Daddy's point of view.

(for illustrative purposes, not an actual ad hominem)