You see, I did not react on that posting because you did not answer my question at all, and in my previous posting it should be clear that there is no necessary link between....something out of free will or not. So the opposite of being determined is randomness.Please read or re-read post #218 GdB. Until you understand it. Thank you.
The same with our consciousness...when someone cuts you off on the road, we immediately blame. We don't start running through a Causal diagram in our heads to determine how it was that the driver came to cut us off.Of course. He was the cause of it, isn't it? Who else? Could it be that this driver (well it might be a bad example in this case) can be made responsible by asking why he did it, or give him a fine because he did not take his responsibility. Why should I need LFW to blame him for his bad behaviour?
What you are doing is proselytizing. You're advocating for a better way of social interaction. This has nothing to do with LFW/Determinism/Consciousness. Like I said, it's honorable but your just piggybacking a social moral code onto Hard Determined systems about how are minds work.OK. I am here on Stephen's crusade. I agree mostly with him on this part, but it is not my 'battle front'. I have been living only in the rather reasonable states of the Netherlands and Switzerland, in which it is usance to look in how far e.g. a criminal can be made responsible for his deed. Are there maybe extenuating circumstances? Are there better ways to deal with them then incarceration? So for me this is not the hottest topic. As I said several times elsewhere, my 'front' is the fear of dehumanising people by hard core neurologists who think we should not make people responsible for their actions, but, in case of criminals, we should treat them as objects, so to speak 'repair' them, as doctors 'repair' broken legs. And it is these neurologists that use this illusionary idea of libertarian free will, and think that by 'discovering' that it does not exists, there is no room for free will anymore at all. So it is they that are piggybacking an less humane way of treating people with their incoherent idea of free will. But just to ask: what do you think would happen with people's ideas about praising and blaming when they would realise that they are determined?
You see, I did not react on that posting because you did not answer my question at all, and in my previous posting it should be clear that there is no necessary link between....something out of free will or not. So the opposite of being determined is randomness.Please read or re-read post #218 GdB. Until you understand it. Thank you. I did. And I reacted.
You think it easy to see through the illusion? That "illusion" is hardwired into our brains. It is the operating system of our minds. Just like Windows is an operating system for computers.Windows is not hardwired on computers. E.g. I use Ubuntu (a Linux distribution). Just the wrong example, but I thankfully take it. Linux is free software! ;-P And then: no, it is not easy to see through the illusion. But you can start to think about it, which you consistently refuse. You just state that the illusion is hardwired. I state it is a cultural artifact. And now?
But just to ask: what do you think would happen with people's ideas about praising and blaming when they would realise that they are determined?My good friend, I just said above 10 minutes ago that that will never happen.
I’ve explained that everyone-EVERYONE, has the experience of choosing or thinking others are choosing.I've stated that multiple times. People can sit around and philosophize about how we are determined, but even in the process(of directly thinking of causality and Hard Determinism), they are conscious of an LFW "world".
Oh come on! I'm going to quit if you won't grant basic latitude in analogies. You know what I mean. This is not productive.You think it easy to see through the illusion? That "illusion" is hardwired into our brains. It is the operating system of our minds. Just like Windows is an operating system for computers.Windows is not hardwired on computers. E.g. I use Ubuntu (a Linux distribution). Just the wrong example, but I thankfully take it. Linux is free software! ;-P
And then: (VYAZMA-)no, it is not easy to see through the illusion. But you can start to think about it, which you consistently refuse. You just state that the illusion is hardwired. I state it is a cultural artifact. And now?Of course we can start to think about it. Philosophy, coffee shops. I just explained that. Right...and now... Let's tie this part up, and then we can deal with "and now"....
People can sit around and philosophize about how we are determined, but even in the process(of directly thinking of causality and Hard Determinism), they are conscious of an LFW "world".After you read the postings I referred to in my previous posting it should be clear: we experience having options to choose from. And that is really true. But we do not experience that we are caused or uncaused. It is just that science makes it clear that we are caused. But that just does not contradict our experience, because we simple do not experience it. But it shows again that the concept of LFW is just not the correct description of our human world. 'Again', because we already knew by analysis of LFW that it is an incoherent concept.
Oh, and btw, You should still react on this one], and this one] (second half).Unfortunately I won't being going down that road with you. This is just a completely redundant sideroad of yours that deals with vocabulary, definitions and splitting hairs about terminologies. Completely redundant and useless. In fact it makes me think you just like arguing minutiae for the sake of typing. Honestly(in the truest sense of the word) that's the conclusion I came to months and months ago concerning that particular avenue of yours.
People can sit around and philosophize about how we are determined, but even in the process(of directly thinking of causality and Hard Determinism), they are conscious of an LFW "world".After you read the postings I referred to in my previous posting it should be clear: we experience having options to choose from. And that is really true. But we do not experience that we are caused or uncaused. It is just that science makes it clear that we are caused. But that just does not contradict our experience, because we simple do not experience it. But it shows again that the concept of LFW is just not the correct description of our human world. 'Again', because we already knew by analysis of LFW that it is an incoherent concept. Ok...and? So what? That only bolsters my view that we are in fact hard wired to think in terms of LFW.
Oh, and btw, You should still react on this one], and this one] (second half).Unfortunately I won't being going down that road with you. This is just a completely redundant sideroad of yours that deals with vocabulary, definitions and splitting hairs about terminologies. Completely redundant and useless. In fact it makes me think you just like arguing minutiae for the sake of typing. Honestly(in the truest sense of the word) that's the conclusion I came to months and months ago concerning that particular avenue of yours. OK. If you do not want to think about it. The postings deal with how we experience free will, and in what respect we really have free will. They also explain why we have the illusion of LFW. You call it a side track, without justification. And if you do not have your 'vocabulary, definitions and terminologies' straight, how do you think one can useful analyse the problem of free will? It is exactly the unclear vocabulary, definitions and terminologies that confuse people!
Ok...and? So what? That only bolsters my view that we are in fact hard wired to think in terms of LFW.No it doesn't, because it shows that we do not experience LFW, because we do not experience if we are caused or not. But it explains that we really choose.
VYAZMA-Of course we can start to think about it. Philosophy, coffee shops. I just explained that. Right…and now… Let’s tie this part up, and then we can deal with “and now"....Let's stay on track. We pretty much were on the same page a moment ago. The "and now" leads to whether we are culturally ingrained to think in terms of LFW or it is hardwired. I think this should be able to be reasoned out in a comfy 3-5 minutes...
Ok...and? So what? That only bolsters my view that we are in fact hard wired to think in terms of LFW.No it doesn't, because it shows that we do not experience LFW, because we do not experience if we are caused or not. But it explains that we really choose. no no no. why? why? This is an uneccessary sidetrack.
This is all we need to understand. It makes all of the other questions redundant.VYAZMA-Of course we can start to think about it. Philosophy, coffee shops. I just explained that. Right…and now… Let’s tie this part up, and then we can deal with “and now"....Let's stay on track. We pretty much were on the same page a moment ago. The "and now" leads to whether we are culturally ingrained to think in terms of LFW or it is hardwired. I think this should be able to be reasoned out in a comfy 3-5 minutes...
The "and now" leads to whether we are culturally ingrained to think in terms of LFW or it is hardwired. I think this should be able to be reasoned out in a comfy 3-5 minutes...Well, until now you did not succeed. You only succeeded in showing that we have the experience of choosing, and the practice of blaming and praising. You never showed that we necessarily need the (illusionary) concept of LFW for that. I show that clearly in the postings I referred to, but you refuse to go into the argument. Pity.
The "and now" leads to whether we are culturally ingrained to think in terms of LFW or it is hardwired. I think this should be able to be reasoned out in a comfy 3-5 minutes...Well, until now you did not succeed. I hope I will, but I have already given good reasoning as to why we are.
You only succeeded in showing that we have the experience of choosing, and the practice of blaming and praising.Ok and that is no great feat. That is obvious through empirical observation. But I'll take that as a first step...
You never showed that we necessarily need the (illusionary) concept of LFW for that.Ok here's where you lose me. I have explained the reasons we need this concept(this consciousness) many times. It is how we evolved to have social interactions and systems. It is how the human species advances and creates systems of growth, relationships, leadership, direction, societies, discovery, knowledge, sharing, communities, etc. None of these concepts(and a whole lot more) would function without an innate consciousness of LFW. It is quite obvious that this is the case. It is directly observable. You cannot take one example above and explain how it would work without a concept of LFW. Especially as we can cite almost every system and directly observe the concept of LFW playing out.
I show that clearly in the postings I referred to, but you refuse to go into the argument. Pity.We'll see what exactly a pity is. Let's see.. What argument are you referring to? What argument am I refusing to go into? Don't cite it, just sum it up please.
What comes first the chicken or the egg?
I asked you repeatedly about when these cultural ideas of LFW came online.
You cited some direct results or specific cultural manifestations of the innate, hard-wired consciousness of LFW.
And of course those we can trace to your own subjective(!) views on why those manifestations(of nature-not nurture) are right or wrong, depending on your own personal opinions(ideals-proselytizing).
What came first the chicken or the egg?
When exactly did people start thinking consciously in terms of LFW.
The answer is somewhere between the development of plants and animals. The answer is somewhere in the primordial soup.
The answer is somewhere when we began to crawl out of the ocean and look up at the sun.
Sure you can cite specific cultural manifestations of our innate conscious thinking that you do or do not agree with.
What you cannot do is tell me when we began to start thinking in terms of LFW. Because that deals with evolution and times that go back millions of years.
Everything else after that is just your musings on why certain manifestations of this innate consciousness are good or bad.
Very subjective. Very subjective in the grand scheme of things.
The only thing we do know is that we do think in terms of LFW. That is empirically obvious.
Unless you can tell me how this started(presumably from your view, started on the wrong path.)then you have no argument.
You only have ideals. You only have ideas on how people should and should not think.
None of these concepts(and a whole lot more) would function without an innate consciousness of LFW. It is quite obvious that this is the case. It is directly observable. You cannot take one example above and explain how it would work without a concept of LFW. Especially as we can cite almost every system and directly observe the concept of LFW playing out.That is not an argument. That is just repeating your view point.
We'll see what exactly a pity is. Let's see.. What argument are you referring to? What argument am I refusing to go into? Don't cite it, just sum it up please.No. You tell me where my arguments are wrong. Do not just repeat your viewpoint. Show where I go astray in my argumentation.
Oh really? Would you care to try and dispute any examples? That is not a viewpoint! It's a matter of historical record. Try and explain one of the systems I described, working without the concept of LFW.None of these concepts(and a whole lot more) would function without an innate consciousness of LFW. It is quite obvious that this is the case. It is directly observable. You cannot take one example above and explain how it would work without a concept of LFW. Especially as we can cite almost every system and directly observe the concept of LFW playing out.That is not an argument. That is just repeating your view point.
GdB-No. You tell me where my arguments are wrong. Do not just repeat your viewpoint. Show where I go astray in my argumentation.Ho ho hohh...Please re-read #237 GdB. Thank you. Do you dispute any of that?
Oh really? Would you care to try and dispute any examples? That is not a viewpoint! It's a matter of historical record. Try and explain one of the systems I described, working without the concept of LFW.What do you mean with 'system'? Evolution? I already explained elsewhere: animals became able to anticipate the future. But I do not see LFW in that. Then humans: humans are also 'future anticipating animals', i.e. they have options and they choose. But again, there is no concept of LFW needed for that. (see here] again). I am sitting in the restaurant and order a menu. Same. I choose between options. No LFW needed for that. I, stone age human, am angry that one of my clan stole a piece of meat from me. So I hit him, and get it back. Again, what do I need LFW for? I, Raskolnikow, killed my landlady and her sister. Nobody forced me to do this. I chose to do it. So I am punished for it. So now I, or the judge, need LFW, or what? Why?
What you cannot do is tell me when we began to start thinking in terms of LFW.Yes, I can. Looked it up for you: somewhere in the second century, by Irenaeus].
Because that deals with evolution and times that go back millions of years.That is not a 'because'. That is the same viewpoint of you again. Sorry VYAZMA, your historical reconstruction of LFW doesn't hold water. There is just no reason that for choosing one needs an idea of LFW. It is a fiction, with which we can perfectly do without.