Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?

[Azdgari]

That perception makes sense if your considering a person from the outside, observing them.   But from the 'inside looking out', so to speak, you have the awareness of choice, and the ability to reason and imagine the outcomes.  Then you'd be making a choice not based on something real always,  although maybe a very good prediction, but still an imagined possibility.

It works from the inside looking out, too.  I have thoughts.  Those thoughts lead to other thoughts.  It's a cause-and-effect system.  My choices are a result of what I want.  What I want is a result of other thoughts.  And so on.  The only difference about it being "from the inside" is that I can observe the chain of cause-and-effect a bit more directly than I can with other people.

Unless you want to claim that imagination and reason is caused by determined physical forces. If so, well then, the idea that 'God is imaginary' would be also be, therefore people who believe such would be no more incorrect to believe such than people who don't, since both ideas were determined.  That doesn't make any sense.

That also doesn't follow logically.  It's a total non-sequiter.  But putting that aside, as Anfauglir said, my point stands whether the mind is physical or not.

The very fact that people can perceive a reasoning to be flawed is evidence that they are not bound completely by determinism.   For what would be the logic of a universe which determines the evolution of conscious being that comes to be aware that determinism itself could be flawed?  It would seem then that the deterministic universe would undermine itself.

This is absolutely nonsensical.  I don't even know where to begin.  It's practically a word salad.

[Anfauglir]

Every choice is going to depend on the factors that work their way into that (emotions, desires, principles, morals, etc.).

A choice can only depend on factors that are a part of the person making the choice.

Agreed?

But Gill - I'd like to hear your answer to Az's question.

That perception makes sense if your considering a person from the outside, observing them.   But from the 'inside looking out', so to speak, you have the awareness of choice, and the ability to reason and imagine the outcomes.  Then you'd be making a choice not based on something real always,  although maybe a very good prediction, but still an imagined possibility.

Unless you want to claim that imagination and reason is caused by determined physical forces. If so, well then, the idea that 'God is imaginary' would be also be, therefore people who believe such would be no more incorrect to believe such than people who don't, since both ideas were determined.  That doesn't make any sense. 

The very fact that people can perceive a reasoning to be flawed is evidence that they are not bound completely by determinism.    For what would be the logic of a universe which determines the evolution of conscious being that comes to be aware that determinism itself could be flawed?  It would seem then that the deterministic universe would undermine itself.

Okay then Gill.

Imagine that on two seperate occasions you find yourself in exactly the same circumstances, facing exactly the same decision.  Do you make the same choice each time, or a different one?

If the decision can be different in exactly the same circumstances.....how is that not random?

If the decision will be the same every time.....how is that not deterministic?

[Gill]

It works from the inside looking out, too.  I have thoughts.  Those thoughts lead to other thoughts.  It's a cause-and-effect system.  My choices are a result of what I want.  What I want is a result of other thoughts.  And so on.  The only difference about it being "from the inside" is that I can observe the chain of cause-and-effect a bit more directly than I can with other people.

Ok, looking into the past you may say this or that was the cause.  But projecting ideas into the future, for instance, you can't know all the possible effects of your choices.  Yet, people make decisions based on this imagined possibilities.  So if you're making a choice, based on something that's not a reality yet, such as imagined possibilities, then you're not making it based on determined laws.  Therefore, the ability to project alone, is freedom from determinism.

Unless you want to claim that imagination and reason is caused by determined physical forces. If so, well then, the idea that 'God is imaginary' would be also be, therefore people who believe such would be no more incorrect to believe such than people who don't, since both ideas were determined.  That doesn't make any sense.

That also doesn't follow logically.  It's a total non-sequiter.  But putting that aside, as Anfauglir said, my point stands whether the mind is physical or not.

Why not? If everything in the universe is determined, then there would be no such thing as mistakes, errors in thinking, it would simply be a delusion to think anyone is wrong about anything.

The very fact that people can perceive a reasoning to be flawed is evidence that they are not bound completely by determinism.   For what would be the logic of a universe which determines the evolution of conscious being that comes to be aware that determinism itself could be flawed?  It would seem then that the deterministic universe would undermine itself.

This is absolutely nonsensical.  I don't even know where to begin.  It's practically a word salad.

heh.   Maybe I could state it another way.   Why would the universe "create itself", as so many atheists believe, to be completely deterministic, if those deterministic laws evolve beings with the capacity to question the validity of the universes own nature? 

Because the universe didn't "create itself" and is not completely deterministic.

[One Above All]

heh.   Maybe I could state it another way.   Why would the universe "create itself", as so many atheists believe, to be completely deterministic, if those deterministic laws evolve beings with the capacity to question the validity of the universes own nature? 

Because the universe didn't "create itself" and is not completely deterministic.

The universe didn't create itself, as you believe that we believe. For the universe to create itself, it would require that it be sentient.

[Gill]

heh.   Maybe I could state it another way.   Why would the universe "create itself", as so many atheists believe, to be completely deterministic, if those deterministic laws evolve beings with the capacity to question the validity of the universes own nature? 

Because the universe didn't "create itself" and is not completely deterministic.

The universe didn't create itself, as you believe that we believe. For the universe to create itself, it would require that it be sentient.

Alright.  Let me try to state things different.   If the laws of physics, are in complete control of everything.  The laws are the 'creative force', so-to-speak of people.    Yet, the laws created beings which evolved the capacity to question the validity of the laws themselves.   So then the laws, evolved something which undermines the laws themselves.   Why would a law exist to create beings which question the law? 

 Makes no sense.  The laws don't determine everything, it's people's conscious awareness, and free-choices, that determines many things.

[Azdgari]

Ok, looking into the past you may say this or that was the cause.  But projecting ideas into the future, for instance, you can't know all the possible effects of your choices.  Yet, people make decisions based on this imagined possibilities.  So if you're making a choice, based on something that's not a reality yet, such as imagined possibilities, then you're not making it based on determined laws.  Therefore, the ability to project alone, is freedom from determinism.

What I know has absolutely no effect on whether it's determined.  Whether I know that an asteroid is (or is not) going to hit the Earth next year has absolutely no bearing on the fact that it deterministically will or won't.

Why not? If everything in the universe is determined, then there would be no such thing as mistakes, errors in thinking, it would simply be a delusion to think anyone is wrong about anything.

Re-stating your total non-sequiter does not make it any more reasonable.  It's a deterministic universe, not a "perfect" universe.

If you mean that under a deterministic system, human minds can't be considered to be right or wrong about anything, then that's garbage.  A mind-state still applies to reality or doesn't, regardless of how it got there, by randomness or determinism.  (your third option, "choice", ends up being the same as "randomness" when you describe it)

heh.   Maybe I could state it another way.   Why would the universe "create itself", as so many atheists believe, to be completely deterministic, if those deterministic laws evolve beings with the capacity to question the validity of the universes own nature?

Your question still makes no sense.  It assumes that the universe consciously decided to create itself and lay out everything that would happen within it.  That's a really strange idea, and not one that the people you're talking to hold to.  Nor do you even have a reason to believe that they do.

So why are you bringing it up?

Because the universe didn't "create itself" and is not completely deterministic.

No it didn't, and yes it is...except for randomness.  That is absolutely the only alternative to determinism, after all.

[Azdgari]

Alright.  Let me try to state things different.   If the laws of physics, are in complete control of everything.  The laws are the 'creative force', so-to-speak of people.    Yet, the laws created beings which evolved the capacity to question the validity of the laws themselves.   So then the laws, evolved something which undermines the laws themselves.   Why would a law exist to create beings which question the law?

Again you are positing that "The Laws" are conscious.  Why would you do that, especially when you know that your audience doesn't hold them to be conscious?

That's just dumb.

Makes no sense.  The laws don't determine everything, it's people's conscious awareness, and free-choices, that determines many things.

You mean, their random, uncaused thoughts.  Please try to speak meaningfully, Gill.  "Choice" still means "randomness", as you've described it.

[Gill]

Alright.  Let me try to state things different.   If the laws of physics, are in complete control of everything.  The laws are the 'creative force', so-to-speak of people.    Yet, the laws created beings which evolved the capacity to question the validity of the laws themselves.   So then the laws, evolved something which undermines the laws themselves.   Why would a law exist to create beings which question the law?

Again you are positing that "The Laws" are conscious.  Why would you do that, especially when you know that your audience doesn't hold them to be conscious?

That's just dumb.

I don't mean the laws are conscious.   This is a little abstract, so hard to explain.    If you believe that all of your thoughts, reasoning, imagination, and actions thereafter, are caused by the laws of physics, that would be determinism, right?   I'd also say any cause, outside of one's sense-of-self agency, would be a deterministic philosophy, such as the case with genes.

So then, if the laws are in control of everything, or even genes,  why would such laws lead to the evolution of conscious beings with the capacity to question such laws?  The laws of physics undermine themselves in this logic.

That's because the laws of physics, or genes, don't control, or determine everything.   Consciousness, leading to focused awareness, combined with a person's ability to reason, and project into the future, control and determine many things.

[Azdgari]

You were phrasing it all as thought "the laws" are conscious.  "The laws" are just the coherent description of how things work.  They describe how things works, Gill, they don't prescribe it.

Well, why wouldn't a deterministic universe eventually produce conscious beings?  I can't see any reason why it wouldn't.  I don't think you've given this much thought, which if true would be a shame, since it would mean that you don't have any respect for your audience.

[Azdgari]

That's because the laws of physics, or genes, don't control, or determine everything.

Yeah, just like I am not likely to get colon cancer later in life.  And just like the Holocaust didn't happen.  Just like lots of stuff that's more emotionally attractive to believe.

Consciousness, leading to focused awareness, combined with a person's ability to reason, and project into the future, control and determine many things.

I agree.  They control and determine.  And how they do so depends on how they are.  You have described determinism.

[Gill]

You were phrasing it all as thought "the laws" are conscious.  "The laws" are just the coherent description of how things work.  They describe how things works, Gill, they don't prescribe it.

Fair enough.

Well, why wouldn't a deterministic universe eventually produce conscious beings?  I can't see any reason why it wouldn't.  I don't think you've given this much thought, which if true would be a shame, since it would mean that you don't have any respect for your audience.

Maybe it could be said to be deterministic to some degree.  But to produce conscious beings with the capacity to question the validity of the universe's deterministic nature,  means that undermines the whole nature of it.

It's like saying the universe was determined to produce entities which realized they weren't determined.   Determinism undermines it's own premise in this sense.

That's because it's not the absolute true nature of reality, it's simply a human understanding of some particular aspects of reality they choose to focus on, not applicable to all concepts.

[Gill]

Consciousness, leading to focused awareness, combined with a person's ability to reason, and project into the future, control and determine many things.

I agree.  They control and determine.  And how they do so depends on how they are.  You have described determinism.

I'd say that is free-will,  determinism is like the coin flip mentioned earlier, since it has none of the capacities I mentioned.

[Azdgari]

Maybe it could be said to be deterministic to some degree.  But to produce conscious beings with the capacity to question the validity of the universe's deterministic nature,  means that undermines the whole nature of it.

The bolded text is meaningless in-context.  What is "the whole nature of it"?  How is it being "undermined"?  You're still talking nonsense, Gill.

It's like saying the universe was determined to produce entities which realized they weren't determined.   Determinism undermines it's own premise in this sense.

"Was determined to..."?  Jesus Christ on a stick, Gill, I just explained to you - and you quoted it! - that under determinism, the universe isn't consciously determining anything.  I am determined to be ready for my glacial geology exam Wednesday night.  That's a statement that's only meaningful when talking about the state of a conscious mind.  You're using it to describe something in your critique[1] of determinism that, under determinism, isn't conscious in any way.  And again, that's just dumb.  Or dishonest.  Take your pick.

That's because it's not the absolute true nature of reality, it's simply a human understanding of some particular aspects of reality they choose to focus on, not applicable to all concepts.

You keep on re-stating your conclusion.  You do this, after writing posts which make little sense and/or are full of really dumb points.  Why do you feel that this is justified?

...

I'd say that is free-will,  determinism is like the coin flip mentioned earlier, since it has none of the capacities I mentioned.

You'd say it's free-will.  But that's because, as you've demonstrated in the post I just responded to, you have very little understanding of what you're talking about.

1.	I use the term loosely

[Gill]

"Was determined to..."?  Jesus Christ on a stick, Gill, I just explained to you - and you quoted it! - that under determinism, the universe isn't consciously determining anything.  I am determined to be ready for my glacial geology exam Wednesday night.  That's a statement that's only meaningful when talking about the state of a conscious mind.  You're using it to describe something in your critique[1] of determinism that, under determinism, isn't conscious in any way.  And again, that's just dumb.  Or dishonest.  Take your pick.

1.	I use the term loosely

Well if you believe that YOU are determined to be ready for the exam, then you agree with me, you have free-will.   Since, in strict determinism, it's meaningless to attribute anything to one's 'self',  the self is imaginary,  external forces control everything, at least that's my interpretation of determinism, and I don't think I'm crazy to think that.

You'd say it's free-will.  But that's because, as you've demonstrated in the post I just responded to, you have very little understanding of what you're talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about.  So maybe we have different ideas about these concepts.   They're very philosophical in nature, so of course there's going to be some miscommunication, I don't see why you feel the need to jump to the conclusion that I'm just trying to mess around or purposefully argue silly ideas, I'm not.

If you think they're silly, that's fine,  that's why I'm posting them, to bounce the ideas off others, and get some other opinions. 

[Azdgari]

Well if you believe that YOU are determined to be ready for the exam, then you agree with me, you have free-will.

This is a blatant lie, since you must know better by now.

Since, in strict determinism, it's meaningless to attribute anything to one's 'self',  the self is imaginary,  external forces control everything, at least that's my interpretation of determinism, and I don't think I'm crazy to think that.

I have been talking about conscious thoughts as deterministic elements for quite some time now.  If you're going to make things up about determinism that aren't actually believed and don't actually make sense, then there's little point in anyone else pretending that you are here for an honest discussion.

I do know what I'm talking about.

You are simply trolling, then, and pretending not to know what you're talking about.  If so, then fuck you for delibrately wasting peoples' time.

So maybe we have different ideas about these concepts.   They're very philosophical in nature, so of course there's going to be some miscommunication, I don't see why you feel the need to jump to the conclusion that I'm just trying to mess around or purposefully argue silly ideas, I'm not.

Except that you aren't even trying to understand what you're criticizing.  By all appearances, you're actively trying not to understand - assuming you really don't, and are not here just to troll.

If you think they're silly, that's fine,  that's why I'm posting them, to bounce the ideas off others, and get some other opinions.

Your actions do not line up with this goal.  You are lying.

[Gill]

What you don't seem to understand is that determinism is a philosophy not some strict fact about reality.   Therefore, as with all philosophical ideas, there's going to be different interpretations of the philosophy.

So, if you think that a person is lying, or pretending, because they have different interpretations than you may have for a philosophy, then yes, I am wasting people's time, mine.

I'm done discussing anything with you, if that's how you choose to treat people who may disagree with certain aspects of your philosophy.

We're not arguing whether 2+2=4 here, and then I'm claiming it doesn't.  lol

 

[Azdgari]

What you don't seem to understand is that determinism is a philosophy not some strict fact about reality.   Therefore, as with all philosophical ideas, there's going to be different interpretations of the philosophy.

Some interpretations make sense, some don't.  Some are obviously held by the people you're addressing, some aren't.  Choosing to ignore the one(s) that make sense and are held by the people you're addressing, and instead deciding to deal with ones that don't make sense and/or aren't held by the people you're addressing, speaks volumes about your intentions.

So, if you think that a person is lying, or pretending, because they have different interpretations than you may have for a philosophy, then yes, I am wasting people's time, mine.

If you choose to behave as though you are lying, then you have indeed chosen to waste your time, from the outset.  I am merely responding to your apparent dishonesty.

I'm done discussing anything with you, if that's how you choose to treat people who may disagree with certain aspects of your philosophy.

Disagreement has nothing to do with it.  Pretending that it does is yet another lie.  Thank you for showing your true colours for all to see.

We're not arguing whether 2+2=4 here, and then I'm claiming it doesn't.  lol

We would be arguing something that definite, if you were genuine and were genuinely trying to make sense.  That was my original assumption.  I'm pissed at having been duped into giving you genuine thought and effort.

[free]

What you don't seem to understand is that determinism is a philosophy not some strict fact about reality.   Therefore, as with all philosophical ideas, there's going to be different interpretations of the philosophy.

So, if you think that a person is lying, or pretending, because they have different interpretations than you may have for a philosophy, then yes, I am wasting people's time, mine.

I'm done discussing anything with you, if that's how you choose to treat people who may disagree with certain aspects of your philosophy.

We're not arguing whether 2+2=4 here, and then I'm claiming it doesn't.  lol

 

First, even though a philosophy isn't strictly reality, that does not mean it doesn't have a set definition.  Try google, wikipedia etc. if you want a run down of one.

And I can argue to you (and win) than 2+2=5 sometimes and 2+2=3 other times!  2+2=4 (on average).

[Gill]

What you don't seem to understand is that determinism is a philosophy not some strict fact about reality.   Therefore, as with all philosophical ideas, there's going to be different interpretations of the philosophy.

Some interpretations make sense, some don't.  Some are obviously held by the people you're addressing, some aren't.  Choosing to ignore the one(s) that make sense and are held by the people you're addressing, and instead deciding to deal with ones that don't make sense and/or aren't held by the people you're addressing, speaks volumes about your intentions.

No need to try to find some 'hidden intentions'.  I'm here to discuss these philosophical ideas.   Determinism, free-will, there is no strict definitions for these.  They have general definitions, which then can lead to many implications, which then can be debated.   So what?  You criticize some of  free-will's implications*, I criticize, some of determinism's implications*.....

So, if you think that a person is lying, or pretending, because they have different interpretations than you may have for a philosophy, then yes, I am wasting people's time, mine.

If you choose to behave as though you are lying, then you have indeed chosen to waste your time, from the outset.  I am merely responding to your apparent dishonesty.

No, I'm not lying at all.  That's your interpretation of me.   It almost sounds like paranoia or something.   As if, when someone disargrees with a part of your philosophy, they must be dishonest?   

I'm done discussing anything with you, if that's how you choose to treat people who may disagree with certain aspects of your philosophy.

Disagreement has nothing to do with it.  Pretending that it does is yet another lie.  Thank you for showing your true colours for all to see.

Yes, I've just been lying this whole time.   Paranoia.   It's actually just simply mis-communication, but if you want to read into it farther, then whatever....

[Gill]

Might want to re-read my edited words before any reply....  Wouldn't want there to be a mis-communication again.....

[Azdgari]

No need to try to find some 'hidden intentions'.

Who said anything about "hidden"?  Look, I could be wrong about you, but you're making it hard to come to a different conclusion without feeling really silly.

I mean, look over the response of yours that I -1'd.  And consider that I have expressed numerous times my position that the contents of conscious minds are deterministic ("physical" or not).  Does your response make sense in that context?  Does it pertain to the position you know that I hold?

The answer to the first question is definitely "no".  The answer to the second question depends on whether you've actually been reading what's been written to you.  Assuming you have been, the answer to #2 is also "no".

So why did you answer that way?  Why, Gill?

What conclusions can I possibly draw from that decision, that are at all reasonable, other than that:

1. You're not answering genuinely, or...
2. You havn't been bothering to read and understand what's written to you.

...?

[Gill]

I mean, look over the response of yours that I -1'd.  And consider that I have expressed numerous times my position that the contents of conscious minds are deterministic ("physical" or not).  Does your response make sense in that context?  Does it pertain to the position you know that I hold?

I know that's your position.   That's not my philosophy though, which is why, I tried to explain the problematic implications that I think that idea leads to.

That's it.  Just like you think free-will leads to problematic implications, as you have stated.   I think you're just reading into things too deeply.

[Azdgari]

I know it's not your philosophy.  The problem is that your supposed critique ended up not pertaining to what it was supposedly criticizing.

Do you see the problem with that?

[Gill]

I know it's not your philosophy.  The problem is that your supposed critique ended up not pertaining to what it was supposedly criticizing.

Do you see the problem with that?

Ok, if that's your opinion, that's fine.  I did think my critique pertained to that philosophy, otherwise, I wouldn't have posted it, but if you think it does not, fine.

But that's not deceitful in anyway, it's just differences in interpretations,   just as I think you interpret free-will with differences than I do, but I don't think you're dishonest if that's how you interpret.

....

[free]

Gill continues to switch alternative definitions of words seemingly as a whim.  Azdgari speaks of determined as dictated and as something that will happened.  Gill switches between that and determined as in having resolve.  It is impossible to have a proper discourse with anyone that does this.  I'm not sure if its trolling, rhetoric or if Gill just doesn't understand what he is doing.

Azdgari clearly means the former definition and Gill responds to it like the latter definition.  This is why Azdgari is so frustrated with you!  You just argue whatever inane, half-thought answer you immediate think supports you.  That is dishonesty or ignorance, pick one.

[Azdgari]

Ok, if that's your opinion, that's fine.

It's not just "my opinion".  This is something that can be objectively resolved, you know.  It's a 2+2=? sort of thing.

I did think my critique pertained to that philosophy, otherwise, I wouldn't have posted it, but if you think it does not, fine.

Then you havn't really been reading the responses put to you.

But that's not deceitful in anyway, it's just differences in interpretations,   just as I think you interpret free-will with differences than I do, but I don't think you're dishonest if that's how you interpret.

This isn't a matter of differeing interpretation.  It's a matter of you addressing a position as though I held it, when I had previously explained in depth how it is that I don't hold it.

*shrug*

[Gill]

Gill continues to switch alternative definitions of words seemingly as a whim.  Azdgari speaks of determined as dictated and as something that will happened.  Gill switches between that and determined as in having resolve.  It is impossible to have a proper discourse with anyone that does this.  I'm not sure if its trolling, rhetoric or if Gill just doesn't understand what he is doing.

Azdgari clearly means the former definition and Gill responds to it like the latter definition.  This is why Azdgari is so frustrated with you!  You just argue whatever inane, half-thought answer you immediate think supports you.  That is dishonesty or ignorance, pick one.

No, nothing to do with dishonesty or ignorance.   

I believe in free-will.   Does your interpretation of free will not match mine?  That's fine if it does, since the concept of free-will can lead to many different implications.   But if you interpret those implications different, I don't think you're being dishonest or ignorant.  I think "oh, this person hs different ideas about this, so let me try to figure out where they're coming from".   That's it.

[Gill]

Ok, if that's your opinion, that's fine.

It's not just "my opinion".  This is something that can be objectively resolved, you know.  It's a 2+2=? sort of thing.

I'm not saying determinism is just your opinion.  I'm saying that the areas that you interpret that it can be applied to is your opinion, your philosophy.

You think thoughts, choices, must be deterministic.   Well, many people do not, they believe in free-will.  These aren't factual differences, they are philosophical.

[Azdgari]

Gill continues to switch alternative definitions of words seemingly as a whim.  Azdgari speaks of determined as dictated and as something that will happened.  Gill switches between that and determined as in having resolve.  It is impossible to have a proper discourse with anyone that does this.  I'm not sure if its trolling, rhetoric or if Gill just doesn't understand what he is doing.

Azdgari clearly means the former definition and Gill responds to it like the latter definition.  This is why Azdgari is so frustrated with you!  You just argue whatever inane, half-thought answer you immediate think supports you.  That is dishonesty or ignorance, pick one.

No, nothing to do with dishonesty or ignorance.   

I believe in free-will.   Does your interpretation of free will not match mine?  That's fine if it does, since the concept of free-will can lead to many different implications.   But if you interpret those implications different, I don't think you're being dishonest or ignorant.  I think "oh, this person hs different ideas about this, so let me try to figure out where they're coming from".   That's it.

This is part of what I'm talking about, Gill.  Free is pointing out a problem.  Your response has nothing to do with that problem, and doesn't acknowledge that it's avoiding addressing that very real problem.

Are you familiar with the concept of "equivocation"?  Do you know what it means?