"the rejection of that illusion is the most tremendously liberating experience"
How can that be? If determinism is right (and I don't think it is), then that sense of liberation is as much an illusion as the sense of self-direction that informs free will (or agency).
If determinism is right, all you can really say is 'the illusion of rejecting an illusion feels liberating, but is itself just a determined event'. Of course, if determinism is right then you really got no say in what you say at all...
Wow! I’d imagined that my little self-introduction would be completely ignored. As Dalek Prime might say, stripped of expletives, “Who cares?” I’m gratified to be wrong.
The reason determinism is liberating is that it takes the strain out of decision making. No longer is decision-making linked to a burdensome freedom, as wonderfully illustrated by Peter Pullen’s cartoon on page 7 of the magazine’s Existentialism issue. I know that in time I’m going to find out what I find myself doing. The decision will come to me,
You’re right to point out that “rejecting an illusion” is an inappropriate formulation. I should have said that the dissipation of the illusion was liberating.
Sometimes I do operate in actor / spectator mode, much as described by Duszek. But I harbour no hostile intent towards my mother-in-law! And it sounds as though Duszek takes the standard view that a professed belief in determinism is a disingenuous posturing taken for the purpose of self-exculpation.
Aww shit! Don't strip me of my expletives, dammit!
"Decisions determined by the brain milliseconds before one is consciously aware of them."
Ah, the Libet experiments. Those findings, while not disproved, certainly are viewed, nowadays, as ambiguous.
#
"I should have said that the dissipation of the illusion was liberating."
And that's an inaccurate formulation too, Dave, if determinism is true.
If determinism is true: the sense of liberation, of anger, of love, of joy, of shame and on and on is just another domino falling, as real as the domino and just as meaningless...as bioautomation you have no choice but to feel or think what you do, and your reflections on what you feel and think are too dominos...as my typing out this response.
If determinism is right, then you, me, everyone, we're just shadows on the wall, seemingly alive and full of intent, but really just absences.
You, wanting to share your thoughts, just an empty event, no more than a Rhomba pinballing around a room.
Me, disagreeing with you, also just a robot running a program.
Integrity, honesty, pride, affection, sacrifice, persistance, 'philosophy', and on and on: just aspects of causal chains.
All very disheartening...so much so I just wanna sit and do nuthin'...unfortunately, if determinism is right, I got no choice but to do what I'm gonna do, which is get through another day.
I've asked this of other determinists, Dave, and now I ask you: why is it easy for you to dismiss your own sense of chooing, of self-directing, in favor of 'cause and effect'?
Understand: I don't deny 'cause and effect', but neither can I deny the reality of my choosing, self-directing. I can't pretend my sense of agency is an illusion. I wonder how you can.
henry quirk wrote:If determinism is true: the sense of liberation, of anger, of love, of joy, of shame and on and on is just another domino falling, as real as the domino and just as meaningless...as bioautomation you have no choice but to feel or think what you do, and your reflections on what you feel and think are too dominos...as my typing out this response.
If determinism is right, then you, me, everyone, we're just shadows on the wall, seemingly alive and full of intent, but really just absences.
You, wanting to share your thoughts, just an empty event, no more than a Rhomba pinballing around a room.
Me, disagreeing with you, also just a robot running a program.
Integrity, honesty, pride, affection, sacrifice, persistance, 'philosophy', and on and on: just aspects of causal chains.
Eloquently and accurately put, Henry.
But you're ruining your image as a common-sense curmudgeon by being so picturesque in speech.
I've asked this of other determinists, Dave, and now I ask you: why is it easy for you to dismiss your own sense of chooing, of self-directing, in favor of 'cause and effect'?
Well, and who is this "I" of whom he speaks? Does Dave not mean "the collection of molecules and spatters of energy composing the frame known as 'Dave'?" But what's so special about one lump of molecules or burst of energy versus another?
He seems to think he's not just a material artifact, but somehow an individual that can think, feel and believe: but what are all these but other rhomboids pinballing around a room? How can he be said to be happy about discovering anything, when "happy" can mean no more than an illusion generated by random bits?
"the rejection of that illusion is the most tremendously liberating experience"
How can that be? If determinism is right (and I don't think it is), then that sense of liberation is as much an illusion as the sense of self-direction that informs free will (or agency).
If determinism is right, all you can really say is 'the illusion of rejecting an illusion feels liberating, but is itself just a determined event'. Of course, if determinism is right then you really got no say in what you say at all...
Yep, that would be true, Henry. Good point.
I was having an argument with a Determinist once. He was trying to make his case that I should join him in his lunacy. So I said to him, "I'm sorry; I just can't believe you: you see, I was predetermined not to be able to."
He didn't know what to say, and gave up.
Absolute Truth:
Without exception, everyone does what they must.
The rest of the discussion is all about why everyone does what they must. A case has to be made for why this must be known. I contend that knowing the why of this is just monkey-mind playing with itself, and can never be truth for this reason:
- Truth can only be found in the present moment and knowing why you do something beforehand is bending reality to the past. And what is the past but memory heavily influenced by memory when first formed.
- Knowing why you did something after the fact is rationalization prone to human ignorance. Once you’re rid of ignorance, well and good. Until then, the why is likely self-serving, and therefore not objective reality.
Walker wrote:Absolute Truth:
Without exception, everyone does what they must.
The rest of the discussion is all about why everyone does what they must. A case has to be made for why this must be known. I contend that knowing the why of this is just monkey-mind playing with itself, and can never be truth for this reason:
- Truth can only be found in the present moment and knowing why you do something beforehand is bending reality to the past. And what is the past but memory heavily influenced by memory when first formed.
- Knowing why you did something after the fact is rationalization prone to human ignorance. Once you’re rid of ignorance, well and good. Until then, the why is likely self-serving, and therefore not objective reality.
Makes no sense, I'm afraid, Walker.
In Determinism, "truth" just means "the way things happen to be." To believe in it or disbelieve in it is neither good nor bad...it's just another "way things happen to be."
"Ignorance" and "rationalization" are likewise just phenomena of the material universe, not good or bad in any way. And "self-serving" isn't wrong either. There's no way to "get rid" of such things, because whether or not you'll have them, or continue to, is purely a chance happening caused by material forces: if they go, they go, but if they don't, there's nothing to be done about it.
I think you're mistakenly trying to have it both ways. But that's not a directed personal criticism: I've never met a Determinist who did not belie his own Determinism in the first sentence he uttered. We may 'say' we don't believe in human freedom, choice, identity and so on, but with our first word we confess that we do.
Dalek Prime wrote:
Actually, he died in a car crash. He had a train ticket, and a friend offered him a ride instead, which he accepted. Hence the 'detour'.
DUH. Yes he died because his heart stopped beating. ~But it is not knows how or why the car came off the road.
Really? You want a fucking coroners report? He was in an accident as I said. Stop being a fucking prat.
