An Answer to the problem of "Choice or Determinism"

[Sculptor]

Gambling is especially unfree as reason does not enter into random choice.

What could be more necessary than random choice to keep the gambler alive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

So many misconceptions, so little time.

[Skepdick]

So many misconceptions, so little time.

It's such a shame that you can't tell us absolutely anything about the framework, and the criteria by which you distinguish conceptions from misconceptions.

I expect nothing but normative goobledygook.

[Skepdick]

Recently someone introduced a useful heuristic the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy. Not many addicts to gambling are Apollonians.

In a non-deterministic universe everyone's a gambler and not by choice. Luck plays a huge part in life.

Luck gives some gamblers the opportunity to become competent (Apollonian) or remain incompetent (Dionysian).

One can be addicted to both competent and incompetent gambling. The former addiction is not seen as a vice in modern society .The latter is - it ammounts to good ol' ignorance.

In light of recent events vaccination is a form of competent gambling.
Trusting your immune system is a form of incompetent gambling.

[Belinda]

Recently someone introduced a useful heuristic the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy. Not many addicts to gambling are Apollonians.

In a non-deterministic universe everyone's a gambler and not by choice. Luck plays a huge part in life.

Luck gives some gamblers the opportunity to become competent (Apollonian) or remain incompetent (Dionysian).

One can be addicted to both competent and incompetent gambling. The former addiction is not seen as a vice in modern society .The latter is - it ammounts to good ol' ignorance.

In light of recent events vaccination is a form of competent gambling.
Trusting your immune system is a form of incompetent gambling.

Yes, but this thread is about Free Will and determinism, and Free Will is all or nothing. You can't have just a smidgeon of Free Will which, unlike saltiness but like God, is not quantifiable.

Immunity against infections is a case in my point about relative and absolute causes as immunity relates to its duration, and its immediate effectiveness for communal health. Some people get lifelong immunity : others don't.
The roulette wheel(or that random number selection thing computers do) is a better illustration than Buridan's ass of random choice. i have seen videos of mules and horses who, the moment the back of the horse box is let down, very tentatively and fearfully begin to suss out their novel environment.

[popeye1945]

One necessarily reacts in the world, but one cannot chose not to react, for all creatures are reactive organisms, reaction is their functional being. No reaction no being. Determinism involves the entire history of cause and effect from the beginning of time to the present, and as the past necessitates a future, choice is predetermined, and free will an illusion.

[Belinda]

One necessarily reacts in the world, but one cannot chose not to react, for all creatures are reactive organisms, reaction is their functional being. No reaction no being. Determinism involves the entire history of cause and effect from the beginning of time to the present, and as the past necessitates a future, choice is predetermined, and free will an illusion.

People are taught not to react when they go on anger management courses. People are taught not to react when they learn the taboos of their cultures.People are not supposed to react to the sight and smell of delicious food unless certain politenesses are observed. People pay a lot of money to be psychoanalised so they can be forewarned of their reactions and reflect instead of reacting.

Certain professional people are expected to reflect not react e.g. diplomats, doctors, politicians, dentists, lawyers, farmers, electricians, judges, teachers etc.

I agree Free Will is illusory. It was invented for social control; so that wrong doers can be blamed and punished.

[popeye1945]

"People are taught not to react when they go on anger management courses. People are taught not to react when they learn the taboos of their cultures.People are not supposed to react to the sight and smell of delicious food unless certain politenesses are observed. People pay a lot of money to be psychoanalised so they can be forewarned of their reactions and reflect instead of reacting.
Certain professional people are expected to reflect not react e.g. diplomats, doctors, politicians, dentists, lawyers, farmers, electricians, judges, teachers etc.
I agree Free Will is illusory. It was invented for social control; so that wrong doers can be blamed and punished.
[/quote]

Hi Belinda,

A willful suppression of the desire to react in a particular way, is itself a reaction to the forces altering one's reactions. Reaction is the very essence of organism and taken at large, organisms are a function of the world through participation/reaction, no reaction, no being/organism. What you seem to be speaking of is an alternate stimulus to change the course of reaction. Controlled reaction is nevertheless reaction, one perhaps more conscious than another.

[Belinda]

"People are taught not to react when they go on anger management courses. People are taught not to react when they learn the taboos of their cultures.People are not supposed to react to the sight and smell of delicious food unless certain politenesses are observed. People pay a lot of money to be psychoanalised so they can be forewarned of their reactions and reflect instead of reacting.
Certain professional people are expected to reflect not react e.g. diplomats, doctors, politicians, dentists, lawyers, farmers, electricians, judges, teachers etc.
I agree Free Will is illusory. It was invented for social control; so that wrong doers can be blamed and punished.

Hi Belinda,

A willful suppression of the desire to react in a particular way, is itself a reaction to the forces altering one's reactions. Reaction is the very essence of organism and taken at large, organisms are a function of the world through participation/reaction, no reaction, no being/organism. What you seem to be speaking of is an alternate stimulus to change the course of reaction. Controlled reaction is nevertheless reaction, one perhaps more conscious than another.
[/quote]

Indeed and emotional reactions are basic to life to the extent people who lack them have a pathological condition. You are right there is a way in which humans can free themselves from reacting, but the freedom is relative freedom, not total freedom as for so-called 'Free Will'. If I train myself to stop and think and get information before I react to my emotions I can be a little more free than otherwise.

[popeye1945]

Belinda,

Yes, I think we are on the same page here. I would say, however, that it is not possible to not react within one's environment. As part of said environment reaction is what it is to be alive, to be a functioning organism, to be a part of the world. One reacts and incrementally the world reacts with incremental change. To us the world is cause, our reaction is cause to the world, in that we affect change in the world.

[Belinda]

Belinda,

Yes, I think we are on the same page here. I would say, however, that it is not possible to not react within one's environment. As part of said environment reaction is what it is to be alive, to be a functioning organism, to be a part of the world. One reacts and incrementally the world reacts with incremental change. To us the world is cause, our reaction is cause to the world, in that we affect change in the world.

I owe the following idea to Antonio Damasio, a psychiatrist who agrees with Spinoza.

An emotion is a physical event and when cerebration is added to the physical event i.e. when we interpret the physical event we have feelings. Spinoza had said the mind is the idea of the body.
I am aware a lot of people use 'emotions' and 'feelings' interchangeably but to differentiate them is useful for making ourselves a little more free. That is what psychoanalysis is based on making people more free.

[popeye1945]

"I owe the following idea to Antonio Damasio, a psychiatrist who agrees with Spinoza.

An emotion is a physical event and when cerebration is added to the physical event i.e. when we interpret the physical event we have feelings. Spinoza had said the mind is the idea of the body.
I am aware a lot of people use 'emotions' and 'feelings' interchangeably but to differentiate them is useful for making ourselves a little more free. That is what psychoanalysis is based on making people more free.
[/quote]

Belinda,

When you say emotion is a physical event do you mean it is chemistry? An emotion I believe is a reaction to changes to our physical body, a change has taken place in which one feels positive or negative about its occurrence. The mind is not the idea of the body, for only the mind can have an idea, a meaning. The body you might say is the information gatherer. Well it is true that the body created the mind, the mind did not create the body, so at some level of evolutionary development, physical pain and discomfort versus pleasure must have governed the organism's actions.

[Belinda]

"I owe the following idea to Antonio Damasio, a psychiatrist who agrees with Spinoza.

An emotion is a physical event and when cerebration is added to the physical event i.e. when we interpret the physical event we have feelings. Spinoza had said the mind is the idea of the body.
I am aware a lot of people use 'emotions' and 'feelings' interchangeably but to differentiate them is useful for making ourselves a little more free. That is what psychoanalysis is based on making people more free.

Belinda,

When you say emotion is a physical event do you mean it is chemistry? An emotion I believe is a reaction to changes to our physical body, a change has taken place in which one feels positive or negative about its occurrence. The mind is not the idea of the body, for only the mind can have an idea, a meaning. The body you might say is the information gatherer. Well it is true that the body created the mind, the mind did not create the body, so at some level of evolutionary development, physical pain and discomfort versus pleasure must have governed the organism's actions.
[/quote]

Yes, I do mean that emotions are chemistry and physiology. Clinical practice is split between mind people, psychiatrists, and body people, neurologists. These can and should each help the patients. I understand that present clinical practice is more directed at medication than applied psychology, probably because the latter is expensive.

When Spinoza said the mind is the idea of the body he referred to how the body is the portal between what is 'out there' (via organs of special sense if you allow the anachronism) and what is ideas i.e. mind stuff. As you yourself said " the body ---is the information gatherer".

You wrote:

physical pain and discomfort versus pleasure must have governed the organism's actions.

I wish you would just read , if not already done so,the bit from Spinoza's 'Ethics" his notes on what we now call psychology. 'Ethics'is hard but this 'psychology ' bit is easy for you as S says much what you are saying. That is, that pleasure and pain are basic, and other feelings such as affection, or jealousy, are cerebral interpretations of the visceral pleasure or pain.

My book is upstairs but I'll see if I can google a link.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spin ... hological/ :Particularly section 2.2 'The Variety of Affects'.

[popeye1945]

Yes, I do mean that emotions are chemistry and physiology. Clinical practice is split between mind people, psychiatrists, and body people, neurologists. These can and should each help the patients. I understand that present clinical practice is more directed at medication than applied psychology, probably because the latter is expensive.
When Spinoza said the mind is the idea of the body he referred to how the body is the portal between what is 'out there' (via organs of special sense if you allow the anachronism) and what is ideas i.e. mind stuff. As you yourself said " the body ---is the information gatherer".
You wrote:

physical pain and discomfort versus pleasure must have governed the organism's actions.

I wish you would just read , if not already done so,the bit from Spinoza's 'Ethics" his notes on what we now call psychology. 'Ethics'is hard but this 'psychology ' bit is easy for you as S says much what you are saying. That is, that pleasure and pain are basic, and other feelings such as affection, or jealousy, are cerebral interpretations of the visceral pleasure or pain.
My book is upstairs but I'll see if I can google a link.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spin ... hological/ :Particularly section 2.2 'The Variety of Affects'.
[/quote]

Belinda,

Excellent, yes I misinterpreted your statement, but, we are very much on the same page. I shall read the link, sounds delightful.