From ILP [or what's left of it]:
Ben JS wrote: iambiguous wrote:What we do or do not do with Mary, how we respond or do not respond to her, how we approach or do not approach her...how is that in turn but one more necessary/inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world?
I agree, it is an inherent manifestation - our choice determined long before we were even aware of the question.
Okay, on this part -- compelled or not? -- we seem to agree. Whatever set into motion the laws of matter "somehow" evolved into the extraordinary matter that is human brains. And thus "somehow" Mary's choice to abort Jane was determined long before there ever was a Mary or an unborn Jane.
If, of course, in a free will world, I understand this as you do.
But then this "yet" part...
Ben JS wrote: Yet, we're still here expressing our being. The question itself affirms our structure. It's only the living - the biased, that have an interest in one result as opposed to another. By the very concern we demonstrate for understanding, we are implicitly saying 'We care about what's happening and we have a preferred result'.
How are we not "expressing our being" in the only manner in which our wholly in sync with the laws of matter brains compel us to express it? How mentally, emotionally and psychologically is anything that we think and feel not but an inherent manifestation of the only possible world?
How is what we think we understand and is happening around us any different from what we care about here, if both emanate from a consciousness emanating from a mind emanating from a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter?
Now, I'm certainly not insisting that how "I" think about all this is optimal understanding, only that if there is to be an optimal understanding that would come from the brain scientists themselves rather than from philosophers.
Or, if "a God, the God" is demonstrated to exist from the theologians?
Ben JS wrote: So even if it's all determined, as I and others believe, we're still trying to act in a way that we anticipate may contribute to an outcome in reality which is preferable than other outcomes that aren't preferred. It is our ignorance that leaves us with the idea of possibility, that we do not know what the future holds - so we seek for the ideal possibilities.
Again, if it's
all determined, we're not trying to act, we're acting in the only manner in which the laws of nature compel us to act. Our "contributions" are no less destined/fated.
How are our "anticipations" not in turn inherently embedded in this:
"I agree, it is an inherent manifestation - our choice determined long before we were even aware of the question.[/i]
Then [for me] it's just more of the same: you speculating here as someone convinced that they have free will would:
Ben JS wrote: Given that we do not know the future, why ought not we seek to influence change which we value? If one believes that indifference to action, in itself isn't ideal, then isn't it reasonable to instill truthful reasons why actions matter - even in the face of great adversity? To say we should never have expectation of another is terribly harmful. We should not condone harm - for regardless of whether it was determined or not, we still suffer.
Back to you telling this to someone in a dream. You wake up and realize it was entirely your brain creating the words you "spoke".
Ah, but, of course, the waking brain is just "somehow" different.