You mentioned this "proviso" on the nihilhism thread as well. And I didn't know what in the hell you were talking about there either.
If you agree that you can/could acquire new information and knowledge that does in fact change your mind about "life, liberty and property" in regard to things like buying and selling bazookas, what's that "proviso" again? A condition? A loophole? A Catch 22?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 8:04 pm
But at least we still agree that given new information and knowledge both of us might change our minds about what we do believe.
Yes with the proviso (that I assumed was understood) information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest
new & shiny won't be accepted just cuz he or his wares are new.
How about abortion then. You believe what you do about it here and now. But there and then, down the road, you read something or hear something or see something or experience something and it prompts you to reject what you now believe.
That's entirely possible. But such information has to trump
an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge.
Okay be fairly specific again, please. "Something important" in your life like buying and selling guns that you changed your mind regarding after acquiring new information and knowledge; or because someone changed your mind about it as a result of all of the many, many exchanges you have had over the years here.
Let's take abortion: as an atheist and materialist, I supported access to abortion. The failure of materialism to explain how mind is a product of brain led me to deism and hylomorphism. That, to me, is pretty damn specific.
I'm simply asking you instead to note important issues in your life that you changed your mind about.
I just gave you one.
And thus acknowledging that given these changes in the past, important issues that you embrace morally and politically now are subject to change in the future.
I've done that.
Well, you be sure to point out specific examples of my own transgressions here.
I did.
sure, the extent to which I can bring someone around to my own frame of mind is the extent to which we can empathize with each other.
Right.
But there is also the possibility of someone convincing me that there is a route up out of the hole I have dug myself down into.
I don't think that's possible.
In my view, you refuse to recognize that in regard to things like the buying and selling of bazookas, only your own understanding of "life, liberty, and property" is legitimate.
Yes, I don't recognize the legitimacy of any claim on the life, liberty, and property of a person who has done no wrong.
Even though I note the arguments of those who wrap those words around a world where private citizens are not permitted to buy and sell them [and all the other military grade weapons noted above] that is simply not acceptable to you.
To date: none of those arguments holds water. Give me yours: mebbe it'll change my mind.
So, there is no real possibility of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" with them.
If it involves deprivin' anyone of life, liberty, and property without just cause, then, yeah, there is no real possibility of
moderation, negotiation and compromise. Now, here, if you were smart about it, you'd ask me what constitutes a just cause to deprive someone of life, liberty, and property.
you flat out acknowledge that you are willing to take your God-given convictions about guns all the way to Ruby Ridge if necessary.
Yes, I will defend myself against murderers, slavers, and thieves (includin' those in the State House and
We, the People).
Again, given what particular context?
All contexts, any context. Your right to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property is the same across any context yiu care to name.
With abortion "life, liberty and property" can commence with the unborn baby or with the pregnant woman.
It begins with: when does human personhood begin?
No, no, some insist, it must start with the natural rights of unborn babies about to be murdered in the womb.
If what a woman carries is a person, then it becomes a question of
how do the natural rights of these two people balance against each other? Whose rights take precedence in the unique situation of one person bein' embedded in another?
No way, others declaim, it must start with the political rights of pregnant women about to be forced to give birth.
Here we have to look at who is responsible for one person bein' inside another.
So, are you willing to negotiate and compromise here in regard to the meaning of the words life, liberty and property or is it "my way or the highway" with you?
I've demonstrated a willingness to explore the subject. Balls in your court.
How are your own moral convictions not the embodiment of my assessment above?
I can change my mind about X, but I don't become a different person becuz I've changed my mind.
I didn't keep a list of names
Then mebbe you ought not crow about those you've
shaken or converted.
The arguments that "here and now" are most persuasive to me revolve around determinism as some understand it in regard to the human brain being but more matter.
How is this not a default to determinism?
only a fool would actually imagine that because they choose/"choose"/"choose" to stop sitting on the fence here that's, what, good enough?
Can't see why goin' with what you got is foolish. At the very least, you're out of the crossroads.
You have made your own more or less blind "leap of faith" to Him and just "moved on".
If you'd read that conversation with Harbal, you'd know my move to deism wasn't without good cause (it wasn't blind and it ain't strictly
faith).
You're got your Final Solution to the quandary that has baffled philosophers and scientists for centuries.
You understand: many scientists and philosophers have taken firm positions on matters of God, mind, free will, natural rights, materialism, determinism, etc., yeah?
How can the "human condition" not ultimately go back to the Creator of it Himself?
The
human condition being? You mean the world we live in? If so: I can only reiterate what I've said about initial conditions set to allow free wills to flourish in a mechanistic universe. It's explanation for what seems to me to be the case: we are free wills,
causes, in a universe of
events.
I'll assume it's a reference to racoon's, okay?
You have no reason to assume otherwise.
A leap of faith to your God, however, and not one of these...
I default to deism becuz it seems to describe
what is in a clean, minimal way those others do not.
I am interested in [as with IC and his Christian God] is the hard evidence that you are able to provide to yourself that your God does in fact exist.
I've done that multiple times. Most recently in that conversation with Harbal. Here's the relevant parts...
As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.
It's universal (everyone lives as though it were true), not material, easily recognizable thru deduction, and immutable. It's part & parcel to free will (causal & creative power), to personhood. That alone makes it objective. But, as I say, it -- the intuition of ownness -- does not seem to me to be a brute fact. Such an immutable, it seems to me, has purpose behind it. Purposefulness/intention, this too is part & parcel to personhood. That is: a Person is responsible for man being a person. Conventionally, this Person is called God.
...it's not particularly
hard, but -- as explanation -- it fits.
I am the one who managed to reduce myself down to believing "in my head" that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that there is no foundation on which to create an objective morality and that death = oblivion.
And all I am doing here is noting what, existentially, rooted in dasein, "I" have come to think about all of this.
Yeah, I can see how you might think of yourself as in a self-dug hole.
-----
And, yeah, I snipped a lot out. Pretty much all your assumptions about me, your assumed impact on others, your insistence for context, etc. In one way or another, I've addressed those snipped bits, continue to address those snipped bits in my responses to the un-snipped parts.
-----
I've posted the following several times, in-forum. This seems a good time to post it again.
Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will
by Jon Rappoport
It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.
I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?
Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.
He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.
I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:
“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”
Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:
Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?
A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.
Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?
A: Surely, yes.
Q: Regardless of location.
A: Correct.
Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.
A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.
Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?
A: The thought?
Q: Yes.
A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.
Q: You were compelled to have that thought.
A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.
Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.
A: Well, yes. That’s right.
Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.
A: Nothing at all.
Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.
A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.
Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.
A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.
Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.
A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.
Q: And we are in that flow.
A: Most certainly we are.
Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.
A: That would ultimately have to be so.
Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?
A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.
Q: Some scientists speculate they are.
A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.
Q: What do you think “conscious” means?
A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.
Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?
A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.
Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”
A: It’s a given. It’s real.
Q: How so?
A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.
Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?
A: No they don’t.
Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?
A: Words mean things.
Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?
A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.
Q: You’re sure.
A: Of course.
Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?
A: No.
Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?
A: [Silence.]
Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?
A: But we do understand each other.
Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.
A: What flaw?
Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.
A: More? What would that be?
Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?
A: It would have to be, but…
Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?
A: Of course.
Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.
A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.
Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.
A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.
Q: You and I do understand each other.
A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.
Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.
A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.
Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.
A: That would be…yes, that would be so.
Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”
A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.
Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”
He nodded.
“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”
He pointed to the valley.
“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”
Then he laughed. He looked at me.
“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”
I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”
He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”
He stood up.
“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”