Rant 153: Freedom?

[LHX]

the contents can change
the process cannot

Both the process and the contents are simply conditions and contingencies that are subject to and composed of yet more of the same.

What do you say to back up you statement?

i am saying regardless of the form the contents take
the result of the process is the same 1000000 times out of 1000000

hitler wins wwII
we still wind up with the internet
and we still wind up discussing this


all suffering leads to the same lessons
whether you suffer from having too much
or
too little


if the astros had beaten the white sox
the baseball season still would have ended


process = constant
content = infinitely variable - limited only by perspective and imagination

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

Okay, now you need to support your assertions.

If all contingencies and conditions are inter-dependent, and there are many ways that "things" could change and develop and disappear, how can you think that because phenomena arose a certain way up to now, that that is the way it was determined to be?

There are no straight lines. and No easy answers.

[LHX]

If all contingencies and conditions are inter-dependent, and there are many ways that "things" could change and develop and disappear, how can you think that because phenomena arose a certain way up to now, that that is the way it was determined to be?

the process IS the arising of 'phenomena'

whatever form the phenomena takes

it 'arose'


and from phenomena eventually more will arise

There are no straight lines. and No easy answers.

couldnt have said it better

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

But "arising" is just the conventional way we express the idea of certain conditions coming together to form some phenomena that we have already categorized.

[LHX]

But "arising" is just the conventional way we express the idea of certain conditions coming together to form some phenomena that we have already categorized.

are you saying that there is a possibility that you have not arisen or emerged from anything?

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

But "arising" is just the conventional way we express the idea of certain conditions coming together to form some phenomena that we have already categorized.

are you saying that there is a possibility that you have not arisen or emerged from anything?

Heh. There is a possibility that our conceptions and conventional ways of seeing things might be not the whole story, but only more investigation from each one of us into our own situations can be helpful here.

[LHX]

But "arising" is just the conventional way we express the idea of certain conditions coming together to form some phenomena that we have already categorized.

are you saying that there is a possibility that you have not arisen or emerged from anything?

Heh. There is a possibility that our conceptions and conventional ways of seeing things might be not the whole story, but only more investigation from each one of us into our own situations can be helpful here.

that
my friend
is an excellent point of view


LHX - always finds the best discussions at pd.com

[Dags]

Before I get into this more deeply (as it will probably take most of the morning), I just want to point out that it looks like we're talking about separate issues.

Isn't it a strawman fallacy to argue against someone for something that someone didn't state? IOW I didn't make these arguments. So why do I get the impression I'm being said to have made them?

I was soley referring to "there is no set future, and no master plan", v "the future can be known, and there is a master plan."

The future hasn't happened yet so it isn't "set" that is Fatalism is the stance that the future is set. A master plan would involve a  master planner ( the one God TM ) that is Theism that takes the stance of a master plan where we are slaves to the master.-heh

You seem to be dealing with "Nothing can be changed" v "specific actions produce specific results."

It's not my stance that nothing can be changed; it is my stance that like causes produce like effects. It's also my stance that truth is relative and dichotomies are a fairly useless means of arriving at any particular truth.

Also we could probably get somewhere quicker by NOT going from specific to general because it's usually more problematic verses going from general and working towards more specific situations.  That'd be deduction over inference; I think.

In this, the two positions are dealing with completely different issues.  If you like, I can switch gears & talk about Determinism.

Well since that's my stance It'd keep me from having to argue against stances I'm not taking.

Your call.[/quote]

I think I'll make a review of William James essay The Will To Believe and encourage anyone else interested to do so; because when speaking of choices and the will to make them; it's all the rage I think. Plus it's rather short and to the point IIRC; regards the will to make choices outside of one's nature and circumstance, experiences.... etcetera.

Here's but one link to it.

http://falcon.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

Then I'll ponder the ideas of being "free" or what "freedom is under discussion" from the OP Rant.

Then maybe I'll look again and see if any arguments for free-will resemble anything with/along any arguments that we have freedom that isn't already determined anyways?

But then again probably fatalism will be mistaken for determinism; the compatabilist will think it's not weak determinism in sheeps clothing and determinism will again wind up being the case; either way.-heh

But; if not then I'd like to see it. Though it'd probably be a long shot. As I'm pretty much biased at this point.-heh But it's still fun to wax philosophical at least I think so. Alright then.

- Dags

[LMNO]

Please to note:

1.  I was referring specifically to what you said, not LHX.  I may have misunderstood your point about Determinism; shit happens.  But I wouldn't classify that as a Strawman fallacy; instead, I was attempting to clarify the issue.  The issue being that LHX wasn't talking about Determinism, per se.


2.  the "v" between my approximations indicate "versus" as in "as opposed to", and they were trying to frame the issue, not conclude it.  As you can see, a conversation that revolves around:

"there is no set future, and no master plan", as oppsed to "the future can be known, and there is a master plan"

is different from: "Nothing can be changed" v "likeactions produce like results."

It appeared to me that I was dealing with the former, and you were dealing with the latter.  In this sense, while we are responding to each other in the same thread, we are not communicating.  I was attempting to bridge that gap.


Perhaps I don't completely understand the determinist stance.  Perhaps you didn't fully understand why or how I ripped off Pascal's Wager.  In the end, however, I get the feeling we're not very far apart in our opinions about the nature of Universe.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Attention, Hugh:

Why is there no freedom for Synaptix?

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

Attention, Hugh:

Why is there no freedom for Synaptix?

Because he lost his copy of the Heart Sutra.

[Dags]

Please to note:

Noted:

Perhaps I don't completely understand the determinist stance.  

Heh- Me either. Nor do many that agree with it incompletely on the basic assumption that no particular thing happens without some kind of cause.

I have looked at it for a while and found it more compelling as "how it really is"; the main problem being it's counterintuitive.

Perhaps you didn't fully understand why or how I ripped off Pascal's Wager.

The PW you made seemed like choosing free-will or fatalism. I'm betting on another option not included in that wager so I thought you meant something else. :shrug:

In the end, however, I get the feeling we're not very far apart in our opinions about the nature of Universe

Specifically just speaking for myself and what I believe.

I don't think the future is fated. Fated presumes the future is written in stone no matter what I do or what happens.

The future hasn't happened yet, or it wouldn't be called that. As simple as that sounds I think it is a powerful part of determinism.

I think the future is determined by the actions of the past moving towards the future. Yesterday and a billion years ago affects today, tommorrow and a billion years into the future. Not one single thing is ahead of now. Nor can act at any other moment. The future is unfolding all around us all the time.

I think the paradox of life; of determinism; is in our conceptions of time. Projecting fixed events into an unfixed future or projecting the past into the future. Saying then that determinism means the future is written in stone irregardless; but it isn't! It's always been unwritten or it wouldn't be called the future.

So what I do or what happens regarding my life is part determined by what I do or don't do, and part by what happens or doesn't happen.

What will I do? What will happen? I can't say except for what I'll actually do and whatever actually happens.

So as far as master plans and changing things; If I want to put my two cents into making a plan and following through on it would be more than waiting on the future which will always be in the future until I'm dead and the future is gone as far as I'm concerned with it.-heh

-Dags