whining thread

[Resolute]

On Thursday, August 04, 2016 at 2:46 PM, mts said:

Hi Resolute. Sorry about your health. And that things are taking so long...here's hoping things get better for you.

How did you come to stop believing in religion? Just curious. Well, I am wishing you some improvements in your situation. Take care.

hi man. thanks for your well wishes.

i basically stopped believing in religion after realizing the logical necessity of absolute determinism, which essentially abolishes all responsibility and accountability as well as any justice, wisdom or justification in existence (that is to say, for existence to exist). i also realized that infinite regress isn't logically impossible (as many claim and in which i used to be a firm believer) therefor eliminating the logical necessity of a first cause/unmoved mover/etc.

[Resolute]

2 hours ago, mts said:

It must be hard to stop believing in something you've believed in for a long time. What has that been like?

i feel like a fool for believing all that nonsense for all those decades. also, living in a religious community, i can't express my ideology openly; it's difficult being among people--the beliefs of whom you don't accept--all the time, and not being able to openly state it.

[Resolute]

42 minutes ago, mts said:

The problem I have with religion is when it becomes political and ignores the rights of others. For example when it (nonfactual world view) is taught to children in school while they are too young to reason for themselves. In this sense I think I am justified in criticizing religion.

no argument there, except that i not being a relativist, would consider all world views to be nonfactual (except mine of course lol).

 

Quote

Btw, other than that (and problems caused by it) I'm sure it can be good and helpful to the right person.

of course; hence the term 'positive illusion'.

[Klingsor]

.

[Resolute]

i think that perhaps you've misunderstood my post. by rejecting religion and quoting some communists/socialists/etc. i was in no way condoning, accepting or supporting communism, socialism or the like. for the record, i support none of the regimes, governments or empires that have ever existed. they are all bad, and each is worse than the other.

[Klingsor]

Selfish. 

Carry on, dear Resolute, I withdraw once again to my cave. 

[Resolute]

lol, no need to withdraw to your cave.

 

25 minutes ago, Pax said:

Eventually you accept either the principles of a "religious" perspective or a "humanist" perspective and ultimately act on that conviction. The third alternative is to become a philosophical prostitute and whore yourself out to whomever or whatever can pay the emotional bill at the time, and be used by all.

my stance is simply that the world is inherently broken by virtue of its existence and therefor cannot possibly be fixed. in other words, existence=imperfection and imperfection=shit. that said, i'm not interested in coming up with any life philosophy or perspective. the only thing i would advocate is the right of death for all who want it. anyone who wants to die should be allowed and even assisted. other than that, there's not much that can really be done for this cesspool in which we live.

[Klingsor]

.

[Resolute]

idk; maybe busy with work.

[Klingsor]

11 hours ago, Resolute said:

my stance is simply that the world is inherently broken by virtue of its existence and therefor cannot possibly be fixed. in other words, existence=imperfection and imperfection=shit. that said, i'm not interested in coming up with any life philosophy or perspective. the only thing i would advocate is the right of death for all who want it. anyone who wants to die should be allowed and even assisted. other than that, there's not much that can really be done for this cesspool in which we live.

I totally agree.

[TooOld4This]

Hi mts, always good to hear from you.

I think different people's experiences lead them onto different paths;  when i was a teenager who was being bullied for being intellectual and sensitive, i found that my place of worship was my only refuge.  It was the only subculture that placed any value on my intellectual gifts.  Mainstream society, on the other hand, told me i was a "dork" and "uncool."  So my experience of religion was, that it is affirming and supportive.

I assume, Res, that you had a different experience; needless to say.

[Resolute]

25 minutes ago, TooOld4This said:

I think different people's experiences lead them onto different paths;  when i was a teenager who was being bullied for being intellectual and sensitive, i found that my place of worship was my only refuge.  It was the only subculture that placed any value on my intellectual gifts.  Mainstream society, on the other hand, told me i was a "dork" and "uncool."  So my experience of religion was, that it is affirming and supportive.

I assume, Res, that you had a different experience; needless to say.

like you said, we are all entitled to our opinions... however, just because you chose religion based on your feelings does not mean that i rejected religion based on mine. not all people make emotional decisions; believe it or not, some of us actually use reason.

[Victimorthecrime]

http://www.manbook.biz/2016/04/30/an-honest-conversation-about-determinism/

Hey Res this is a fairly long video about determinism. I have not watched it yet but I thought you might enjoy it. 

[Resolute]

thanks man. maybe i'll give it a listen. btw, you weren't kidding when you said it was long (nearly an hour and a half).

[mts]

-

[mts]

-

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

1 hour ago, mts said:

I've seen that determinism video before, and the others. If I recall, the show host's recurring argument is: "if everything is just a set of physical events how can a stone falling down a hill become (a human) capable of choice". He frequently gets annoyed with his guests, it's kind of funny.

lol. i watched about 14 minutes of it (so far), and i'm not too impressed with the caller/guest (not that i agree with the host). from what i gathered from those 14 minutes, mts, the host is a compatibilist; am i right?

as to the question "if everything is just a set of physical events how can a stone falling down a hill become (a human) capable of choice?", i have two things to say;

1. personally, i don't necessarily believe that a cause need be physical.

2. the main difference between a rock falling down a hill and human behavior is the level of complexity; nothing more. a rock is a simple thing while a human is a complex thing. both are determined and neither has any will of its own. the only difference is that when it comes to simple things it's easier to notice the absence of freewill, whereas it's much more difficult to recognize it with complex things.

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

1 hour ago, mts said:

I'm confused...

What would "real" responsibility be like? Is it just the promise or threat of heaven and hell?

well, this whole concept of real responsibility vs artificial/notional/figurative/metaphorical responsibility is sort of my own theory (i haven't seen it elsewhere), and i'll do my best to explain it.

we've briefly discussed the concept of causa sui before, which simply means self-caused. my position is that nothing (particularly things that have a beginning) can be truly responsible for its own actions unless they were completely self-caused. let's call it self generated volition. naturally such a thing is logically impossible due to the simple fact that all actions and choices are directly caused by other things, and those things are caused by other things, and those things are also caused by other things and so on ad infinitum. as you can see, the same thing (a human for example) can't both have a beginning and not have a beginning at the same time. if he has a beginning, then he clearly is not in any way responsible for anything that came about before him, which in turn determines/causes what comes about after he comes into existence. and if he doesn't have a beginning, well, then i guess i'll just be a monkey's uncle.

real responsibility applies only when someone could have possibly done differently under the exact same circumstances. that means that all the external variables (environment etc.) as well as internal variables (genes etc.) are 100% identical. only then would something even resembling actual responsibility be logically permitted. otherwise, any responsibility attributed to anyone for doing anything, would merely be some sort of artificial responsibility that is only fabricated out of practical (not logical) necessity.

 

Quote

What would "real" free will be like? Can you actually describe it?

 

for something to be truly free it mustn't be determined. logically, there can only be two scenarios (for any given object or part of an object):

1. determined.

2. undetermined (free).

as you can see, no other option is conceivable. in logic, applying the principle of no contradiction means that both cannot be true for the same thing. and applying the principle of excluded middle means that both can't be false for the same thing either. this means that one must be true, and one must be false (for any given thing). now let's apply this to the will, shall we? if the will is completely determined by antecedent events then it is not free, and therefor not truly responsible for anything it wills.

if the will isn't at all affected by antecedent events, or affected by them but not completely, then the only thing--other than antecedent events--that can "determine" the choices of the will is chance. this would of course make the will completely or partly free. and even tho this scenario is logically impossible, it would still entail no actual responsibility to the person, because how can someone be held--truly--responsible for actions that were determined (partly or completely) by pure chance? would you accept punishment for actions that were the result of chance?

[Resolute]

2 hours ago, mts said:

I don't know what you mean by a cause not being physical. What else is there?

idk lol. my point is that all logic dictates is that there be a cause, regardless of its nature.

 

Quote

I would recommend watching (well, listening) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g
It's a podcast with Sam Harris (determinist) and Daniel Dennett (compatibilist). Harris has views like yours (more or less), and like you he makes his points very clearly - although the other guy struggles to make sense his responses still give a view of compatibilism which I found helpful.

I haven't yet come across anything on determinism that was particularly in depth, but I haven't searched for videos for ages.

ya, from what i've heard/read (which isn't that much), harris isn't bad. dennett, on the other hand, seems to be the most famous (more like infamous lol) proponent of compatibilism. and like you said, he has a very hard time trying to make his points; not because he lacks articulation, but because he's advocating nonsense (no offense to you, mts, or anyone else who might be a compatibilist).

as i've mentioned before, compatibilism merely attempts to redefine free will to mean uncoerced will (rather than what is commonly understood, or should be understood, undetermined will).

[Klingsor]

While we discuss bullshit here, the beautiful, talented, and privileged go on with their lives:

http://www.espn.com/olympics/summer/2012/story/_/id/8133052/athletes-spill-details-dirty-secrets-olympic-village-espn-magazine

[Resolute]

good thing i don't care for orgies or condoms .

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

dammit i missed it!