I can't stop a duck from quacking.
An objective look.
The rules here are you are supposed to summarize the crappy lying videos you post.
Also, what does your latest crap about diet doing in this thread? Are you desperately trying to change the subject again? (Answer: yes, obviously.)
I was responding to unapologetic, which I'm entitled to do. How do you know it's a crappy video if you haven't listened to it? Basically, he is giving the good and bad of a carnivore diet. He was being objective. Isn't that what you want?
You are supposed to provide a summary in your own words of videos that you post.
But I understand. You can’t even explain in your own words your writer’s argument on free will and determinism. It is too much for you.
Who are you fooling? After all this time, I've bent over backwards trying to get you to see that indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism. Compatibilism is a bait and switch effort to define free will in a way that makes free will appear compatible with determinism, but it fails because free will implies that we could have chosen otherwise after it was made, which is impossible.
If anyone wants to eat a carnivore diet or a “lion diet,” go for it. But humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we are certainly not lions.
I will happily continue to eat tons of fruits and vegetables.
Why are you posting this stuff in this thread?
Because conversations get diverted, especially when there's no progress. I will also eat fruits and veggies but many people do well on this kind of diet, probably because they eliminated a lot of junk food as well.
There is no progress because the claim of 'light at the eye/ instant vision" has no merit.
But it really does have merit! You just can’t visualize it yet. Bear in mind that light travels and the photons are constantly replaced, but the absorption and reflection of the object do not.
As for the idea of modified determinism, I still haven't seen a rational description of it, or how it may bring about world peace.
Then you didn’t read the first three chapters. Since you know this has to do with the corollary that goes with having no free will, jump to Chapter Three, which will give you some idea of how this principle works.
I find the book to be problematic. Which is why I asked you to give a definition/description of the authors concept of determinism and how it may bring about world peace.
I asked several times, but have yet to see a clear definition of this modified form of determinism or how it could bring about world peace.
Maybe I missed it. If so, a summary or a link to the relevant post would be appreciated.
You did not miss anything. She is not able to do what you ask.
What the hell! Can't you scroll down to Chapter Three with your cursor? Are you disabled?
I don't see it. Can you quote the given definition or description of this modified form of determinism?
The only difference is that the past doesn't cause the present (it is that already. As a comparison, four doesn't cause 2 plus 2, it is that already), which means that even though will is not free because you are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, nothing can make you do what you make up your mind not to do, for you have absolute control over this. This is huge because you can't use the excuse that determinism made you kill someone. You killed someone because it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment rather than not to do this, for whatever reason. This equation actually prevents the very thing that no ideology could prevent (whether free will, compatibilism, or the present definition of determinism) because it doesn't include the other side of the equation. Can you imagine giving half of an equation and being told it doesn't work?
That doesn't make sense, what you describe is not modified determinism, in fact it's not determinism at all.
What you say leans towards libertarian free will. How is any of this supposed to work? How does it bring about world peace?
DBT, how can our will be free when only one choice can be made, not two? Free will implies we can choose A or B equally, which is impossible when meaningful differences push us in one direction. IOW, just because we have available options doesn't grant us free will because we are compelled to choose the one that is the most preferable given our particular circumstances. He also explained that the word "choice" is misleading. Did you read that part? I think that's why you don't like the word "choice", but it doesn't mean we actually have one.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all, as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point,
he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?”
“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘It makes no difference’?”
“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which always moves towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice.” You are implying that antecedent events CAUSE you to do what you do, when nothing in the past can cause you to do anything since we only have the present. That is why he had to tweak the definition. If you believe that the past exists beyond what we remember, then you will disagree with his first premise. According to this author, our will is not free because only one choice can be made at any given moment. He makes this distinction because it's important, as it leads to his two-sided equation. This is probably what you're thinking: If NOTHING CAN CAUSE US TO DO WHAT WE MAKE UP OUR MIND NOT TO DO, doesn't this make our will free? No, it doesn't. I suggest you read pages 50-53, which I doubt that you did. Prove me wrong.
