Free Will for the Determinist

[Marvin_Edwards]

Well, if we set aside the notion that everything is always subjective, then the meaning of "objective" would be "something that we both should be able to see as true".

An objective explanation of why something happened would be the immediate causal history. Objective efficiency of an explanation would be the minimal causal history needed to convey the meaningful and relevant causes. Objective meaning would be the consequences of a cause in a context. Objective relevance of a cause would be its usefulness to us in controlling the event.

Say that we use "something that we both should be able to see as true" as a definition, and let's take efficiency for the first example.

And let's say, for a moment, that there's a causal history that we agree conveys "meaningful and relevant" causes. But you say that x and y are the minimal causal history for that, and I say that w, x, y and z are the minimal causal history. So we don't agree on that. Is it no longer objective? Or is it simply the case that I "should" agree with you, and if so, per what? You might say something like "reason" but you'd probably think I'm being unreasonable in saying that w, x, y and z are needed and I'd probably think you're being unreasonable in thinking that only x and y are needed.

Well, something we should both be able to agree with is that the Big Bang is neither a meaningful nor a relevant cause of anything you or I decide to do. It's there, in the causal chain, but so is a lot of other stuff. Efficiency would require us to drop everything except the meaningful and relevant causes.

[Syamsu]

That's a lot of non responsiveness, and wishing away the problems with your ideas.

How it actually works:
1. Trump has the alternative futures A and B available, A is made the present, meaning Trump chose A
2. Then there is the question, what was it that made the choice turn out A?
3. Then the answer must be chosen from subjective words like love and hate
4. Where either chosen answer love or hate is equally logically valid

How you say it works:
1. Trump thinks of A and B, does A
2. Then there is the question what was it that made the choice turn out A?
3. Then the answer can be established as fact by gathering evidence of what caused A

Clearly, you do not allow freedom of opinion on the issue, same as you don't allow freedom of opinion on whether the earth is round or square. Evidence forces to single a conclusion on it. You may allow different guesses about what the facts of the matter are, but that's very different from freedom of opinion.

You have simply thrown out all subjectivity, leading to total emotional destruction.

[Syamsu]

How do you decide how often to come back here and do the "they're all fascists because they treat feelings and choices as if they were matters of fact" thing?

Another atheist, another intellectual fraud. Why don't you tell me why you are an intellectual fraud? That would be something new.

What goes through your mind to say, **** logic, **** the truth? Because I can explain the psychology of it, why you would be tempted by feelings of certitude associated to facts. But then still even with this temptation, why choose to become a fraud?

[Belindi]

That's a lot of non responsiveness, and wishing away the problems with your ideas.

How it actually works:
1. Trump has the alternative futures A and B available, A is made the present, meaning Trump chose A
2. Then there is the question, what was it that made the choice turn out A?
3. Then the answer must be chosen from subjective words like love and hate
4. Where either chosen answer love or hate is equally logically valid

How you say it works:
1. Trump thinks of A and B, does A
2. Then there is the question what was it that made the choice turn out A?
3. Then the answer can be established as fact by gathering evidence of what caused A

Clearly, you do not allow freedom of opinion on the issue, same as you don't allow freedom of opinion on whether the earth is round or square. Evidence forces to single a conclusion on it. You may allow different guesses about what the facts of the matter are, but that's very different from freedom of opinion.

You have simply thrown out all subjectivity, leading to total emotional destruction.

Everyone has a right to have feelings of their own.

[Steve3007]

Another atheist, another intellectual fraud. Why don't you tell me why you are an intellectual fraud?...

Great stuff. Same time next year?

[Jklint]

Why don't you tell me why you are an intellectual fraud?

...because it may be fraudulent for intellectual frauds to specify without proclaiming the logic of atheism. Two negatives make a positive!

[Syamsu]

Another atheist, another intellectual fraud. Why don't you tell me why you are an intellectual fraud?...

Great stuff. Same time next year?

It's the truth. You are one of the 99.99 percent of all people who shafts the concept of personal opinion, because of being obsessed with facts.

You tell me why you do that. You bring something new here, something of interest.

An opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

As anyone can easily see, by looking straight at the logic used in common discourse in regards to subjective words

And then you throw out emotions / personal opinion because.....?

Absolutely this is the precise reason why all men are known as sinners. They all throw out God the holy spirit, and the ordinary humsn spirit, people's emotions. It would be a totally different ballgame if people in general straightforwardly accepted the validity of emotions / personal opinions. You haven't spent 1/1000th of the time on considering the concept of personal opinion, that you have spent on considering the concept of fact, the scientific method. You just say whatever arbitrary thing comes up in your mind about the concept of personal opinion. No critical understanding.

You should especially tell God why you think you can get away with ignoring people's emotions, as well as ignoring God. What is the goodness of the kind of labaratory view of things, where emotions are systematically ignored. The kind of view where a human being, being ripped apart, is accurately described, in precise detail, without any consideration for the emotions.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Great stuff. Same time next year?

It's the truth. You are one of the 99.99 percent of all people who shafts the concept of personal opinion, because of being obsessed with facts.

You tell me why you do that. You bring something new here, something of interest.

An opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

As anyone can easily see, by looking straight at the logic used in common discourse in regards to subjective words

And then you throw out emotions / personal opinion because.....?

Absolutely this is the precise reason why all men are known as sinners. They all throw out God the holy spirit, and the ordinary humsn spirit, people's emotions. It would be a totally different ballgame if people in general straightforwardly accepted the validity of emotions / personal opinions. You haven't spent 1/1000th of the time on considering the concept of personal opinion, that you have spent on considering the concept of fact, the scientific method. You just say whatever arbitrary thing comes up in your mind about the concept of personal opinion. No critical understanding.

You should especially tell God why you think you can get away with ignoring people's emotions, as well as ignoring God. What is the goodness of the kind of labaratory view of things, where emotions are systematically ignored. The kind of view where a human being, being ripped apart, is accurately described, in precise detail, without any consideration for the emotions.

Feelings are malleable. People ought to feel good about doing good and being good. But some people feel good about things that do harm to themselves and others. So, the correct sequence should be to first, seek what is good and then second, choose to feel good about it.

[Belindi]

Great stuff. Same time next year?

It's the truth. You are one of the 99.99 percent of all people who shafts the concept of personal opinion, because of being obsessed with facts.

You tell me why you do that. You bring something new here, something of interest.

An opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

As anyone can easily see, by looking straight at the logic used in common discourse in regards to subjective words

And then you throw out emotions / personal opinion because.....?

Absolutely this is the precise reason why all men are known as sinners. They all throw out God the holy spirit, and the ordinary humsn spirit, people's emotions. It would be a totally different ballgame if people in general straightforwardly accepted the validity of emotions / personal opinions. You haven't spent 1/1000th of the time on considering the concept of personal opinion, that you have spent on considering the concept of fact, the scientific method. You just say whatever arbitrary thing comes up in your mind about the concept of personal opinion. No critical understanding.

You should especially tell God why you think you can get away with ignoring people's emotions, as well as ignoring God. What is the goodness of the kind of labaratory view of things, where emotions are systematically ignored. The kind of view where a human being, being ripped apart, is accurately described, in precise detail, without any consideration for the emotions.

Is there a way to reason together without hurting someone's feelings?

[Syamsu]

Feelings are malleable. People ought to feel good about doing good and being good. But some people feel good about things that do harm to themselves and others. So, the correct sequence should be to first, seek what is good and then second, choose to feel good about it.

Nice wisdom. Unfortunately you already threw out subjective things like goodness, in throwing out the spirit making choices.

"and as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection" C. Darwin, Origin of Species)

And when you throw out the properly subjective goodness in reference to the spirit choosing, then you are left with quasi objective factual goodness.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Feelings are malleable. People ought to feel good about doing good and being good. But some people feel good about things that do harm to themselves and others. So, the correct sequence should be to first, seek what is good and then second, choose to feel good about it.

Nice wisdom. Unfortunately you already threw out subjective things like goodness, in throwing out the spirit making choices.

"and as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection" C. Darwin, Origin of Species)

And when you throw out the properly subjective goodness in reference to the spirit choosing, then you are left with quasi objective factual goodness.

Ah! Okay. So you feel that we've left out the spirit of love, as in Matthew 22:35-40. As a Humanist I translate that to "Love good, and love good for others as you love it for yourself. This is the basis of all the rules". And one of the values of religions is that they cultivate that love for good and lover for others. At least that was my experience.

But the subjective feeling is not enough. One must also know objectively what is good and bad for the person being loved. As Eric Fromm pointed out, love is not just a feeling, it is an action of caring for the welfare of another.

[Syamsu]

Nice wisdom. Unfortunately you already threw out subjective things like goodness, in throwing out the spirit making choices.

"and as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection" C. Darwin, Origin of Species)

And when you throw out the properly subjective goodness in reference to the spirit choosing, then you are left with quasi objective factual goodness.

Ah! Okay. So you feel that we've left out the spirit of love, as in Matthew 22:35-40. As a Humanist I translate that to "Love good, and love good for others as you love it for yourself. This is the basis of all the rules". And one of the values of religions is that they cultivate that love for good and lover for others. At least that was my experience.

But the subjective feeling is not enough. One must also know objectively what is good and bad for the person being loved. As Eric Fromm pointed out, love is not just a feeling, it is an action of caring for the welfare of another.

Love, like any emotion, is agency of a choice. You make the causes of a choice out to be a factual issue, therefore you make love, goodness etc. to be factual.


I already explained things perfectly in the posts previous. Yet you keep on using an optimistic mood, as if that is argumentation that your idea accommodates subjectivity.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Ah! Okay. So you feel that we've left out the spirit of love, as in Matthew 22:35-40. As a Humanist I translate that to "Love good, and love good for others as you love it for yourself. This is the basis of all the rules". And one of the values of religions is that they cultivate that love for good and lover for others. At least that was my experience.

But the subjective feeling is not enough. One must also know objectively what is good and bad for the person being loved. As Eric Fromm pointed out, love is not just a feeling, it is an action of caring for the welfare of another.

Love, like any emotion, is agency of a choice. You make the causes of a choice out to be a factual issue, therefore you make love, goodness etc. to be factual.


I already explained things perfectly in the posts previous. Yet you keep on using an optimistic mood, as if that is argumentation that your idea accommodates subjectivity.

Well, if either of us was explaining things perfectly then we would already be in agreement.

[Syamsu]

Well, if either of us was explaining things perfectly then we would already be in agreement.

But you aren't listening, and just use your optimism as proof that your idea does not lead to utter destruction of emotions.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Well, if either of us was explaining things perfectly then we would already be in agreement.

But you aren't listening, and just use your optimism as proof that your idea does not lead to utter destruction of emotions.

Well, to be fair, it is difficult to listen to someone who is accusing you of all sorts of things and calling you names.

It seems the issue is whether objectivity and subjectivity are opposites which cannot coexist, or whether both play a part in getting to some meaningful truth. Subjectivity without objectivity is living in a dream. Objectivity without subjectivity is hard and cold.