Does indeterminism? It wouldn't seem so to me. — flannel jesus

Under a standard account where your choices have multiple possible outcomes, and those choices are not fully pre-determined, then yes, indeterminism does give me say. Of course, you're probably wondering how this indeterminism is possible, especially if it's not just pure randomness. I have a theory for that, and though far-fetched, I think free will (which to me includes both sourcehood and leeway freedom) is indispensable to our experience, so so long as there is no contradiction in it's existence, we ought to believe or at least act as if it exists. (Although even if it is impossible, I still think we should probably believe in it anyway, as I've argued before)

If something is happening randomly, it doesn't seem like it's in my control. I don't see how randomness adds control - in fact to the contrary, I think it takes away control.

I don’t think it entails nihilism and fatalism, but it does set the grounds for them. Though I’m sure many people are content with the implications of determinism, that they have zero responsibility, and their actions have somehow began outside of them.

Though I’m sure many people are content with the implications of determinism, that they have zero responsibility, and their actions have somehow began outside of them. — NOS4A2

I am surprised at how common this view is, albeit expressed in degrees of subtlety. That is, that those who have settled against free-will are doing so out of a psychological desire to be "free" of responsibility.

I don't believe that to be the case. To me the question is more about the nature/structure of human Mind/metaphysics than morality. I.e., the moral implications follow my judgment about whether or not we have free will, rather than informing it.

But I do find it interesting.

I often just have to pick an action for no reason just so I don't piss the other players off any more than I already have. — Patterner

Genuinely - get into poker. Getting 'in the tank' is a common thing and the reason some tournaments take a week to play out. Decisions are long, arduous processes in poker. Think you'll enjoy.

I am surprised at how common this view is, albeit expressed in degrees of subtlety. That is, that those who have settled against free-will are doing so out of a psychological desire to be "free" of responsibility.

I don't believe that to be the case. To me the question is more about the nature/structure of human Mind/metaphysics than morality. I.e., the moral implications follow my judgment about whether or not we have free will, rather than informing it.

But I do find it interesting.

I don’t believe it to be the case either. The metaphysical judgement sets the grounds for the moral judgement. That’s why I said it sets the grounds for it.

But that crucial point is oddly missing from what you quoted. Did your past state determine that your present state would exclude that line?

Genuinely - get into poker. Getting 'in the tank' is a common thing and the reason some tournaments take a week to play out. Decisions are long, arduous processes in poker. Think you'll enjoy. — AmadeusD

What a surprising response! :grin: I probably know as close to nothing about poker as is possible. I hadn't thought I was suited to it in any way. Now I wonder...

God has nothing to do with it: if one doesn't believe in any kind of free will, then the use of a concept such as responsibility is absurd and irrational: they might as well say "you aren't actually responsible, but we are going to treat it as if you were". Do you see the issue?

Shockingly, all one needs to remedy this issue, at worst, is to accept a form of compatibilistic free will (;

Did your past state determine that your present state would exclude that line? — NOS4A2

:ok: Nice!!

I don’t think it entails nihilism and fatalism, but it does set the grounds for them. — NOS4A2

I agree with this much, but disagree with suggesting that the

... implications of determinism...[are] that they have zero responsibility.

I disagree because this sense of responsibility is a part of our mechanism, and contributes to our choices. This is in spite of the fact that all of our decision-making components originated outside ourselves. Indeed, we aren't responsible for our genetic makeup, don't fully control what we learn, are (somewhat) slaves to our conditioned responses, etc, but we still make the choices that we make. As the decision-maker, there is inherent responsibility for those decisions. We hold others accountable, and we ought to hold ourselves accountable. Accountability never means the past can be changed; it is only about the future decisions we (or others) will make. So what if we couldn't have made a different decision in that instant within its circumstances? We can learn from the consequences, and this can result in better decisions in the future.

I actually question the notion that Libertarian Free Will (LFW) entails the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) - the notion that LFW implies there's true contingency to our choices. Even under LFW, we are guided by our impulses, knowledge, assumptions, etc. Given some series of deliberative thoughts, how could there be a different outcome? We have followed some chain of reasoning, and are subject to the same impulses.

I disagree because this sense of responsibility is a part of our mechanism, and contributes to our choices. — Relativist

How did this situation come to be? For millennia, people were entirely fooled into thinking they had free will. I don't know when someone first came up with the concept of free will, but, since there wouldn't have been any thought that we don't have it, the idea that we do wouldn't have been floating around. A yin/yang idea. So it was a given that we are responsible for our actions, without even questioning it. And people were punished for bad actions.

Now, people think we don't have free will. But we can't not be responsible for our actions. First, because that's just not acceptable. We can't have people getting away with, literally, murder just because we know we don't have free will, and the murderer couldn't have done otherwise. Somebody has to pay! Second, because we still feel that we are responsible for our actions. You can't tell me I'm not responsible. Even if I'm not! Third, because the feeling that we're responsible, and the virtue of holding people responsible, is part of our culture, and our language.

We don't think of punishing a storm or avalanche for killing someone. Or a swarm of bees, although it seems that was their intention. We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. We just can't have it killing again. We don't feel it really had a choice, for whatever reason, and don't hate it. Maybe it was an abused animal. Maybe it was in great pain at the moment it killed. Maybe it was trained to kill (if that can be done without abuse).

But we hold humans responsible. We harbor very bad feeling for humans who do evil. In many cases, we blame the owner of the dog, even when the situation doesn't allow us to impose any legal penalty. All because we are not simply subject to our pasts and physical factors, like storms and avalanches, bees, asked dogs.

Except we are.

implications of determinism...[are] that they have zero responsibility.
I disagree because this sense of responsibility is a part of our mechanism, and contributes to our choices. — Relativist

I think you are right. It seems to contradict "itself" but the "reason" there is ultimately no freedom (in the more or less conventional way we use that word) is because like, as you say, responsibility, choice and free choice are built-in mechanisms of that process which temporarily ends in a "decision" action or idea. You might say we have freedom and responsibility but they just happen as steps in an overall autonomously moving System.

I note that I may have taken liberties with my expansion on how I interpreted your
point. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood.

Even under LFW, we are guided by our impulses, knowledge, assumptions, etc. — Relativist

We can learn from the consequences, and this can result in better decisions in the future. — Relativist

Yes, and that too, the "learn from" and "better decisions" are mechanism which evolved in the so called decision making process, so that when we "learn" and when we make "better decisions" of course, we (falsely) conclude it was our freedom which allowed for it. But these are functions of Mind which move "for" "us" but there is no individual particular of that "us" guiding that process and pulling its strings.

We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. We just can't have it killing again. We don't feel it really had a choice, for whatever reason, and don't hate it. — Patterner

Yes. In fact we regret having to "punish" it. So what makes us, the conceited ape, so different? I believe it is only that we use "language," and that language has evolved into a system of such complexity in its storage in the human brain that its laws and dynamics (though awesome and functional as hell) have displaced the truth.

And we "believe" what it says. And it most conventionally says we have freedom and responsibility so we believe it.

Of course all of which creates the deeper problem that believing we have no free will is equally a dictate of that language and it's process. And I haven't settled comfortably yet with how to resolve that seeming paradox other than to say settling at the point of paradox must be the closest we can get to the truth inside that system of Language.

All because we are not simply subject to our pasts and physical factors, like storms and avalanches, bees, asked dogs.

Except we are. — Patterner

...and there's that paradox...that precipice of truth?

I actually question the notion that Libertarian Free Will (LFW) entails the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) - the notion that LFW implies there's true contingency to our choices. Even under LFW, we are guided by our impulses, knowledge, assumptions, etc. Given some series of deliberative thoughts, how could there be a different outcome? We have followed some chain of reasoning, and are subject to the same impulses.

My own test is simple: if the action originates in the agent he is responsible for it. He willed it. It cannot be otherwise. Given that we are our impulses, knowledge, and assumptions, the responsibility for the act remains on the agent whose impulses, knowledge, and assumptions they are. Unless someone else or some other force is moving the agent’s body, his acts are determined by him and by nothing else, and the responsibility lies there.

So far no determinist has shown that any act or choice was determined by anything else, and until that happens I cannot follow it.

It sounds to me you're giving a fairly vague account akin to compatibleism. Nothing in your account counters determinism - just illustrates that decisions appear to originate in an agent without prior cause.
That seems incoherent, on it's face, though. Further, the agent is deluded, on the accounts determinists wield. This is not implausible at all, and fits with your account.

It’s a source-hood argument. If his action is not determined by anything else, how is it compatible with determinism?

And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed.
— Chet Hawkins

Needed. Please. — ENOAH

Well, ... I thought I already gave YOU the rundown. But in this case, objective morality is argued as causal to all concepts of balance. That is to say in my model, the fear, anger, and desire are the only forces in the universe. Instead of reality being a dichotomy as most systems will show, a duality, the real nature of reality is trinary, between these three emotions.

We can go into more depth but suffice it to say that my model would predict that first there SEEMS to be a duality, with a polarity that is set up. In the emotional realm this first order divide is between fear and desire. These are the ruling emotions of any duality. I can't really go totally on and on here, but things like left and right wing, order vs chaos, and even the polarity between male and female as genders is all caused by this 'false' duality. But those energies are MORE OBVIOUS and yet delusional (unstable) within the 'false' duality. I say more obvious because when we talk about such polarities, that delusional model, many based on it, seems to only realize the two sides. Why?

The answer is that the emotive force of anger is unique and strange compared to the other two. Instead of primarily participating in the duality, anger splits in the middle and joins BOTH sides equally. This means its very nature is confusing to the unaware. Why does anger do this? Because anger is all about one thing, and one thing only when it is moral, and that is balance. So, anger is actually the force for unity of all, and balance of all. If you refer back to the Enneagram bit I posted, you will recall that Enneatypes 8, 9, and 1 are anger types. The type 9 is the anger infused anger. So, the sin of that type is laziness and of course they are known for their calm, peacekeeping and unity-seeking ways. The two go together. It seems odd to the unaware that we properly state that anger is the emotion of calm. But, it is.

Amid the three types of love, friendship, passion, and compassion; anger's part is the compassion, the so-called empty love, the love that needs neither friendship, nor passion to exist. It simply IS, balanced love, love equally for all. And yes, that is from anger.

So, how do we relate that to objective morality? These balances are laws of nature. They are not accidents at all. They MUST be this way and only this way. The 'false' duality sets up a tension. But it has no substance. Keep in mind, these are emotions, the working parts of moral or immoral choice.

How does morality relate then to natural law, to physics? Well, fear is the emotion of the past. All order proceeds from the past. And desire is the emotion of the future. All chaos stems from the randomness of desire. Only the eternal moment of now and all of physical reality is 'created' or emerges as a result of the non-delusional third emotive force of anger. Anger says no to fear and no to desire both. So each of the three emotions is acting on both the other two to cause a PERFECT balance. It is only that PERFECT balance that allows for a tiny emotive force in any way, to move things, to choose. This PERFECT balance is the state of free will, and the universe would be impossible without it. It that balance was subjective, was off by even the plank length, the entire universe would not have the balance to form.

Of course, again, because of this balance, so PERFECT, is the background state of the universe, an objective guarantee to all entities, even subatomic particles, are possessed of choice to a degree. Choice is literally the only thing in the universe. It causes everything else. And its basis of empowerment is free will. Determinism is a vast and easy temptation of fear-side foolishness. They are looking at probability and that effort will fail as the limit described by the singular path of each emotion to perfection. Only all three together in balance can arrive at perfection.

It goes further and connected more, this model. Literally the atom shows the truth of my model in every way. The false dichotomy is the proton and electrons match in charge. The protons are manifestations of fear grouping together near the more confident and balanced anger bodies, the neutrons. And, no surprise the chaotic desire monkeys are out making friends in random directions all around that system, the nucleus. All civilizations form this way, all groups form this way. And what is the nature of the system? Trinary! Proton, electron, neutron; fear, desire, and anger; respectively.

So, we have the three tenses of time and the basic structure of the atom, each showing, resonating with the model, the emotive model of reality.

If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral.
— Chet Hawkins

What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free? — ENOAH

That makes no sense. It is either free or not. There is no in between. If you are TRYING to say that some choices are hard and that seems like not free, then that would be a wrong opinion. Yes, admittedly, some choices seem impossible or not free. But choice is infinite and our delusions, lack of awareness, lack of effort, lack of restraint; are the problems, the immoral aims we choose that make it seems not to be free will.

What if the root of confusion is not in whether or not there is "freedom;" but in what is "choice." — ENOAH

And then you MUST say what your theory is. You do not here. So, I cannot explain how your theory is wrong, if you do not have one.

The OP suggests, at least asks, if there's no freedom, is morality doomed (to) nihilism or fatalism. And you state that if there is no freedom its impossible to be immoral. — ENOAH

Yes, luckily, freedom and morality both exist and it cannot be otherwise, as shown above. And by the way, luck has NOTHING to do with it. It could only be this way.

If everything were determined, it would feel that way. And the universe would implode to static death in infinitely small time. It does not. So, the imbalance is not there. Instead, we do have a persistent and rigorous balance. Things are so stable, and we so confounded by our delusions, that we are 'stuck' earning wisdom to be better choosers. It MUST be this way.

Both imply that a reason to accept free will is it resolves the problem of morality; I.e., free will serves a function. Keep that in mind because it will re-emerge in a second. — ENOAH

No, there is no need. There is no problem with morality. The problem is immoral choice. Imbalances impeded our progress towards perfection. So, we have only ourselves to blame. Progress CAN BE MADE. If morality were subjective, no progress can be made. That is because what subjective morality really means, is that from one nanosecond to the next acting the same way would feel perhaps 180 degrees different. We would literally wake up and feel that quick and rapacious murder was correct. It would be like every M Night Shyamaylan movie all rolled into one. Moving goalposts on feeling would be the least worrying aspect of it. Because of what I just described, atoms themselves would not cohere together. They would fall apart if morality were subjective. Almost instantly, the pressure to make a choice would become impossible to overcome and the entire system would die in frozen lock. Really, people have NO IDEA what they are saying when they suggest that morality could even possibly be subjective. Morality upholds all other laws of nature. Their consistency means morality is objective. Time and the atom and the emotive model are the only thing holding this universe together and all of it is only free will.

Moreover I can infer that "choice" is at the root of both of your statements. The reason freedom allows for immorality (yours) and no freedom renders morality impossible (OP's) is because we can "choose" moral or immoral. — ENOAH

Well, yes. But, the whole idea of subjective morality is just chaos and insanity. People WANT to believe that morality is subjective because then they do not have to own up to truth. Truth and objective morality state quite obviously that perfection is the only worthy aim. Incremental progress is laudable. But this requires the choice to suffer to earn wisdom. Each suffering is a chance, an opportunity to then choose to earn wisdom or to deny it.

It is only with meaning being objective that the concept of balance itself is possible, That simple statement is a writ small proof for objective morality.

This ultimately must be rooted in (to bring in concepts from your other posts) fear. If we can't "choose" how could we be blamed, and without blame (one fears; i.e. the OP suggests the fear) there will be nihilism. In plain English without choice and blame, who cares? — ENOAH

Yes, sort-of. I mean the whole evil thing is really overdone. It's just LESS good. Just by being and having some balance there is a ton of good happening. The universe's constant serving up of the truth of that balance amid free will is being thrown back in its face, in our face, because WE ARE IT. As you no doubt can tell here, 'God', 'All', 'truth', the universe, and Love, are really all just synonymous things. There is no point to separating them. Fear tries to, to limit, to flee in fear from that truth, and is responsible for all separation. And all of those separations are only delusional. Desire tries to get, but, it tries to get everything in every direction, and there is only one step you can make that is perfect at any time and from any state and that is the single next step towards perfection.

And we have REAL evidence. The genuine happiness that is a consequence of a BETTER step towards wisdom and morality exists and is demonstrable in every case. It's all there ubiquitously and omnipresent, free will, and perfection, available to all. Choose, and suffer the consequences. Only free will can support that truth.

But I submit this concept--that we need freedom and blame for morality (to function; or, for a morally functional humsn existence. If its not that you're worried about, then what? Morality for morality's sake?)--is the actual root of the problem. — ENOAH

Yes, you can take that tack. I have thought much on this. Is Love and Truth a tyranny? Is it finally some odd form of evil? No. The reason why is that morality IS objective. In other words being biased is ok in one case only, when that bias is to perfection, the GOOD. So, this means GOOD is actually good. It is a natural law of the universe that good is better for you. Because of free will only, we only are to blame for our choices and thus, all suffering we experience is our fault entirely. The infinite nature of choice means we could at any point just choose perfection. But our delusions feed over-expression of fear, anger, or desire; even all three; and we fail.

Love is NOT a tyranny because GOOD is objective. If morality were not objective, then the system of Love would be a tyranny. If free will did not exist, then the system of Love would be a tyranny. Luckily free will exists and morality is objective. And, by the way, luck clearly has nothing to do with it!

Which brings me back to what is "choice." If choice--and thus concomitantly freedom of choice/free will--by its function, evolved — ENOAH

Incorrect. It did not evolve.

It was present as free will at the dawn of time. All particles partake of free will. 'Inanimate' matter is NOT inanimate. It is choosing.

(because it was fit for the vitality of the system in which it evolved) to appear to involve a single ontologically real and essential being freely making it (those latter shoes filled by the Subject I); but if both choice and the Subject seeming to freely make it, were just mechanisms in a process with the ultimate effect of provoking bodies to act and or feel; and if (that which we rightly cling to because it is functional and call) morality, is not a universal pre-existing Reality, but also an evolved, because it is ffunctionalmechanism (or set thereof) in that process; and if every seemingly free choice, and their moral status were determined not predestination-wise, not pre determined, but by the movement of causes and effects operating within that system and following evolved laws of that system (evolved due to function), then within that process there could be morality-the appearance of choice-but not free choice in the sense of some individual being. — ENOAH

No, there could not be such a system. It would have no basis. The model I describe explains EVERYTHING. The existence of the stability and the limit conditions on each emotion combine to make all other models or ideas, including the one you just offered, impossible.

The reason why is that you cannot get to here with your model. It would fail long before. And you still need physics to exist for NO REASON. In my model physics is supported wholly by morality. Physics is caused by morality.

Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies,
— Chet Hawkins

I submit the contrary. Choices are "everyone's" fault because we are ineluctably interdependant. — ENOAH

I agree, but you are wrong. You are wrong because that is NOT the contrary of what I stated and you loaded your submission with that assertion.

The contrary of my statement you responded to is that the left and the right DO NOT have vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. But they do. And by the way it's OBVIOUS I mean an immoral interest, not a moral one.

For the left and right TO EXIST at all is immoral. There should be only moral balance. So, you cannot should halfway. If you start with the perfect moral shoulds, there should be no left and no right, let alone each of these 'teams of delusion' working for their side only, which is what happens.

Not a single idea on these pages is original. — ENOAH

I disagree. I think many of mine are.

I am responsible for contributing to the crimes of anyone who has crossed my path or heard my speech. How's that for burden and not comfort? We want to impose freedom on the individual to avoid the reality that History is one mind, a process interacting. — ENOAH

And yet that is the moral task: to rise above our state and aim at perfection, REGARDLESS of the difficulty. The infinite power of choice and the PERFECT balance of free will make this possible all underpinned by objective morality. ANY OTHER state would collapse into ruin immediately.

Granted we are all one. Granted we are all responsible for the actions of all of us. We can attend the delusion of separation at any scope and there is diminishment. But, we cannot escape then the impression that since fear exists, and separation is plausible and entertained as a notion, that it has a function to join with the other functions of unity and motivation. In other words, AS LONG AS you reunify for the final, you may consider the contributions of each part in that unity. That means the contribution of the individually scoped CHOOSER matters and can be judged separately than the whole, as long as we admit the whole is the final perfection. This means individual blame also matters as contributory.

The complexity of getting around the logic that I am not free but yet an actor in a system with a "burden," should not have to be (but because of the progression of western thought to date, is) a reason to reject that. — ENOAH

The rejection is immoral. It is caused by each of the three emotions in specific ways, fear-cowardice, anger-laziness, and desire-self-indulgence. That is all.

All words like 'complexity' or 'confusion', etc are there because we are unequal to the will to be perfect to use our infinite choice to transcend our state that we are deluded to believe is 'hard'. It FEELS so hard because we make it hard on ourselves. The more of us that resonate their goodness more, the more the rest will feel it and join in. Of course at some point in this process the TERROR of not measuring up or being able to choose well will erode the progress towards perfection even more. A moral act is the single hardest act a person can choose.

But in spite of the restrictions superimposed by logic, I'll try to state it in simple words. How do we fulfill our duty to the system if we have no freedom to choose? — ENOAH

I mean, it sounds like you believe that subjective nonsense?! Do you?

Tragic answer is the system is making that happen. For e.g. when ideas like these are shared. Ignore that. It cannot be expressed. It's like knowing the ego is not what you think it is, yet you are that ego thinking it isn't or is. It's impossible to discuss. And I anticipate your rebuttal but I won't sacrifice honesty and what you might help me bring to light, so have at it. — ENOAH

I very much detest the type 4 delusion of the need to be special. I have a super strong type 4 vector. It is my second highest personality trait in the Enneagram. So I can say that with some understanding and impunity. But that type is the source of the immoral feeling that 'you can't know this because only I experienced it' bovine poo. That is incorrect. We are all one. We are connected despite immoral denial. We DO experience that SAME thing. Even rape victims are wrong to separate themselves or attach only to other such victims as a 'precious' thing. They make their suffering like the One Ring is to Gollum. The thing he should discard, he keeps as precious. OK, do it! It will rankle your happiness until you make the right choice and discard it willingly, never seeking it again, that feeling of being so special that you are separate from all as well. You are damaged goods, born bad, a cursed entity. It's so tiresome. Drama ... The tragic-romantic type is aptly nicknamed.

I ran out of steam and must sleep!

We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. — Patterner

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial

Animals, including insects, faced the possibility of criminal charges for several centuries across many parts of Europe. The earliest extant record of an animal trial is often assumed to be found in the execution of a pig in 1266 at Fontenay-aux-Roses.[2] Newer research, however, suggests that this reading might be mistaken and no trial took place in that particular incident.[3] Notwithstanding this controversy, such trials remained part of several legal systems until the 18th century. Animal defendants appeared before both church and secular courts, and the offences alleged against them ranged from murder to criminal damage. Human witnesses were often heard, and in ecclesiastical courts the animals were routinely provided with lawyers (this was not the case in secular courts, but for most of the period concerned, neither were human defendants). If convicted, it was usual for an animal to be executed or exiled. However, in 1750, a female donkey was acquitted of charges of bestiality due to witnesses to the animal's virtue and good behaviour while her co-accused human was sentenced to death.

It’s a source-hood argument. If his action is not determined by anything else, how is it compatible with determinism? — NOS4A2

I don't think you've quite groked what I'm using to object** - It says nothing about hte 'reality' that it seems indeterminate. The point being, that you feel the source of your decision is internal (in the sense that it is world-independent) has nothing to do with what's actually going on.

Which, obviously, on the contrary account it is, in fact determined and cannot be otherwise. This would be to deny causal relations entirely. If they hold, they hold. All actions/events have prior causes. If you're suggesting that an agent is able to conjure ex-nihilo motivation to act out of literal thin air (in fact, out of Ether) i'm finding that hard to grok. It leads to absurd notions like acting out a reactive behaviour you have not been caused to have. We, generally, call these breaks downs in causality mental illness (though, you'll not this does not change the causal relationship qua relationship, merely qua resulting behaviour - a misfire, as it were, on the causal basis).

Is the suggestion that there's some further fact about decision-making that separates it from the physical facts underlying the brain and body?

** if you in fact have understood this, and your response was the all the same, I'm unsure where to go. That seems to ignore the objection.

Trouble is, you don't know what you will do next. That's the case, even if what you do is already determined.

So the question remains, what will you do?

Fatalism and nihilism are of no help here. — Banno

In certain contexts, they can have a psychologically soothing effect, releasing brain capacity, thus lending to action.



Katsumoto : You believe a man can change his destiny?
Algren : I think a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed.

That's amazing! Holy cow!

Is there some other cause besides you that raised your arm? As I mentioned, the determinist ought to be able to say what else besides the agent caused his action. If you’re saying the agent who he was 1 second ago caused the action, then so much the better. The anterior state to the agent is still the agent.

[There’s no point in "going along with it" because it sounds intriguing. Is it compelling? Please indulge me. It is something I need to understand before I settle upon it, continue to play with it, or defer it indefinitely. I prefer settling. But I respect your time and appreciate the agony you felt pushing through until sleep pinned you. So please take your time.] that is, should you wish to reply]

I thought I already gave YOU the rundown. — Chet Hawkins

Thank you. You did. But I am as yet far from having mastered it. And anyway, I wanted to see how it ties in specifically here. Sorry if I seem to be exploiting.]

the real nature of reality is trinary, between these three emotions. — Chet Hawkins

"Emotions": are you entertaining any version of universal awareness/consciousness, then, at the root of/the source or essence of reality?

These balances are laws of nature.[/quote


So, if not universal consciousness, is it that you are using the word "emotion" (which triggers associations with consciousness) because that is the "word" available. But I need to look at it from the source--Laws of Nature. The triad (more like trinity, as they are three "forces" in one?) are not literally "emotional" but are the Laws which ultimately manifested in us as these three emotions (right?).

— Chet Hawkins

these are emotions, the working parts of moral or immoral choice. — Chet Hawkins

EDIT: The middle of this is my reply; not your quote. I cannot fix it.

Oh. OK. Choice functions as these (so called) emotions? The triad is both what structures moral choice (noumenally?) independent of human mind/existence; and its (moral choice's) function?

You'll likely answer as we proceed. But why must it be the Laws of Nature? Im ready to settle on that these three structure and move choice But isn't it just as possible that these are the Laws of human Mind? I won't argue the point. My intent is to understand yours. But when I offer alternatives as I just did, these are where I need better comprehension or more convincing.

How does morality relate then to natural law, to physics? — Chet Hawkins

I should've read on.

PERFECT balance — Chet Hawkins

Ok. I've referred to the expression of your ideas as poetic. Now I am fully confident having read the overall structures of your insughts that there are layers upon layers of complexity which led to the projection into the world in its poetic seeming form. Yes that aspect draws me in. But in this paragraph I respectfully say either the poetry is so distracting that I am missing the how-we-got-there; or you're describing it only poetically. Because--I repeat, I know you have reasoned the laws and dynamics--what I'm reading sounds like epic mythology: in the beginning the forces of desire and fear battled it out and anger emerged to balance the two and all of our current morality are projections of that battle etc.

I'm wondering, is it actually that? Out of Being emerged these actual emotions?

If so, would it not make even more (not equal) sense to say that out of human language emerged these now dynamic and law following emotions which form the basis of human moral choice? Why bother even looking for parallels in physics. And as for order and time, I say damn right these too emerged out of human Mind and only for human mind. But again, not now.

What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free?
— ENOAH
That makes no sense. It is either free or not. There is no in between. — Chet Hawkins

Off topic of understanding your hypotheses (who knows, topic might shift if you raise further questions) but to be concise.

An in-between is choice itself is a "final" (for that event effecting the choice) mevanism in a process which runs not by the free wilfully movements of a central being (I.e. the so called self), but runs autonomously in accordance with evolved and well tread laws and dynamics. The end result is the function of the countless triggers which got it there. Like Dominoes falling. But unle dominoes no body set them up, each trigger is the result of a preceding trigger right up to the so called final settlement at belief, and in many cases belief is also choice. Choice then triggers the body to feel and to act. There was no free will, but there was also nothing pre-determined. In between.

People WANT to believe that morality is subjective because then they do not have to own up to truth. — Chet Hawkins

I am genuinely surprised at how often variations of that have popped up. I think there might be value in psychoanalysis for the roots of philosophies. But not as an argument against in this way. I could say people want free will to be true because their ego's are terrified at the thought of its own futility (the accurate view us, BTW, not that the ego is futile. It serves a function. Just not the one our Narratives have brought it to, I.e. not the center of being).

Inanimate' matter is NOT inanimate. It is choosing. — Chet Hawkins

See? I love the sound of that. And God! I want to be convinced. But I still believe choice evolved etc


.

And we have REAL evidence. The genuine happiness that is a consequence of a BETTER step towards wisdom and morality exists and is demonstrable in every case — Chet Hawkins

And I say, briefly, the happiness is not some ontological real pre existing force. It is a result of the right choice (right defined by convention, learned by trial and error, conditioned response) triggering happy feelings. Then why choose immoral? Because by the same process they trigger other feelings, power or pleasure related feelings. And that individual was constructed to trigger such feelings. It was written on her "soul" She had no choice. But not fatalism nor nihilism. If some series of triggers came along and fit just right, she might choose happiness over power in the future.


I'm going to stop here and read the rest of your post. Again, thank you.

The existence of the stability and the limit conditions on each emotion combine to make all other models or ideas, including the one you just offered, impossible. — Chet Hawkins

Ok. Please, how? Not just the one I proposed. How does it close the book on everything?

For the left and right TO EXIST at all is immoral. There should be only moral balance. So, you cannot should halfway. If you start with the perfect moral shoulds, there should be no left and no right, let alone each of these 'teams of delusion' working for their side only, which is what happens. — Chet Hawkins

And (not having reflected deeply on it) this is not the sort of thing I need convincing. What I still cannot comprehend is why that statement must be true pre-human existence; why it is absolute, a law of nature. But I'm going to re-read.

Not a single idea on these pages is original.
— ENOAH
I disagree. I think many of mine are. — Chet Hawkins

You may be thinking relatively. What I mean is that you did not simply learn English literacy, reflect, and come up with these ideas.

It is caused by each of the three emotions in specific ways, fear-cowardice, anger-laziness, and desire-self-indulgence. That is all. — Chet Hawkins

I'm grinning admiringly at your "That is all"
I sense you might not even mean that is all for moral choice, but maybe for the structure and movement of reality. Why? Even if you were accurately describing the mechanisms at play in moral choice, why are they not functioning within a (for lack) "greater" system?


"

sounds like you believe that subjective nonsense?! Do you? — Chet Hawkins

What you were referring to was my recognition of a contradiction in my current leaning. That is, if choices are the result of autonomous processes of cause and effect (triggers) and yet, I recognize that within that system we yet have a duty to act morally. How? My answer was that the duty and the actions in accordance therewith are also movements within that system. And I admit as of yet I cannot articulate further. But in another thread I reached a belief that certain paradoxes might be the result of having reached the boundaries of the system and at a precipice of truth.

I very much detest the type 4 delusion of the need to be special. — Chet Hawkins

Ok it's good I have the chance to clarify. I didn't mean people sharing in this forum as a class. I mean, in response to my self posed question--what triggers us to duty and responsibility if not having a good moral nature-- and i say the mechanism which leads us to make moral choices comes to us from others who simply share the right statement at the right time and it fits (like people sharing statements here. I may read something which triggers me in a certain direction not even intended by the writer).

Is there some other cause besides you that raised your arm? — NOS4A2

You'll notice, upon any amount of reflection, you've stated an effect and asked there's a different 'cause'. So, I could leave off here. But..

If you’re saying the agent who he was 1 second ago caused the action, then so much the better. The anterior state to the agent is still the agent. — NOS4A2

I'm not, though I understand the objection I think it fails the first hurdle: You have to have a further fact view about hte agent for this to be coherent. Unless you can delineate out hte agent from 'its' prior causes, we have no discussion. Do causes go 'into' an agent, and then die? Leaving the agent at it's own whim? This seems absurd unless you're using theology to explain it. What happens to these causes? Are their effect non-existent qua conscious motivator?? It doesn't seem to me open to claim causation is real, but doesn't effect conscious agents.

You can give me any example you like. Does anything else in the universe determine an agent’s actions? What prior causes? What causes are you speaking of that go into an agent and determine his actions?

What causes are you speaking of that go into an agent and determine his actions? — NOS4A2

I've posed you several questions. I await thsoe answers before embarking on another avenue.

I’ll just reiterate the point to which you replied. So far no determinist has shown that any act or choice was determined by anything else, and until that happens I cannot follow it.

I note you have not replied to any of my objections to that very point.

Again, I understand the objection. But your position is entirely incoherent and unless you are happy to bite the bullets i've outlined, Why would I take it seriously as your position? Do you bite those bullets, or are you just having a stab at a theory?

Unless you bite the bullet that an agent is something other than a collection of causes and effects, I'm not interested. If you don't bite that bullet, your position isn't even available to you despite your discomfort.