Well done. You give a very compelling argument. However, what implications does this have in your view wrt how we live our lives?

Ah. And is the proverb meant to be a normative claim or a metaphysical one?

What does “IIRC” mean?

This does not mean I am saying religious scientists can't exist. However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of things including religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion. — VoidDetector

The problem with atheistic scientists analyzing the truth value of religions is that they are usually more literal and fundamentalist about analyzing religious texts than many if not most religious believers. Instead of looking to or for the moral of a myth, legend, story, or parable (Yes, there is even Christian mythology. Only the dolts take it literally.); the atheist debunks the most literal interpretation of the text. That’s why so many atheists think the religious are stupid, or they think we are deluding ourselves. This is a mistake that religious texts can’t impart wisdom and that science alone can address all truths wrt humanity.

You can do this where the probabilities are not the result of reasoning. — Terrapin Station

I’m sure this is logically possible, but I have just never done it that I can remember. Perhaps I have some kind of deficiency because I am always driven by my mental motivators when choosing. Does anyone else here experience what Terrapin Station experiences? I’m curious to know how many of you there are.

Sure, if you already exist and have to endure certain forms of suffering to get to a "better place" mentally/socially/physically fine, but to CREATE a situation so that someone has to go through this, is suspect to me. — schopenhauer1

So when do we start banning childbirth per this view? Or have I misrepresented your stance?

I’ve grown fond of your general tolerance of opposing beliefs that you’ve shown in other threads. Are you saying that you have no good reasons to call unconscious phenomena “mental phenomena”, but you are open to it provided compelling evidence to that effect? That’s how I took you.

A sincere thanks to you, sir. I’ve given it some more thought, and I’ve realized that each of us has a perspective that I/we can learn from. It’s not about being right all the time. It’s about growing as a person, and I think this is the noblest aim of philosophizing. I have fallen short at times, but I am not perfect. Thanks again for the wake-up call. I needed that.

You seem to be implying that God creates a possibility for suffering to satisfy his own interest in having genuine rather than fake love from people. That is not something a all-benevolent God would do, in my opinion(although it could be justified if the benefit for God outweighs the harm to people done). — TheHedoMinimalist

Atheists are the biggest fundamentalists of all. Most people who believe in God as Love see Her as a Presence that can be called upon for strength, patience, hope, joy, understanding, empathy, humility, and most of all, love. Giving attributes to a Presence that is ineffable is fundamentalist language gaming.

Imagine that scientists discover a new alien species on a distant planet that cannot experience nor appreciate or desire pleasure. We shall refer to these alien beings as "X Beings". X Beings cannot comprehend the concept of pleasure because they never experienced it and do not know what's so great about it. Explaining pleasure to them is like explaining the joys of music to a deaf person. Although they cannot experience pleasure, they can still experience deprivational suffering. For example, they can't derive pleasure from eating but they suffer from hunger if they don't eat. They also cannot derive pleasure from sex but being celibate will make them experience sexual frustration. They have to engage in recreational activities to avoid boredom but they derive no pleasure from them. They also can be alleviated from stress by drinking alcohol but the alcohol isn't pleasurable to them. Given the characteristics of X Beings, my argument goes as follows:

P1: The presence of pleasure in human beings is an advantage over the absence of pleasure in X Beings.

P2: X Beings cannot be said to be deprived of pleasure because they never had a desire or appreciation for it in the first place. In addition, experiencing pleasure provides no instrumental benefit to them by alleviating deprivational or inflictional suffering. Furthermore, the absence of pleasure is necessary for an X Being to maintain its identity as an X Being(that means if a rare mutation makes a supposed X Being experience pleasure, scientists would reclassify the being as some other species rather than an X Being with good scientific justification)

C: Therefore, the presence of pleasure can be an advantage over the absence of pleasure even if there is no one for whom the absence is a deprivation.

If you reject P1, you would have to accept the counterintuitive conclusion that the presence of pleasure in human beings is in no way better than the lack of pleasure and the lack of capacity to understand pleasure in X Beings.

If you reject P2, then you would have to explain how the X Beings are being deprived of pleasure. One possible explanation is to distinguish between "feeling deprived" and "being deprived". The objection goes that although X Beings are not "feeling deprived" they are "being deprived" of pleasure nonetheless. That is because the X Beings exist and all beings that exist can be deprived of something good even if they don't appreciate it or desire it. This would demonstrate that there is a clear difference between Benetar's Scenario B and my Scenario involving X Beings; that difference being the existence of a being in my X Being Scenario but there's no being existing in Benetar's Scenario B. If this is your objection to P2, then you would have to explain why "being deprived" is bad even if there's no one "feeling deprived". — TheHedoMinimalist

The point of living shouldn't be to maximize one's own pleasure. It would be infinitely better to avoid inflicting unnecessary harm to others if maximizing their pleasure is somehow beyond one's control. One should not think that maximizing pleasure for the self is the point of life when humanity is inherently social. In no possible world could humans not be social beings without ceasing to be human. So, maximizing pleasure for the self is base and goes against humanity's need for community.

You’re being a judgmental prick.

I didn’t pay back my student loans, but that “choice” was fully determined by circumstances beyond my control. The stress of living in the ghetto where gunshots rang outside, drug deals in the parking lot outside my window, the paper-thin walls that made it impossible to differentiate outside voices from the voices inside my head; all contributed to my already fragile mind (I have schizoaffective disorder), fully determining my need to be proclaimed disabled and unable to work. In no possible universe given all of these factors as still holding true would I be able to work. So, I reject your view that “intelligible” actions are not fully determined.

I agree with what you wrote in your essay. Nice job.

Okay. My view is that our choices are fully determined by mental states (or brain states) of which we cannot be metaphysically responsible for. However, as long as one is not being coerced, then one can be said to be responsible for her choices in the conventional social sense. Take it for what it’s worth.

I’m trying to wrap my head around what you’re saying and I’m stuck on this, viz. one has an intention to go to C but one may also have an intention to not fall off a cliff. So person chooses the long route. Or the person is pressed for time so she risks the cliff. Either way, this person’s intentions are determined by her aims; which are in turn determined by beliefs, memory, mood, and whatever need that has to be satisfied (collectively, brain or mental states). So how are these intentions not determinative?

lol

You’re awesome

It seems you are giving a modified account of LFW. Compatibilists believe in determinism. They just mean by “free will” that one is not being coerced by anyone else.

Nobody feels sorry for the privileged. That’s just a fact of life.

So what?

when will one specific hated and historically quite often persecuted minority be given the right to view itself as a victim and as a persecuted minority? — ssu

When they give up at least some of their hegemonic political power.

Of course! We should all agree to that.

Who knows?

Yeah, but it involves arousal, which isn’t possible for the strictly heterosexual.

strange. I don’t get it.

lol

Very well. I just recalled a time when a man forced a kiss on me, and I swear my penis actually retracted into my abdomen. And I don’t think this man was considered unattractive by others. So, there are strictly heterosexual men. I’m repelled by gay sex. However, I do admire the gay community for their general openness.

Straight men couldn’t get it up for another man. You’re talking about bisexual men.

I suppose one could choose randomly. I just never do as far as I’m aware. Perhaps that’s my brain damage.

And the program you did ultimately choose was not fully determined by your brain states? Your memory, beliefs, mood, and particular desires at the time of choosing?

Can you give an example of a random choice you’ve made today?

What I mean by free will is that I can make choices that are like rolling dice — Terrapin Station

Does one really do this? It seems that any deliberative choice is fully determined by brain states, and the only way choices are like rolling dice is that we don’t know the consequences of our choices until later. Or maybe I just don’t understand what you’re saying.

If String Theory is true, then even quanta’s behavior is fully determined. However, String Theory is also very strange.

Leibnitz was strange, too.

Nevertheless, a possible explanation for indeterminacy is that quanta do make decisions about how to behave. — Mentalusion

That’s a very strange claim.

Are you suggesting that quanta could have LFW? I’m sure that’s not what you meant. Could you flesh out the details for the argument for LFW wrt quantum mechanics? I fail to see how the two are related.

Furthermore, a decision or choosing is nothing like the behaviors of quanta.

Then no. I don’t see how LFW makes any sense.

On further thought, perhaps a conscious mind CAN influence quanta. However, strict reductionists would call this a function of nature. If the mind simply supervenes on the material brain, then I don’t know.

It seems to me that quantum indeterminacy is a function of nature, not a function of a free agent. So no. This does not help the LFW cause.

Edit: A free agent would have to be able to consciously control quanta intentionally in order for the person to be a free “agent”.