« Happy Thanksgiving. I'm thankful for this great atheist message from John. | Main | Why do we exist? (I attempt an answer) »

November 25, 2023


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

When humans live in nature and something acts "aggressive" towards us then it is important to know:

[1] is the aggression directed to the Unique variation of being human
[2] is the aggression directed to the sameness of being human = all humans

Survival instincts and conditioning will instruct us what to do in either case.

What is attributed value and meaning as aggressive, can be the sound of a rooster in the morning , mosquito's or a grizzly bear

In Nature we know what to do based on our survival instincts.

In Culture, the artificial replica of nature, we also have "roosters" "mosquitoes", and "grizzly bears" and we do the same but there we can and have to differentiate between [1] and [2] based upon INTENT. ....

So if somebody finds his death at the hand of another person, the court will try to find out the INTENT in order to decide the severity of penalty ..there are some 5 degrees. ..but in ALL degrees the death person does not come alive.

If one gets irritated by a person, and many others react in the same way, then that person becomes known for it.

If however that person is not known to act in such a way, and we still feel irritated, there are several scenarios possible:

[1] the person has the intent to act so and we feel it that way
[2] the person has the intent to act so and we do not feel it that way
[3] the person has not the intent to act so and we do not feel it that way
[4] the person has not the intent to act so and still we feel he does.

We HAVE TO attribute value and meaning in order to survive nature and culture, and yes we often do it wih the "wrong" intent....making others responsible for the feelings we generated outselves.

YOU make me happy
YOU irritated me

IF YOU would love me, you would do or not do what you do..

OR ...

every human being is DETERMINED to survive, in nature and in his own creation society and culture

He will act accordingly due to DETERMINED conditioning, and reap the consequences based upon laws of nature, cause and effect

He is determined to make free choices.

This attribute of making free choices is part of his determination.

This morning I happened to listen to a opinion programm on the outcome of the Dutch election that gave a majority to the partry of our own, Trump, Michelle Le pen etc that has caused a shock to the [left wing] elite, ruling class.

One of the participants was asked for his opinion based upon his translation of Orwell's notes on Nationalism.

Nationalism can easily be translated in to identification or SELF-DETERMINATION

I am not going to read it, I have heard enough, but the article may be a pleasure for those here that cannot have enough of reading what OTHERS have to say. ..forgetting their own determined selection for writers and books. and subjects. .. me too ... hahaha

When one researches the many aspects of the free will/determinist argument, a whole host of terms with their definitions emerge. Terms like determinism, hard determinism, compatibilism, soft compatibilism and of course, free will etc., all vying for prominence. And, it is of course useful and perhaps necessary to consider what science has discovered and continues to discover about the nature of how we make choices. And by choice, I mean our mental choices rather than the instinctive choices determined by our physiology.

I have no doubt that we do make choices though not free will, for to have classic free will requires us to house a separate, autonomous entity, something unaffected by our brain/body organism. The only conclusion as far as I can ascertain is that the everyday choices we make (that are confused with having free will) are derived from our accrued wealth of information, experience and knowledge.

Doing away (temporarily) with the terms and explanations of how we make choices, and to see the process for ourselves, it seems pretty clear to me that any such choices made have to come from the existing ‘store’ of info. I cannot make any choice that is outside my sphere of information.

Even anti-social or criminal acts have their origins in the way a person thinks and views the world in the shadow of the way such views and thinking were formulated. Someone brought up in an abusive environment may, depending on many factors (including genetics and physiology) either grow up repressed and be blocked or rise above such conditioning to become successful.

All-in-all, choices happen and are real but are limited within the bounds of our genes, physiology and psychology. As other new information is experienced, they become part of our repertoire and help increase our range of choices, though again, those new choices become incorporated into the total mind/body repository negating anything we might believe is free will.

>> I have no doubt that we do make choices though not free will, for to have classic free will requires us to house a separate, autonomous entity, something unaffected by our brain/body organism<<

Unaffected by
something that USES that entity.

I can imagine that "I" drive the car and that I am not driven by the car, although from a distances it might look so..

I cannot see if an law officer finding a transgression of law writes a fine in order to keep order, to abey the law ...OR .... he USES that law and others transgresio0n of that law to act out an power game with his fellow humanbeings.

Based on the dictum of grandma

You can see heads you never can look INTO them.

Or Those that like to be kind to someone can chose to bring flowers, but not allo that bring flowers do so to be4 kind to one.

In short ... the door, the window, the space can only be available by the walls
Some think that thgese things are CREATED by the wallo others think different

The only paragraph that matters:

To [Sapolsky's] exasperation, though, many sophisticates are skeptical about free-will skepticism. In a 2020 survey of academic philosophers, some sixty per cent of them—a strikingly large majority in a profession allergic to consensus—didn’t agree that determinism ruled out freedom. "

I keep trying to explain to the author that there's a difference between hard and soft determinism. Yes, he's correct that most philosophers are determinists. But most philosophers are not hard (not "hardcore") determinist a la' Sapolosky.

Geex, even Charan Singh was a determinist. in Light on St. Matthew, Charan explains that we have "practically no free will."

But please stop telling us (as you do in your 2nd paragraph) that hard determinism is settled science. For the 10th time, it fucking isn't.

@ Sant 64

What else to expect?

In the 70 the wind blew direction east.
That lasted for 2 decades or so.
Now the wind blows west again,.
No more Indian musicians, no gurus visiting the west, no new age bookshops etc.
When the wind will turn other direction, they will turn in that direction.

Nobody wants to be a loser or seen as a loser.

atheism and detwerminism and "science" are the flags to walk behind and be seen as "winner"

There hardly passes a week in this country in which not a church is closed and sold.
The clergy has lost its powers in the world and so the masses do no longer turn to them nor to the one they said to represent.

As people need a substitution one turns to scientists [ the new gods] and those that represent science in the public the new priests and mental counselors.

They will be left behind one too.

Why ...

Most people have never had interest in the divine nor in science .. they are just interested in their own affairs and they will follow whomever seems to be able to deliver that help

AI wil be the new spiritual and scientific god and in listening to it they will lose whatever little personal freedom they had .. it will suck out the last drops of mental power, power that was given as a birthright ro stand on ones own legs and and given that treasure to look after themselves in their own way ..they will become slaves and not even be aware of it.

Real mystics, scientists do not seek help ... they GIVE from themselves. and in doing so they are free humanj beings.

Sant64, I have trouble understanding what hard and soft determinism mean to you. Is soft determinism compatibilism? If so, compatibilism doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can explain your viewpoint on this.

Um. “Unaffected by – or – something that USES that entity.” etc., etc.

Sounds like you’re making a case for free will which as you know is the notional capacity or ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. And classically, unimpeded here means we humans have something soul-like that can make choices that are unimpeded by our biological and mental attributes. The only ‘entity’ we have as far as I’m concerned (and much of science) is a brain, which one could say is ‘used’ by all that is presented to it by its environment – basically to live and survive.

Sant64. As I mentioned earlier: *“All-in-all, choices happen and are real but are limited within the bounds of our genes, physiology and psychology. As other new information is experienced, they become part of our repertoire and help increase our range of choices, though again, those new choices become incorporated into the total mind/body repository. . .” *

*That basically describes our choices. Anything more is placed under the heading of free will and to have free will necessitates a disembodied, autonomous, independent entity – such as a soul. And in the observable way that nature works, our predictive brain/body organism works amazingly well without any ‘super’ natural add-ons.

@ Ron

In a sense I indeed do.
Just keeping the door open so to say.

But in case of "using" ...it is certainly not within the reach of everybody. For most of us things are as I described

Yes soul, and god can exist...CAN .. I wrote

As I have knowledge of this concept only based upon "hearsay" i am not in a position to take a stand.

That said even if there is a soul and a god, science will never be able to prove it as it is does not have the tools to prove it. Science has restricted itself to the touchable, and is also restricted by its instruments and the human mental capacity to research and to understand.

Personaly I am not very much interested in what others say and write about the research and findings of scientists and mystics .. i restrict myself as much as possible to the knowledge derived from my personal experience. and base my decisions on it.

So even if I would come to the conclusion based upon my personal experience that the concepts soul and god point at an reality, i certainly would never bring it up here or share it with others as it would not fit their worldview.

Many decisions and choice we make are based on our mood and mental health, which in turn are linked to out gut health. Gut health is dependent on gut microbiome (bacteria that live in our gut) balance.
Is the type of bacteria living in our determined? Are these bacteria independent beings? How do they affect our consciousness, if any?
Am I way of line in my thinking?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.