I don't believe in mysticism. I don't believe in a concept of "supernatural". As far as I'm concerned, if there are ghosts, then it's perfectly natural for them to be there. If there is a God, then it's perfectly natural for there to be a God.
Heh, in a "potential" universe with God's existence, it would be supernatural for that God not to exist.
It is what it is. I'm just trying to see it for what it is rather than what I want it to be.

Code points to a concept, but it is not the concept. The letters L-O-S A-N-G-E-L-E-S are not the same thing as a mega metropolis on the western coast of the United States.
Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of thought.
A DVD or MPeg4 is not "Sunday Bloody Sunday". That concept we call "Sunday Bloody Sunday" may be represented and pointed to in many different ways... sheet music, vinyl grooves, magnetic tape, binary, color coded, smoke signals... it can even be codified into touch sensation. Many different mediums all pointing to the same concept of "Sunday Bloody Sunday".
As well, U2 sells 10 million records... all pointing to the same concept. They didn't sell 10 million concepts. They sold 10 million different records all designed to communicate 1 single concept. A concept from 1 single mind.

In this discussion, I'm using the term concept and thought synonymously. Code manifests upon the rails of conceptualization. Code manifests upon the process of thinking. The codification of thought is the process of thinking. The codification of concept is the process of conceptualization.

Not at all. Concept is a gift of creation, for all concepts are created. The more an entity has the capacity for language bearing faculties, the more greater the ability to create abstract conceptualization... thinking.

... truth and motive are inseparable...

The Ugly Truth is often feared.

...man is the animal who names...

That, is what makes him a man, and not an animal. The capacity for abstract representation is the profit of Gods, the very forbidden fruit that we were warned about. Our eyes have been opened, to see as God sees, just as Satan said it would be.

That, is what makes him a man, and not an animal. The capacity for abstract representation is the profit of Gods, the very forbidden fruit that we were warned about. Our eyes have been opened, to see as God sees, just as Satan said it would be.

I have heard it was called, DNA. But you know, of course, that all men are animals. If you mean what makes them the species, homo erectus, the answer is, DNA. If you mean, what makes him, as we say, a human being, the answer is, his capacity for language, and his remarkable ability to draw inferences: that is, to reason.

I pretty much agree, except there is a passion in reason that drives it, something like a meta-ideal, some form of religion, however critical. It's the least carnal drive, or the counter-carnal drive. Although it's source is presumably carnal, humans die for it --which I say counter-carnal or pseudo-counter-carnal..... or that's the "conceptual poetry" I'm floating at the moment. To name it is to distance one's self from it. Naming is also a form of negation? Different thread...

I have heard it was called, DNA.

But you know, of course, that all men are animals.

If you mean what makes them the species, homo erectus, the answer is, DNA. If you mean, what makes him, as we say, a human being, the answer is, his capacity for language, and his remarkable ability to draw inferences: that is, to reason.

Says you: "what makes him, as we say, a human being, the answer is, his capacity for language..."
Thus after the first TDM, humans become the New Determiner, exercising their innate ability to author New Code, to create, to express their very own Thoughtful Deterministic Meaning into physical reality... to become like Gods. We author The New Meaning of Life with every breath we speak. The original Meaning was Determined as Us. The New Meaning is whatever we Determine worthy of Codification.

Juicy stuff.

I believe strongly that there is a very real dichotomy between reality and the world of our experience. Both sides of this dichotomy are true in their own ways. Consider matter briefly. The world of our experience tells us that when we sit down in a chair, for instance, that said chair is solid. There is no worry that we will fall through the chair to the ground (which I suppose in turn could be fallen through to the core of the earth). However, quantum physics says that however remote the possibility that this could happen. The reality of matter is that it is 99.99999999% empty space. The same could be said about free will. Just like we have the illusion of solid matter, we have in this world of our experience the illusion of free will. I want to make this point very clear though, just because free will is an illusion doesn't mean you need to give in to apathy and nihilism. In fact, I have found the complete opposite in my life. I'll talk about that a little bit later. The point I want to get across here is that just because free will only exists in the realm of our experience doesn't mean that it's any less true. ... See More

That being said, I want to look at an idea that I think is the core of the rejection of determinism in most people. I think most people crave control. They want to feel like they are in control of themselves and the situations around them. How could this be a bad thing most people would ask. I feel strongly that this is one of the greatest barriers to true happiness. If you look at the act of trying to change something to fit your view of how things should be, you will see what you're really thinking is that things aren't good enough how they stand. As Tyler pointed out, you are never in control of everything around you. Thus, there is always something that could be better. I have found that most people live their lives regretting things in the past or looking forward to the vague possibility that something is going to come along in the future that will finally make them happy. The problem with this mentality is that ultimately they miss the only thing we really have, the knife edge of experience. By living in the past or future they miss the beauty of the moment that is reality as we know it.

Well then, we're back to apathy at very least. If the moment is good enough as is, then there is no ambition to change anything. I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. As I look at my personal view of the world, there is no question in my mind that we can be better both personally and as a society. I would say that I have a big picture view of how we can be better, but I have an understanding that things that happen to me on a small scale day to day basis would happen no matter what. In this way I'm able to focus all my time, talents, energy, and emotion into working the make the future I want to see a reality instead of focusing it on the muck of human drama.

I'll leave the question open as to Soft VS Hard Determinism but I want this thread to discuss how we should approach moral law, and judgment of im/moral behaviour, knowing that human (or any physical being's) behaviour is caused.
Whether that causation is found in the brain, social influence, physiological state or whereever else is irrelavent. You can try to argue for Freewill (libertarianism) if you must but it will have to be a brilliant argument because not only have I no idea how we could have Freewill, but neither does the concept even make sense.

It seems difficult to judge one act right or wrong if we are determined (even if we can judge it good or bad easily enough) and it also seems difficult to decide how WE should behave outside of some objective moral law (which I say no reason to believe in) to which we can respond (which we can't if we are determined).


I only think now - though I hope this thread will make me revise my thoughts - that we should be very sympathetic with criminals and 'immoral' people. Yes punish them if for the sake of improving them or protecting other people but I think we must not actually think "he's evil".

I think some of you missed the point of this thread: it is meant to start from the assumption that Freewill doesn't really exist.
(No Quantum Indetermenency, even if it is true, would not disprove Determinism at least in the moral sence. Ok some of your behaviour may be indetermined; but that does not lead to Freewill, at best it leads to random behaviour which, while not determined by physical laws, is nonetheless out of your control).
...

If determinism is true, then I suppose we are in the same position we have always been. Those who are apathetic will remain apathetic, and the unapathetic will remain unapathetic. I don't see why determinism implies apathy. You may be confusing determinism with fatalism which does seem to imply apathy.

I'll leave the question open as to Soft VS Hard Determinism but I want this thread to discuss how we should approach moral law, and judgment of im/moral behaviour, knowing that human (or any physical being's) behaviour is caused.
Whether that causation is found in the brain, social influence, physiological state or whereever else is irrelavent. You can try to argue for Freewill (libertarianism) if you must but it will have to be a brilliant argument because not only have I no idea how we could have Freewill, but neither does the concept even make sense.

It seems difficult to judge one act right or wrong if we are determined (even if we can judge it good or bad easily enough) and it also seems difficult to decide how WE should behave outside of some objective moral law (which I say no reason to believe in) to which we can respond (which we can't if we are determined).


I only think now - though I hope this thread will make me revise my thoughts - that we should be very sympathetic with criminals and 'immoral' people. Yes punish them if for the sake of improving them or protecting other people but I think we must not actually think "he's evil".