Demitri

While I'm not positive where the idea of determinism actually stems from originally, I do know that many religions believe God is all-knowing. Some even tout phrases like, "God has a plan for you". Religious people have a problem if they truly believe in what free will means because if you truly have free will, then that means God can't know ahead of time what choice you will make and still retain the title of being all-knowing. So either determinism is true and God is all-knowing and there is no free will (and therefore no ability to take credit for anything you or others do, as well as no responsibility for anything)... which would also mean that the very idea of salvation would also be a big fat lie too... because if there is no free will, then there aren't any choices, and so we can't be responsible for anything we do, and therefore couldn't be "sinners"... (No matter how you look at this, religious doctrine implodes.) ... or free will is true and God is not all-knowing (and therefore people are acountable for their actions, and should take responsibility for the things they say and do). It truly is a catch-22 for religions that believe in an all-knowing God and the need for salvation, since the two concepts are really mutually exclusive. There is also the scientific school of deterministic thought (aka: Laplace's Demon) which believes the universe and everything in it is like one giant machine. This idea is based on the concept that if you could know the precise position, direction of movement, speed, and quality of every atom in the universe, it would be possible to calculate exactly where every atom would be 10 minutes or 100 years later. The position is summed up in Laplace's own words: "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes." ~ Pierre Simon Laplace This should highlight that Laplace is actually trying to use scientific words to rationalize an all-knowing God. However, in Laplace's theoretical universe, there must exist no interference beyond the strictly physical, which means consciousness could not exist in such a universe. So consciousness and Laplace's Demon are mutually exclusive - Acknowledging one is the same as saying the other is not true. Any form of determinism has this same mutual exclusivity. (In the magical religious thinking some claim consciousness and determinism both exist - but that would mean consciousness is impotent.) So because either consciousness does not exist (or is impotent) and determinism is true , or consciousness does exist and free will is true. This mutual exclusivity is why Stefan says determinism is not a topic for philosophy. No consciousness means no thought; no thought leaves no means to philosophize. As for whether or not it is a popular concept, it is popular among religious people. Many religious people don't even realize they are trying to accept both free will and determinism as both being valid until they begin having discussions about the validity of their God's all-knowing status. When it comes to this point, there are too many things which are mutually exclusive. In light of them the only way they can continue to believe in the religious views of God is to either not understand what is said or to cling to religiously taught impossibilities as truth because the personal feeling of life-long betrayal by religious organizations is too much to bear. I hope that makes sense as to who believes in determinism and why. Cheers! ~Demitri

I agree. However most issues of definition like this aren't with a word I am using, but with the definition of a word someone else is using as they attempt to explain something.Many times the problem gets worse if I ask them to explain without the word that is causing the problem, because they refuse to. As for why they refuse to, I can speculate, but I don't see how that would help the actual issue.

Darkskyabove: You just drove home the end of all doubts concerning this debate (for me) in expert fashion. Well done. I now hold no thoughts or ideas that the ban on determinism should be lifted, as the principles I thought were conflicted have now been proven not to conflict, but were instead due to a misunderstanding on my part. Oh how I wish more argued like this; actually addressing the points instead of re-hashing the same stuff over and over, hoping to throw enough out there that something sticks. STer: There are some things I agree with in what you said, but much I do not agree with. To answer your question above: No, I would not accept that reasoning, as it did not address the points I was talking about. NathanM: The injection of a deterministic statement right then was classic, and made me laugh. Thanks for that addition of humor, it was great! [Edit: Removed comment to Nate, as I made a mistake and was attributing the nonsense Joseito said to him. My mistake, sorry.]

Darkskyabove: I agree with your sentiment about explaining my position without using an otherwise controversial label. However, my problem only comes when others use a term to mean one thing, and I have a different definition from them. This causes a break in the clear communication, and can cause problems since we then have two different understandings of what is being talked about.This is especially true when I am not aware that a particular term is controversial. So when I hear a term being used in a way that does not make sense to me based on how I understand it (usually according to the dictionary definition), conversations such as this one begin.Does that make sense?

I was under the impression it was donations from your audience that pays for the board. Shall I change that understanding? The best response to my actual questions regarding my point has been from Nate when he mentioned the contractual agreement when joining this board. Upon consideration of this singular point (and only this point), I concede my view about banning that topic.

Well thanks for your time and effort Nate. I'll keep in mind the things you have shared, summed up as, "It's Stef's house, so shut up." At least there was some value in the talk about entering into contract and so on... Cheers!

To all of what you just said I can say only three things: 1> Thank you for taking the time to write all of that. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have done so. 2> I think you're WAY off base. I'm only talking about principles and getting a handle on where the line is drawn when it comes to the free market and the principles around it. 3> I believe you have a valid point about the contract to join, and the agreement made not to discuss a certain topic. This line of reasoning is closer to the kind of discussion I was looking to have on this matter. Perhaps we can move this forward by focusing on the actual points I'm talking about instead of resorting to various forms of repeating the mantra of, "It's Stef's house"

Please enlighten me where I have violated that contract.

Time and again I have stated I have no desire to talk about determinism. Determinism is false and I agree with Stef that it really is a load of hogwash. The very point of philosophy is to search for truth and to then live by those truths. This also means not backing down because a view about what is believed to be true is questioned, or unapproved by the majority. I did not come here because I seek to part of the cool kids gang; I came here because I respect Stef and the fact that he has made a place to discuss things exactly like this. I am well aware this is Stef's site and can do what he wishes. Was there somewhere that I was being disrespectful? Perhaps you believe that questioning a decision is disrespectful? If so, then you can you think of any decisions made by others that you wouldn't question due to not wanting to be disrespectful?

So I can do with my post whatever the hell I want, yes? So if I'm not violating anyone with my post (by forcing others to read it, or intentionally being infammatory), but I talk about things which have been deemed not allowed... Then I should be forcibly removed from the community... Is that what you are advocating?

NateForLiberty, the points you made are valid in the context you are using them, but have little to do with the context I was addressing. My standpoint really has nothing to do with the what the ban is about, or whether the free market should apply to personal property. It was only about whether or not laying down an edict (with accompanying negative consequences for disobedience) was in keeping with the principles that Stef advocates (the principles upon which the free market is based), by asking if those principles apply universally for Stef. I am against the idea of any ban here (specifically here) because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and it's principles (which I fully agree with), and I believe in leading by example (as I am fairly certain Stef does). A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles.This is what I hope to have comment and discussion about.

I fully agree with you. I disagree with Wikipedia and with what has become the now-common use of the word altruism. I think it is a deliberate bastardization of the concept the word was meant to convey; bastardized by religions into their form of morality. This bastardized concept of altruism is where Joseito's entire argument stems from, so I agree completely with you. Since my definition of altrusim is obviously different from the bastardized religious concept used around here (as expertly demonstrated above; thank you, Joseito), I am going to leave this debate where it is. I said what I meant to say already, and have no desire to re-hash it. As Xelent mentioned, there is an on-going larger debate about the definition of altruism. To summarize my understanding: What I understand altruism to be is unselfish action which benefits others, but does not require self-sacrafice. To me, an example of true altruism would be a child giving a gift "from the goodness of their heart" to someone in the form of a picked flower. It is not self-sacraficial, demanded, coerced, or expectant of anything other than a small measure of appreciation (a smile, or "thank you", etc) in any way, but it is unselfish and done for the benefit of another. Understanding any meaning for the word 'altruism' that does not apply to this example, is part of the bastardized version. That is my view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dysphoria What you said gender dysphoria means, is partially true. It does mean those things. However, it does not exhibit itself as ONLY those things. This is where your logic fails. You said, " I just get tired of people feigning empathy for me, Because they don't really understand it, And treat me in ways I don't like because of it." Has it occured to you that people treat you in response to how you treat them?

A review of prior postings might reveal that the gun is held by the "determinists". The so-called ban against determinism is a straw man. Numerous threads have been created to broach the topic. AFAIK, every one of them has degenerated, with little useful discussion. What I have read can be summarized as "You've banned determinism, therefore, determinism must be right." Not once have I read a "determinist" answering a direct question. I've even put forth the apples and oranges position: that determinism, though possibly applicable to chemistry and physics, does not leap into the arena of the human mind. No response. I do understand the frustration of seeing that a "certain" topic is banned from a philosophy forum, but I will counter with this: It's good to have an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out. Not sure what to make of all this. I'm not even close to being a determinist, nor do I want the topic unbanned so I can talk about it. Also, I'm not frustrated by the ban either. My argument is purely about principles and staying true to them. If the free market is valid (which I believe it is), then a business that provides no value to anyone cannot, and will not, survive. The market itself will shut it down instead of governance. Likewise, if a topic provides no value to anyone it cannot, and will not, continue being discussed; also without the need for governance. Whether or not a business in the free market has value, is not determined by one person, or even a governance of persons. It is likewise not determined by the validity of the product. The value of a business in the free market is determined only by the market that continues it. I am against this ban because it is consistent with belief in the validity of the free market to be against it.

If I wish to discuss determinism here (which I really don't, since determinism is completely incorrect - thus, I'm only talking principle), would I meet with negative consequences for doing so? Somehow I find it difficult too equate "No, I don't want to go out with you" with "Dont talk about this, or else".Had I not used the line about the gun in the forum room, would your response have been blank? It was the most provacative part of what I said, for certain; but it was the least important part of everything I said. Does nothing else deserve comment?