Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Myrkhoos last won the day on October 27 2019

Myrkhoos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

204 Excellent

About Myrkhoos

  • Rank
    Strong Minded

Profile Information

  • Interests
    reading, philosophy, foreign languages
  • More About Me
    Film school graduate from Romania, wandered through monasteries, had and have some psychological problems.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I have no idea

Recent Profile Visitors

568 profile views
  1. Your definition of "self" is circular and vague. You are someone that ..It is like saying a self is yourself. You describe am unclear conglomerate of different things. If the "self" is not a clear definable thing isn't talking about free will absurd. And you conflate choice with free will. They are not the same thing in my mind. Making a choice is not the same thing as having the opportunity to do otherwise. But for the sake of clarity I will use "action" and "act". I define act and action here very broadly from the flowing of a river to the actions inside an atom. Or I may use function. You experience "actions" in my view and the name/concept "free will" comes up naturally in association because of prior causes like cultural upbringing in a mpdern western individualistic democratic culture. Again you do not get my point. You do not experience free will. You experience something and that is named "free will". I can say you experience reality therefore you experience God because I name reality "God". So you do experience God you just give it another term. You yourself use this argument when saying that people use sunrise and sun set in different ways. Plus the fact that you cannot "imagine" operating without it does not mean anything about its presence. Again similarity with theist argument. They cannot "imagine" creation or morality without God. Your lack of conceptual understanding is irrelevant like my lack of understanding of atomic physics mathematics or thai language for the reality of those fields. I also disagree that all arguments are just language games. I defined language here as just swapping words without a clearly coresponding reality behind them. In saussurian linguistic terms like speaking signifiers without the signifieds. In order to clarify please answer this question about basic assumptions. Do you think everything has a definite cause ( by this understand a chain and different sets of causes both known or unknown) ? If not, please give an example of a totally uncaused event and how that works in your view.
  2. By the way the chapter on Free will in Robert Sapolsky's book Behave seems like an useful read on the topic.
  3. You presume there is an autonomous self? And will is the ability to make choices? Well then case what if any is the diference between you and a virus? Doesn't it make choices? The christian mindset presupposes a separate self and a God. Most western atheist get rid of the second but unconsciously keep the first and even greatly expand it. A separate self is not the only way to view the world. And especially in highly individualistic rights based democracies like the modern West the ideea of the free individual is the sacred value. So it is very hard to see the water when the water is all you know. Or like the air. We breathe all the time but we hardly reflect on it. The idea of the free individual self is like this air/basic tenet imbued in lots of cultural and legal norms. But is just an assumption which usualkly but not always goes unchecked. And your choices, every choice is wholly influenced by previous factors. You eat because you are hungry and have the ability to digest and have bread in your house? Want an even simpler explanation? Everything has a cause. That is hard determinism and the basic assumption of modern science in a nutshell.
  4. Sorry for the confusion about quotes. Your argument looks like theists because you an experience and then choose to call it "free choice". Theists often say that reality, every inch of it is proof of God. Intelligence design goes around those arguments. Paul in Romans makes this argument I think. So they also equate daily reality with "God". This can take many names like God's plan or God's will etc. It seems to me like a language game not an argument. That is why, in the point you ceded, it depends on how you structure your definitions of the operating agent, of freedom, of will and of choice. It may well be that taken your prior assumptions "free will" as you use it exists. In my current understanding I would even agree that on a psychological level it feels like it and it can be a useful term. A metaphor is like seeing the sun going around the earth. This our common experience. We use this in our daily lives. However modern scientific investigation has shown that the earth goes around the sun and it only feels like the other way around to us. Yet we still use words like sun rise or sun set and we still run our lives our daily lives upon looking at the position of the sun to think what time of day it is. It is a useful tool at this level, it is our daily experience, we cannot "change" or "operate" under different perceptions yet the deeper reality is totally opposite. When we want to operate on the level of the solar system however, for example sending things into space like new horizons , probe we have operate under that deeper understanding. So I can feel the exp of free will and use it when appropriate and not use it when I am changing levels/viewpoints. For example not using when contemplating deep criminal justice reform where the idea of revenge does more harm than good I think. But I can still feel good when some compliments my cooking. Smth like that. Is that clearer?
  5. I read some of it. I think it is deeply flawed. I think you confuse the psychological level with the social level with the physical level alltogether. Your argument on we cannot operate without free will is the same as the theist claim we cannot operate without belief in God. When you point out you do not, as I do not believe in free will the retort is well you act as if. It is basically setting up an unfalsifiable argument. I will repeat my basic point that it depends on what prior basic assumptions one has. But this requires a longer discussion and I am not sure a forum is the place to make it. At least for me. I confesd reading long complex posts for me is very very hard :(. Much much harder than a physical book for sone reason.
  6. I think we really really need to define our terms here. First there is a problem many do not seem to notice at first glance. Free will usually presupposes a "self" or some separate agent. Which in itself is another problem really. Then the problem of what freedom means and what does will actually mean. I only recently saw that even to ask this question one has to beforehand assume a lot of things. So if there is a separate agent, if fredom is first defined as lack of constraint/obligatiin and if will one means the power to choose , which is a lot of ifs and vague assumptions to begin with, I see no possibility of of such thing existing on a deep level. It would be absurd to even conceive it. It would mean someone maked a choice out of nothingness. If he does a choice in the existing world for existing causes searching existing goals every choice is determined. If a choice is random his choice is determined by randomness and is as such meaningless. If there is no connection between the agent and the object chosen as it would be in a random universe choice is impossible in the first place. There cannot be intention in that case. We cannot even really think in those terms. HOWEVER, in psychological, social and legal terns "free will" can serve a purpose and can be used to describe certain realities. Like were you blackmailed or tortured or imprisoned? Has your negative freedom the freedom from and positive freedom as in freedom to been affected? Were you subjected to hypnosis or trance inducing practices/ substances? So it depends how and why we use this concept. On the "atomic" and macro universe level the notions seems absurd. On the psychological level it defines a known reality and can be used. Of the implications I am not totally sure of but it does seem to humble me in a way and has the opposite of the THE SECRET type magical thinking. You do not determine the universe, instead the universe creates and determines you.
  7. altough in orthodox imagery hell and heaven were sometimes all spiritual sometimes all physical with palaces goid food etc hierachy of power but no sex. Now it always seems simehow funny. So all the pleasures but not sex? Christianity and sex really do have a weird relationship I give you that.
  8. Ok. That was what I was alluding to. Succes in all good things
  9. I was thinking that, if someone bases their beliefs and life on imagination, be that their own or someone else's , then the sky is the limit. You can hold with absolute certainty any kind of belief and association of belief. The glorification of God is seeing little kids get raped, or it is to save people, or Muhammad got his prophecies from an angel, or..etc. I am not here saying these religions are JUST imagination, this is not the point ot the thread, but pondering, after seeing some comments on a deconversion video from some christians how they flat out assert things which seem absurd, incoherent and not corresponding to reality, and start from that. Afterwards, yes, they do use logic, reasoning, offer some kind of proof, etc, but they start from assumptions. And if you start out like that, it seems to me it does realy matter any more. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, they usually do not say the Bible says this, it is mostly the Holy Fathers - aka a list of esteemed church theologians. But they start from that unchecked assumption so much so that I one time a very respected priest quoted some church father so out of context that he said the exact opposite of the original text which I fortunately knew. It just does not seem a solid foundation - random incredible incoherent stuff you hear from some excited individual.
  10. Well, first, I think a support group, if that really is a support group is very good. Telling a trauma survivor to just forget about the trauma is 1. almost never effective 2. retraumatising in itself. Nobody would say to a person with a leg injury to just forget about it, don t talk about it, stop going to the doctort, etc. 3. Rather hurtful and dismissive to the receiver of such words. Would you tell a recent widow to stop with the tears and just move on, go to parties, enjoy freedom? Second, if that is a more intense version of a controlling group, with massive psychological damage, exposing it and providing a safe heaven is worth it. BUT, and I STRESS BUT, it would be very good to have the advice or supervision of an experienced therapist. Otherwise, proceed with caution. The proverbial road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The thing about the dentist is an incorrect analogy. IF you have tooth decay, you don't just SKIP thinking about it, you go to the dentist. The word "cult" is usually defined as a an extreme authoritarian group. My view is that Christianity kind of fits in its theology, but , in practice, there are very, very different interpretations and practices. I mean there are groups that discourage under threat of Hell critical thinking and use violence against members, and groups that encourage at least some level of inquiry and use very little if any corporal punishment and are generally opposed to it. So, in the usual sense of the word "cult" people refer more to practices, than beliefs. And things are on a spectrum. For example, take ISIS. It is clear that is a violent, extreme, authoritarian version of Islam. In my view, actual theological Islam is kind of like that, but few people take to that extreme. I mean Muhammad started his empire as a marauding conqueror, and his first heirs in the same way. , but that is a different discussion. Point is, most Muslim would not go out and chop the heads of non belivers and destroy ancient monuments, on the contrary. Many, the majority maybe, are against it.
  11. Hello, Hope you are well. I felt that I could never be a perfect christian, not even a christian, because the system I was taught was so confused and contradictory , it was rendered impossible to make sense of or actually practice. You are basically handed a broken car and expected to drive it nonetheless.
  12. I never had that idea of heaven. Heaven was about an infinetly blissful journey more and more into God. Plus I always imagined I would not even have the organs to sense boredom or any kind of suffering.
  13. I think your argument is actually made stronger by the fact that even faith based systems accept only certain kinds of evidence in a certain way. There is little choice there once a general agreement has been made. I mean there stadardized tests for witches from what I know.
  14. There was this funny quote. I m worried about the bad. The good, if it comes, will sort itself out. :)) But I get your point. That is also a point of focus. I am trying to build a worldview and taking it from many points of view. It is still in construction so it looks pretty messy but I hope it will straighten out.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.