Well, in the hypothetical, it's not like people can choose whether or not to be satisfied or dissatisfied - and either state is not directly related to the competence or performance of the other party. The future fatalist government might be knocking it out of the park but that won't add or subtract to their support in and of itself. Meanwhile, people who currently believe in free will are already dissatisfied with the government about the things that are consequential to their lives in which they are demonstrably not free -or- in which they strongly believe (in error) they are not free.

IDK if I'd say our country is based on free will. I don't think that our domestic or foreign policies would support that idea...though I guess it is something we push internally.

(November 19, 2023 at 10:26 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 18, 2023 at 5:08 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don’t think it would be living a lie so much as being earnestly wrong about a thing.  We do that a lot.

Why pass up the chance to insinuate that people who disagree with you are self-deceived?

Because that would be dishonest?

(November 19, 2023 at 12:06 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Well, in the hypothetical, it's not like people can choose whether or not to be satisfied or dissatisfied - and either state is not directly related to the competence or performance of the other party.  The future fatalist government might be knocking it out of the park but that won't add or subtract to their support in and of itself.  Meanwhile, people who currently believe in free will are already dissatisfied with the government about the things that are consequential to their lives in which they are demonstrably not free -or- in which they strongly believe (in error) they are not free.    

IDK if I'd say our country is based on free will.  I don't think that our domestic or foreign policies would support that idea...though I guess it is something we push internally.

On the bolded part, I guess I used the wrong word, again. I did think the country had something to do with free will, but supporting that idea, as you said, would be the more accurate term.

Otherwise, you do make some good points. I think it goes with some past things I have said about free will, especially what you said in the first paragraph of yours.

I do think what you said is interesting. Anyway, I forgot about the subconsciousness part, even though I said it in a recent post of mine, so I am surprised that I did not think of what you ended up saying before I posted the last post; the part about not choosing to be satisfied or dissatisfied about things like what I have said.

But as I may have said before, since the belief in a supreme deity like God is a psychological disposition and that the subconsciousness is what causally determines the "choices" we make; to talk about religion as this thread was initially talking about; I think the subconscious mind contributes to, or leads to us believing in a supreme deity that most likely does not exist through being deterministic about it, and there are plenty of people who believe in such supreme beings like God, I do think they may not initially be choosing to believe in supreme beings like god. There may be other factors, sure, but with such a psychological disposition being there in the human mind, I think that and a subconscious mind making "decisions" for us are factors for why people might believe in supreme beings.

Which MAY furthermore show that religion and religious people's claims about free will is BS further.

We have another thread you may enjoy that swirls around the question of whether everyone is religious. I think it would be difficult to explain how god beliefs struggled along for 40-48k of it's 50k or so years (at least) without supreme deities..if we were fatalistically or deterministically predisposed towards believing in them. The short version of a long story from my opinions in that thread is that I don't think that we're predisposed to believe in supreme beings or even gods. I think we're predisposed to religious thinking. God's are an overlay...though even here your point may apply, when we imagine gods we imagine them as meaningfully human-alike because of course we do.

Everything worth a shit is like us, somehow, amiright? We have...difficulties.....believing otherwise.

(November 19, 2023 at 12:43 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We have another thread you may enjoy that swirls around the question of whether everyone is religious.  I think it would be difficult to explain how god beliefs struggled along for 40-48k of it's 50k or so years (at least) without supreme deities..if we were fatalistically or deterministically predisposed towards believing in them.  The short version of a long story from my opinions in that thread is that I don't think that we're predisposed to believe in supreme beings or even gods.  I think we're predisposed to religious thinking.  God's are an overlay...though even here your point may apply, when we imagine gods we imagine them as meaningfully human-alike because of course we do.

Everything worth a shit is like us, somehow, amiright?  We have...difficulties.....believing otherwise.

I would like to read it. Have a link?

But yeah, if we are predisposed for religious thinking instead, that is close enough to what I was trying to say. Either way, I think we are deterministically lead by the subconscious mind to think religiously, whether it be actually god, or just religious thinking itself.

That said, gods are mostly, if not, entirely made up to be in the image of humans, rather than anything like what a supreme deity may be, whatever that may be. Still, mentally and physically, supreme deities like God are based on, or even look like humans. In fact, going by past accounts of how people describe God, or other gods, I do think God and other supreme deities though up by humans think so much like humans, to the point that they are not perfect. At all. It is probably because A. Humans can't think beyond the way they do, or B. Gods are thought up in a way that humans can actually relate to, or C. some other reason. Either way, I do believe that how humans thought up supreme deities is extremely flawed.

Whatever God or other supreme deities are, if they did exist, technically, I would say they are flawed beings because they were conceived and made up by flawed entities that are humans.

We want to negotiate with "it". Whether it is the world or a supernatural entity. The trouble for that is that we know how negotiating with any non human thing goes.

(November 19, 2023 at 1:10 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We want to negotiate with "it".  Whether it is the world or a supernatural entity.  The trouble for that is that we know how negotiating with any non human thing goes.

Yeah, that much I do agree. Fully. I did say that one of the reasons God or other supreme beings are thought up the way they are is because them being more human is something people can relate to, even though it doesn't equate to truth or what supreme beings, if they existed, really are.

The Indian dudes at my local convenience store are Hindus and I know that because they have a little shrine for the elephant god right there behind the counter.

(November 19, 2023 at 10:58 am)ShinyCrystals Wrote:

(November 19, 2023 at 10:21 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: "Um", no, you made this claim as well: "If free will does not exist, and there is evidence that it does not [...]"

I want to see that evidence, if you might provide it that'd be great.

"Um", lol. Look at you getting all snarky 'n' shit.

I was not being snarky, at all. And furthermore, I was not trying to start a debate or try to prove anything, too, with evidence. If you must know, neuroscience says that it is the subconsciousness that determines human actions, not the conscious mind. Still, I am sure I know what you are trying to do, and you did the same with @bucky Ball earlier on this thread. I am not falling for that a second time.

Because I was not trying to cause a debate, and because I can see where this is going, you're not going to be shown evidence. I was not asking for a debate, I was only asking a question. I am not doing this.

That's fine. I will still comment as I see fit. I'm trying to elucidate exactly what this evidence is. Your refusal to produce it is a you problem. I'm also trying to figure out what you two mean when you use certain words in non-standard meanings. Don't blame me for wanting clear English in a discussion, and don't get pissy at me for it.

And yes, starting a reply with "um" is snarky, at least online.

Quote:In conversation, a word that announces one's contempt for and hostility toward the person they're about to contradict. Most common on the Internet, for obvious reasons.

So yeah. I didn't ask for you to state that there's evidence. I want to read the source material for myself so I'm not getting it filtered through your biases.

(November 19, 2023 at 11:52 am)ShinyCrystals Wrote: [...] since it is said by neuroscience that it is the subconsciousness deterministically making the "decisions"

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

And how are these decisions known to be deterministic? What if someone has conditioned themselves -- by their own decision and design -- to respond a certain way in a certain circumstance? Is it determinism if one makes a conscious choice to become a doctor, and then unconsciously perseveres through difficulties in med school without thinking?

You are loading your points with assumptions.

(November 19, 2023 at 10:32 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Sure, but on it's own it's an evergreen observation.  

Even if we do have a free will, it's absolutely nothing like what we imagined it to be, nothing like what it reports itself as.  The entire project of compatibilism is to establish how our will may not be free but it's free enough for brain work.  

I suppose, though, we'd have to allow that beliefs about free will may not be self deception.  Maybe it's cultural.  We're incredibly suggestable.  It's not just that we can be convinced.  We can be conditioned.  To the point that we don't know where our identity ends and the product begins.

I'm strongly agnostic on the issue insofar as what we currently know about it.

What I reject is this idea that some will advocate for determinism as if it's a fact, and then get insulting when they're asked tough questions.