Science of Morality

[seer]

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/fatalismhttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatalism?rdfrom=Fatalism

I did not cherry pick anything Tass, The doctrine that all things are subject to fate, or that they take place by inevitable necessity

or that they take place by inevitable necessity That is determinism Tass and the very definition of fatalism. It doesn't matter how we get there everything is inevitable.

[Tassman]

I did not cherry pick anything Tass, The doctrine that all things are subject to fate, or that they take place by inevitable necessity

or that they take place by inevitable necessity That is determinism Tass and the very definition of fatalism. It doesn't matter how we get there everything is inevitable.

[seer]

Nonsense Tass, and that is what you refuse to admit. Fatalism does NOT ONLY mean that we submit to fate, it ALSO, means by definition, that all things take place by inevitable necessity. And that is your determinism, and that is what your believe. You are a fatalist bro, wear it with pride!

[JimL]

But despite the name we give it, determinism or fatalism, we play a part in either case Tazz, but the part we play in a determined world, afaics, would still be fatalistic. Its kind of like the block universe, the B-theory of time, in which the past and future are just as real as the present where we are not making the future with our choices, we are only experiencing them as mental states as those states are positioned along the time line. The only difference with A-theory in a determined world, in a world where free will is an illusion, that I can see, is that though our futures do not yet exist, they are still determined. If the choices we make are not determined by us, then in what sense are they not fatalistic with respect to us?
In the orbit of the planets analogy for instance, what difference does it make if the moon "eternally exists" at every position along the time line of its orbit, or if, due to the causal stream, "it will exist" at those very positions in the future. Are not both scenarios fatalistic. Its true that the moon doesn't make choices, but niether do we in a determined world. Choice, as you say, like free will, is just an illusion. No?

[Tassman]

But despite the name we give it, determinism or fatalism, we play a part in either case Tazz, but the part we play in a determined world, afaics, would still be fatalistic. Its kind of like the block universe, the B-theory of time, in which the past and future are just as real as the present where we are not making the future with our choices, we are only experiencing them as mental states as those states are positioned along the time line. The only difference with A-theory in a determined world, in a world where free will is an illusion, that I can see, is that though our futures do not yet exist, they are still determined. If the choices we make are not determined by us, then in what sense are they not fatalistic with respect to us?
In the orbit of the planets analogy for instance, what difference does it make if the moon "eternally exists" at every position along the time line of its orbit, or if, due to the causal stream, "it will exist" at those very positions in the future. Are not both scenarios fatalistic. Its true that the moon doesn't make choices, but niether do we in a determined world. Choice, as you say, like free will, is just an illusion. No?

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, and that is what you refuse to admit. Fatalism does NOT ONLY mean that we submit to fate, it ALSO, means by definition, that all things take place by inevitable necessity. And that is your determinism, and that is what your believe. You are a fatalist bro, wear it with pride!

[seer]

And you are not good at clear definitions, so we are even.

[JimL]

But, the choices would have an effect, the same effect in either case, would they not? I mean, just calling them choices doesn't change the fatalistic nature of those choices.

Conversely Libertarian Free Will is utterly incoherent.

I agree. But I am not convinced as of yet that the brain is a completely determined. One can change their mind for instance.

[Tassman]

And you are not good at clear definitions, so we are even.

[Tassman]

But, the choices would have an effect, the same effect in either case, would they not? I mean, just calling them choices doesn't change the fatalistic nature of those choices.

The end result is still a deterministic universe, but ever since life evolved and living things began to make choices the causal interaction of such choices has resulted in a different sort of determined universe than a mere fatalistic one, i.e. where one can do nothing other than to submit to fate come what may.

I agree. But I am not convinced as of yet that the brain is a completely determined. One can change their mind for instance.

Well if there is any