Buridan’s Donkey Determinism and Evolution
Hello Rabbi
- In Buridan’s donkey question, does the answer that suggests a lottery solve the problem? It seems to me that it does not. Even if we choose by lottery, whatever it may be, we will have to choose, freely, what each side believes, and we will not be able to open the sides’ proposal at all, since we will not be able to consciously choose the right side over the left side, and so on.
My question is whether you accept this objection to the lottery proposal and whether you believe that ultimately there is a solution to this question through free choice. - According to your definition, deterministic heretics and the like live in internal contradiction because ultimately they live according to a scale of values and therefore, in reality, they choose to live in this way, but they live out of a lack of awareness. After much reflection on these words of yours, I have come to a somewhat different conclusion. It seems to me that there are many people, including myself, who from time to time live in internal contradiction, and as you wrote about the issue of the fall of the will at the time of sin, that at this time, I sin because I consciously choose by free choice not to do a positive act or to refrain from a negative act (and according to this, the Maharal’s definition that what is done and what is not done is understood as the limits of departure from the righteousness of the general middle path, there is no difference in severity for a matter of doing or not doing in this matter).
Therefore, the specific blame for sin can be placed on the sinner. In the same way, I think that determinists deserve to receive the same form of parallel examination. Therefore, I come to the following conclusion: To believe and try to live determinism even partially is a mistake. A mistake so serious that it is a descent from the form of a human to the form of an animal, which is almost difficult to define in words, and hence I come to 3. - Following thoughts on evolution and re-reading some of your writings, I would like to share my next conclusion. The improbability of the creation of the world and everything in it leads to the simple conclusion that there is a deliberate Creator. But the Creator gave free choice to everyone, and I conclude that we need to discuss free choice according to the definition of the term species or genus, and the nature of free choice, in its more correct definition, we do not perceive. According to this, every living creature has a certain free choice because it chooses to be alive. I do not know of a good enough explanation that explains how the transition between creation and the beginning of the formation of life (however we define it) was created, beyond the fact that there is a free choice for all life to live.
I add to this, to avoid unnecessary difficulties, that we are only capable of perceiving positive values, and therefore concepts such as death (not living) or lack of free choice are paradoxes that are incomprehensible to us and unfathomable to human cognition.
Combining the two claims (evolution and positive thinking) leads me to the conclusion that a determinist with an endless desire should have returned to the form of an animal (and perhaps that is what would have happened if I did not need your model of contradictions again. In the same vein, I think that instincts are a model of free choices that we have chosen in the past. I also think that when parents choose for their children a certain thing or a way of life when the children do not have free choice, the result of the act regarding the children is an act of free choice and not a deterministic act. In fact, I saw a video on YouTube from which I concluded that before the Ice Age, creatures lived for a very long time. Perhaps there was a process in which living creatures learned to choose that reproduction was better than preserving the same form of life. I hope this does not sound like a joke or mysticism. But this is what happens to me when I do 1+1.
On all these issues, which are complex to me, I would be happy to hear your broad opinion.
- I did not understand the proposal and the argument against it. Regarding the donkey, see column 196.
- I don’t understand your argument. Are you saying that they deliberately choose a deterministic view even though they consciously know it’s not true? That’s puzzling to me.
- I didn’t understand a word.
1. I saw the column. My question is this. A person in a theoretical Bourdienne situation who chooses a coin toss in a lottery, for that matter, can he solve the problem in this way. I believe not because he will not be able to define both sides of the coin because at the moment of choosing the definition, the Bourdienne question applies anew in the mind, will a tree be right or left, why can a person decide that? And if we are not structured in a symmetrical way in Bourdienne, then I asked about the specific Bourdienne person in this specific situation, will the lottery help? Of course not.
2. Of course they choose intentionally. You also claim this, but you add to this, according to my understanding of your language, that they have a barrier that prevents them from recognizing that they themselves behave in a certain way, which shows that they and humans have free choice.
3. I will wait with 3 for now.
1. I understand. I agree. There is a philosophical question here: What if he hands over his decision to another person who will decide right or left? He doesn't have to break symmetry. [Although assuming that the entire world is symmetrical, then the other person might not be able to make a decision either.]
2. I didn't say that they deliberately choose determinism. Absolutely not. I definitely believe them that's what they think. They don't notice that their behavior indicates a different depth assumption.
2. So what is the difference between a convert to lust and a convert to anger? Both make a mental error in the end. The convert to lust chooses to engage in lust or continue to engage in it. And just like him, the convert to anger engages in lust because he makes a mental error. They are ‘scammers’ of a different kind, as far as I understand. The convert to anger is simply more intelligent by our standards, we would have an IQ higher than average.
Their equal side is that there is lust or another screen that they are aware of because otherwise they would not be responsible for their actions, and they are dragged along by choice.
According to your method, there is like a huge and incomprehensible split personality in the personality of the determinists, or at least in some of them.
I would be grateful in this context if you could explain the words of Chazal, "He who knows his Creator and rebels against Him."
2. It is not clear to me what is not clear. Both are not wrong but decide incorrectly and intentionally: to appease is because of the desire and to anger is to anger and rebel.
He who knows his Creator and rebels against Him is a kind of convert to anger. What explanation is needed here?
2. That the convert to anger is supposed to be smarter than the convert to appetite who is simply dragged along by his lust. And if he is smarter, then he understands that it is impossible to anger the ’ at most, society.
But you still haven't explained how they commit this sin. I read the column on free choice from the shacks. How will you apply your words here? I'm trying to argue that the converts and the determinists are neither coercive nor mistaken, and so they are misguided in something.
He who knows his creator and rebels against him If we interpret this saying according to Plato, it will not be clear, because if he knows his creator, he will not be able to rebel against him. A sign that both converts made a mental error or an error in rational considerations.
I can't follow your arguments (I think I've already answered everything). If you'd like to investigate further, I suggest you bring them up one by one and explain a little bit what you mean.
2 You explained that sin is committed by a person surrendering to causality, to desire like the rolling ball. I agree with this explanation in general. According to this explanation, I would like to try to explain how a mental sin is committed if we assume that being a determinist is a sin or at least a mental error in which the person is not forced.
This is where the discussion about the 2 types of converts comes in. Both make a mental error in the end, according to my analysis. And by general implication, every person who sins surrenders first of all in reason. Therefore, forced is not considered a sinner.
If I assume that there is no determinism at all, then I would not define sin as being dragged along by causality but as an incorrect choice, with lesser rational considerations. Those considerations such as desire, fear, or some reason why a person does what he did, are completely rational in their essence. The error is the departure from the middle path, being too dragged along by desire or disadvantage for that matter.
According to this, those who are motivated by anger and appetite both make a similar but different mental error. Both are converted to sin but their motives are slightly different. The one who is converted to anger has done some mental investigation and stopped, while the one who is converted to appetite has not done any mental investigation. Mental investigation is a broad definition.
I believe that many apostate idealists who emphasize that the great meaning of life is a life of flesh, live in contradiction to their philosophical investigation of the true meaning of life and simply are not suspended by the necessity that they have surrendered to their own desires. Surrendered according to the definition I defined above according to the definition of the middle way.
In this sense, the right action or sin is a game with 2 options, accidental is intentional for the sake of it (it can be compared perhaps to the one who is converted to appetite, I haven't thought about it enough).
But from all that has been said so far, it is at least clear that in being a determinist, as an anti-determinist, there is a mistake in intentionality consciously.
I tried to explain more clearly. I would appreciate your response.
I'm sorry, but I've completely lost you. Everything here is simple and clear and I don't understand what the complication is here. All I understand from your words is that I disagree and the rest I don't understand.
I make the following claims:
1. A person who is mistaken in his mind is a compulsive person.
2. A person who is drawn to his desires is not a compulsive person (unless it is an impulse that cannot be conquered).
3. It is possible for a person to be drawn to his desires and adopt some kind of mental position due to this. In such a situation, he is of course a sinner.
That's all. Other than that, I don't see what there is to discuss here. Which of these three do you disagree with?
1 Disagree. What is the point of having a mind? A person is obligated to investigate the truth. If under certain circumstances there was no possibility that he would be right, then only then is he a coward.
2. Agree
3. Also agree.
I argued 2 and 3 above (i.e. I believe), can you elaborate on what other things you disagreed with?
1. He investigated and this is his conclusion. A person can be wrong.
Maybe this is our argument. I see no point in continuing.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
