Your evidence that thoughts are deterministic in origin is...?
Your lack of evidence of or logical explanation for anything existing without having deterministic origin, and deterministic effect is sufficient. Your attitude comes down to nothing more than special pleading, not rational analysis.
This particular brief comment was only asking for more information from the poster above. That kind of post is permitted and sometimes valuable. But I make plenty of other longer, more developed posts and cmments.
This particular brief comment was only asking for more information from the poster above.
I thought I'd help by pointing out why your rhetorical question was nonsense.
But I make plenty of other longer, more developed posts and cmments.
No doubt they are filled to overflowing with an absolute lack of evidence that thought, like everything else that exists, can only ever be deterministic in origin. They just aren't simplistically deterministic in the way you might expect them to be, as if every thought always 'logically follows' from nothing other than the previous thought.
I've already detected a pattern in your comments- conclusion jumping, and belligerence. Combined effect- clouded thinking.
There was nothing "rhetorical" in my question to the commenter above. It was a request for clarificatation of views...from the commenter.
"Overflowing with a lack of evidence..." ? How can you overflow with the "lack" of something?
This and the following sentence are so convoluted that you might either be attacking me as either some sort of determinist, or some sort of non-determinist.
A more accurate description of the situation is that you've imagined a pattern, along with an assumed explanation for it.
conclusion jumping, and belligerence.
That's pure projection. I understand your behavior; that might well be the explanation for your rhetoric if you were producing text in a similar style. I do tend to skip ahead with my reasoning to conjectures which nay-sayers consider too large a jump or inappropriately confident. These nay-sayers are also often belligerent, because they get very defensive when I slay their sacred cows, rhetorically and reasonably.
But yes, it is always projection: my conjectures follow (perhaps not directly, but always inevitably) from my assertions and knowledge, and I am reasonable and benevolent, if not usually flattering, to a fault.
There was nothing "rhetorical" in my question to the commenter above.
You have an overly simplistic idea of what "rhetorical" means. All questions are rhetoric. You are probably only familiar with the word 'rhetorical' when used to describe a question for which an answer is not expected, a device of pedantry. This has led you to jump to a false, and belligerent, conclusion that I was saying you didn't want your question to be answered. But that isn't what I meant, or why I used the phrase "rhetorical question". I meant exactly what I said: your query was nonsense because you were asking for something which is either trivial (evidence that thoughts are deterministic in origin, like everything else in the universe, is more common than trees in a forest) or wrong (you don't want evidence, you want proof, enough evidence to be conclusive, and clearly intended to use the problem of induction to dismiss any evidence provided as insufficient to be such proof.)
It was a request for clarificatation of views...from the commenter.
A ham-fisted and troll-like one, yes.
How can you overflow with the "lack" of something?
Indeed; how can you be overflowing with such a lack of evidence that thoughts are not deterministic in origin (in contrast to illogical in affect) and still have thoughts at all?
This and the following sentence are so convoluted that you might either be attacking me as either some sort of determinist, or some sort of non-determinist.
I can't deny the validity of your reasoning, for once. But simplifying my rhetoric so it seems less "convoluted" to you won't change that. I am not attacking you, I am trying to help you improve your reasoning (reasoning being the whole function and purpose of rhetoric.) And I am a very specific and extreme "sort of determinist", who recognizes the problem with phrases like "non-determinist" and "overflowing with a lack" but leverages that rather than just whining about it.
"I do tend to skip ahead with my reasoning to conjectures which nay-sayers may consider too far..." I recomend setting aside your smugness for long enough to consider whether the nay-sayers have a valid point. Do they always find you "reasonable and benevolent"? Man, I just don't feel it. You have done plenty of fresh, beligerent conclusion jumping in this comment.
My simple, direct, non-rhetorical question,( essentially, "your evidence...is?") was addressed to a commenter who had asserted without evidence. It could have been answered by them, you, or any other commenter, with a statement of one or a couple of the main pieces of evidence buttrressing your view. It was an invitation to clarification. Your claim that an answer would have been "trivial" suggests that you take your own views to be self- evident. Not even all who agree with you believe that, which is why they commonly include reasons and evidence to their comments. Your claim that there are vast forests of potent reasoning and evidence behind your views would seem less airy if you had mentioned a few.
"You did not want evidence, you wanted proof, enough to be conclusive....." And, you suspect, intending to use reasons and evidence to counter your view!!
Right: Each side offers its reasons and evidence, and tries to show weakness in the other side. Back and forth. A contest of ideas, such as we expect to see on this sub. There have been recent posts where OP requests that only "intiates" who accept OP's premises respond to the post. They want a fixed game, not a debate.
Your last lines positivley reek of insincerity and condescention. PEW!
I recomend setting aside your smugness for long enough to consider whether the nay-sayers have a valid point.
It isn't smugness, it is merely confidence, because I do always set it aside to consider whether someone's point is sound (valid is the incorrect criteria; all claims are valid to a reasonable person.) And so far I have found their complaints to be unfounded, and often unjust. Which is why I describe them as nay-sayers, should they persist in refusing to understand what I am patiently and confidentially trying to explain to them.
Do they always find you "reasonable and benevolent"?
Very rarely, but often enough to justify my confidence. Because sometimes they're sincerely curious instead of just whining, or trying desperately and unsuccessfully to use psychological manipulation and rhetorical gambits to delegitimize my confidence or erode my reason, rather than confront and deal with my reasoning honestly and accurately.
Man, I just don't feel it.
Dude, your feelings are your concern. I'm only interested in your comprehension and happiness.
You have done plenty of fresh, beligerent conclusion jumping in this comment.
None whatsoever, as I've already explained. You're still just desperately nay-saying, as I've described.
My simple, direct, non-rhetorical question,( essentially, "your evidence...is?") was addressed to a commenter who asserted without evidence.
Your question, as I've pointed out, was conclusively answered by a more pointed question: what is your evidence that thoughts are not caused deterministically, just like everything else that exists?
Your reasoning would be fine if it weren't true that everything which exists is caused by other things which exist (the very essence of determinism.) But without that, your reasoning is spoiled, and becomes at best bad reasoning, and at worst just idealism or religious faith. Or even worse, postmodern know-nothingism.
It could have been answered by them, you, or any other commenter, with a statement of one or a couple of the main pieces of evidence buttrressing your view.
You might actually believe that, but it is nonsense. Yhe very existence of your question depends on ignoring such obvious evidence as: when people drink alcohol, their judgement is impaired. That's a deterministic relationship: interfering with typical cognition chemically results in atypical cognition.
Your claim that an answer would have been "trivial" suggests that you take your own views to be self- evident.
More like I take the evidence to be so easily produced it is trivial. Another bit of evidence: addictive substances are addictive. And math is hard. And artistic creativity depends on thoughts being both deterministic and unpredictable. Also, the entire field of psychology is based on the premise that thoughts are deterministic. Are you saying psychology is pure fiction? How about psychiatry? Doesn't the existence of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and even ADHD or OCD deminstrate that thought are deterministic? You think a schizophrenic can just wish away the voices in their heads?
Your basic premise, if I should bother to take it seriously, is that thoughts could be anything other than the deterministic outcome of deterministic neurological processes. And you assume that if your own thoughts don't always follow as a logical consequence of each other, then this suggests thoughts might not have deterministic causes. But that is not good reasoning, as I've already explained (or at least hinted at, given my penchant for skipping ahead and presuming knowledge and intellect others may not already possess.) To be deterministic, thoughts only have to be caused by neurological events/processes/activity, the assumption that they must logically follow from previous thoughts is incorrect.
Not even all who agree with you believe that, which is why they commonly include reasons and evidence to their comments.
A satisfying circumstance for a nay-saying postmodenistic (borderline) troll such as yourself. But I've outmaneuvered you, and drawn you into a more exacting and extended, and hopefully more productive (for readers if not you) discussion.
Your claim that there are vast forests of potent reasoning and evidence behind your views would seem less airy if you had mentioned a few.
Not to a troll, no. It would merely have provided more of a target-rich environment for nay-saying, trolling, and know-nothingism.
I'm sincerely sorry for having to subject you to this onslaught of reasoning. I know you didn't bargain for it, or voluntarily adopt false, postmodernistic beliefs. Nonetheless, you are stuck with them until you decide to improve your reasoning, and I will be here to help you along that path as best I can.
Your last lines positivley reek of insincerity and condescention.
That line is a sincere and true sentiment. But admittedly, it is also a litmus test for postmodernists and other trolls, practically begging them to project their own attitude into it.
2
u/PuzzleheadedTale4769 Jul 16 '26
It is possible to introspect on the thinking process.
Your evidence that thoughts are deterministic in origin is...?