Posted: Feb 18, 2017 7:45 am
romansh wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:
It makes a difference, too, whether this is in the first (or second or third) person. "Could have" expresses freedom, and "could not have" expresses lack thereof. Do you want to say, "It's more than a feeling..."? Rock on, romansh!
Fair enough Cito
If our actions my, yours and Archi's (that's first, second and third person) are determined by our choices, which are a result of our determined deliberations, which are shaped by our determined experiences and our determined brain structure, and in turn if the whole caboodle is determined by the aggregate of quantum phenomena that passes as our environment how could I, you or Archie have done differently?
When you can motivate anyone to answer who's not already obsessed with answering it, you'll receive an answer. The details you include in your question are what suggest to me that you're pursuing it obsessively, because you keep reiterating them as if they were the only aspects available to consider, implying a banally mechanistic view of human behavior. Until you gain some insight into what's motivating your obsessive campaign to view humans as mechanisms, your question will be giving away your conclusion until the cows come home. Resolve that, or find something else to think about. I've given you a head start: We already know a great deal more about human behavior than your reductio ad absurdum admits. If we're going to reduce the human condition to an absurdity, authors like Samuel Beckett have been there before you, and much more poignantly. On the other side is an equally-grand body of literature honoring the doomed human quest for perfection or sanctity.