Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I live in India, the land of religions. Every other person believes on some weird deity and donates a little of his income and complete faith into worshipping them hoping that it changes their life.

The reason why I hate religions is that people blame their 'God' for all the bad things and mostly call it 'goodluck' when some good thing happens.

Gratitude. What happened to that? Anyway, Religion is like making a fat kid believe he is full of food and the food already exists in its stomach. All he needs to do is keep faith and believe in it.

I've always believed in Jesus Christ as my savior, and actually see Him doing things in my life depending on what I'm praying for (knowing it has to be God's will or He won't do it). I've never "hoped" that He would change my life. I just know He's there and working on things. It's amazing what can happen when you actually believe and ask for help (as long as it's God's will) and see things fall into place.

I know others will say that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but these things that are happening are not in my power to be happening because I want them to, they're happening all over the country to others. Then you'd say it would be happening anyway. People will believe what they will believe. I'm not going to try to push anyone.

God can work miracles, but people have free will. Bad things will happen, because there are sinful people out there who enjoy doing them. But the wicked will be found out. (Psalm 10)

[1713480699]

1713480699

[1713480699]

1713480699

[1713480699]

1713480699

[the joint]

This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both)...

I wasn't trying to prove that reality is "either deterministic or random."  Furthermore, asserting that Reality is instead "self-determinate," and that self-determination is an explanatory model synthesizing both determinism and indeterminism, does not amount to saying that Reality is both determinate and indeterminate.  Rather, I'm asserting it is self-determinate, of which determinism and indeterminism are constituents.

...since there is nothing that would forbid the "causes" for both determinacy and indeterminacy (whichever you choose to stick with) to be this Reality's attributes, i.e. inherent properties...

Correct, but this doesn't necessarily lead to an infinite regression.  Where is the infinite regression, for example, in A --> B --> C --> A --> ...?

And, I guess, what is meant by "self-guidance" has nothing to do with that synthesis, which is not possible per se (since as soon as you allow some randomness, the world ultimately becomes indeterministic)

Incorrect, except at a topological level of understanding.  Determinism and indeterminism are concepts formulated out of relevance to each other, similar to causality and randomness.  Randomness is a product of a causal probability function of randomness.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/lpgerson/Plato_On_Identity_Sameness_And_Difference.pdf

The answer to the objection that we could specify identity and have nothing left
over for sameness is this. The attempt to identify, let alone re-identify, an existent with
divisible identity requires the inclusion of its divisible essence. That is, it is by using
divisible essence as a criterion that we identify something. For example, we determine
that this man has the same height today that he had yesterday. The divisible essence
cannot itself be constitutive of the existential identity. In the above frames (2) and (3), to
identify A1 or A2, we have to cognize it as something, as having some structure or other.
We have to cognize its divisible essence, regardless of our theory of what essence is
exactly or how we cognize it. The only way that the sameness of A1 and A2 could be
made impossible is by claiming that the identity of each is utterly uncognizable. Since
we do cognize divisible essence, the impossibility of sameness among different selfidentical
things is refuted, which is all Plato really needs to do. For the nominalist
objections do not amount to a quibble about this or that case of sameness; they typically
rest on the denial of the very possibility of sameness among self-identical things.36

What we are saying in all these cases is,
basically, that two or more things that appear to be different in some way or another
really are identical or one.39 In Platonic terms, we are saying that a diversity of essence
rests upon an identity.

Determinism and indeterminism, or causality and randomness, arise from a diversity of essence resting upon a common identity.  Any event we deem to be "random" is variant with respect to external causality (e.g. a random result "x" from a RNG is caused by a chance probability function), and any event we deem to be "causal" is invariant with respect to internal acausality (e.g. an RNG is not dependent upon its mutually-exclusive products).

Self-determinism (in this case, of logic, which both describes and is described by itself), synthesizes these perspectives to unify our understanding of them, relatively in terms of each other, and absolutely in terms of self-determinism.

[Sourgummies]

Religion is a tricky subject due to a lot of the things that are told are based on faith. You need to take the word of a book,prophet or god that there is a after life. You throw in history of religious groups killing one another and it gets even more murky.
Also a lot of it is not up for debate and that alone is a issue that makes it a little ugly.

Humans have had a need to group up for survival or believe in something forever,its nothing new and it most likely is deep in the dna.

I am not angry about it,just wish it would not override the way the world operates.

[deisik]

This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both)...

I wasn't trying to prove that reality is "either deterministic or random."

You evidently tried to prove your point by excluding (disproving) both options ("there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it") as I got it. That is why I pointed out that they can be "enabled" from inside the world. Most likely, I should have used disprove instead of prove

Furthermore, asserting that Reality is instead "self-determinate," and that self-determination is an explanatory model synthesizing both determinism and indeterminism, does not amount to saying that Reality is both determinate and indeterminate.  Rather, I'm asserting it is self-determinate, of which determinism and indeterminism are constituents.

How is "self-determinate" is different from just "determinate", given that both determinism and indeterminism would be inherent to the world (though still mutually exclusive)? I don't see any difference between "self-determinate" and just "determinate", "self-indeterminate" and just "indeterminate"

In fact, I don't understand what you're talking about (and what you wrote after I understand even less). You should prove that there is a "third option" (or provide strong arguments for claiming that), beyond just determinism and randomness being there. Correct exclusion of both would work as well (remember though, both options are "self-establishing")...

In short, make it readable

[hangar18]

Both sides have good and bad people in it. but I don't like either side trying to convert people into their way of thinking, I prefer leaving people in peace.

[Sourgummies]

I wonder if humans are capable of peace,it seems like we are programed to divide into groups/tribes based on whatever we can come up with to achieve that goal.

[Lauda]

I wonder though when did the thread become a discussion of reality? I thought this was about atheists and religion?

Religion is a tricky subject due to a lot of the things that are told are based on faith. You need to take the word of a book,prophet or god that there is a after life. You throw in history of religious groups killing one another and it gets even more murky.
Also a lot of it is not up for debate and that alone is a issue that makes it a little ugly.

Humans have had a need to group up for survival or believe in something forever,its nothing new and it most likely is deep in the dna.

I am not angry about it,just wish it would not override the way the world operates.

Correct. I guess it is one of those topics that causes opposing sides to heavily argue. However you can't really ever get "proof" that a "god" didn't exist, nor could you get proof that reality exists or doesn't.
The following is also a problem:

[Sourgummies]

My grandfather was a atheist and he preached it all the way up to his death bed. That's where he had every religion he could get his hands on come to see him and now I have to worry that I will do the same on my death bed.

[deisik]

My grandfather was a atheist and he preached it all the way up to his death bed. That's where he had every religion he could get his hands on come to see him and now I have to worry that I will do the same on my death bed.

As they say, atheism ends with the first flight, and there are no atheists in the resuscitation unit. Everyone will be judged according to what they have done...

[the joint]

This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both)...

I wasn't trying to prove that reality is "either deterministic or random."

You evidently tried to prove your point by excluding both options ("there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it"), that is why I pointed out that they can be "enabled" from inside the world

1)  The point is that we know deterministic and indeterministic explanations of events both exist and that they are at odds with each other.  Treated as the only two options, we're left with a paradox in need of resolution.  Regardless of what that resolution is, we know it's desperately needed, else we're forever at an impasse, similar to the impasse between classical and quantum physics.  Neither type of explanation is sufficient for comprehensive explanation.  

Accordingly, I'm not "excluding" both options, but rather circumventing the impasse that arises from assuming that they must be explained in terms of themselves, when neither has the ability to do so.

http://tinypic.com/r/lbhjn/8
Determinism: A ⇒ B  (leaving no explanation for A)
Indeterminism: A (leaving no explanation for A or anything external or intrinsic to A)
Self-determinism: A ⇒ A (closes the loop)
Intrinsic self-determinism: A' ⇒ A₀, A₁, A₂... (provides completeness and self-consistency for A', precludes anything external to A', and providing explanation for A₀, A₁, A₂...)  

Furthermore, asserting that Reality is instead "self-determinate," and that self-determination is an explanatory model synthesizing both determinism and indeterminism, does not amount to saying that Reality is both determinate and indeterminate.  Rather, I'm asserting it is self-determinate, of which determinism and indeterminism are constituents.

I don't understand what you're talking about (and what you wrote after I understand even less). You should prove that there is a "third option" (or provide strong arguments for claiming that), beyond just determinism and randomness being there. Correct exclusion of both would work as well...

In short, make it readable

I'm trying to show you that a 3rd, better option must necessarily exist by virtue of the incompleteness of both determinism and indeterminism.

Determinism is a model which fails to account for itself, but accounts for that which it contains.
Indeterminism is a model which fails to account for itself or anything else.
Self-determinism accounts for itself and that which it contains.  By virtue of this alone, it is self-evidently a better model. The proof is in the pudding, so-to-speak.

All you would have to do to falsify the self-determinism model (i.e. falsify in the sense that it is necessarily weaker than determinate or indeterminate models) is to find a determinate or indeterminate event which cannot be explained by it, thereby rendering it internally invalid.  Else, you must necessarily concede to its superiority.

Remember, a model is simply a picture of how something works.  "Proof" of a model as a superior alternative to any other is determined by its consistency, and since I am simply trying to show you that it is a better model than a determinate or indeterminate one, the only type of consistency we care about is internal consistency.  In other words, it only needs to prove itself consistent inasmuch as consistently explaining determinancy and indeterminancy.  This is why "the proof is in the pudding."  You might be more concerned about whether a self-determinate model is extrinsically invalid, but due to the incompleteness of determinate and indeterminate models, we know that neither of these would extrinsically invalidate a self-determinate model.

[deisik]

This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both)...

I wasn't trying to prove that reality is "either deterministic or random."

You evidently tried to prove your point by excluding both options ("there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it"), that is why I pointed out that they can be "enabled" from inside the world

1)  The point is that we know deterministic and indeterministic explanations of events both exist and that they are at odds with each other.  Treated as the only two options, we're left with a paradox in need of resolution.  Regardless of what that resolution is, we know it's desperately needed, else we're forever at an impasse, similar to the impasse between classical and quantum physics.  Neither type of explanation is sufficient for comprehensive explanation.

I strongly disagree with that. Ultimately, the discrepancy between explanations of events arises not because determinism and randomness are mutually exclusive but rather due to a lack of knowledge at one side and even greater lack of knowledge at the other. Your seeming paradox disappears if you deign to accept that we just don't know enough to make a final judgment (which is the right explanation), and, most likely, will never know...

So, as I said before, there is no "true" randomness in the world, since all randomness is "fake", in a sense (even if reality is truly random), and can be reduced to just lack of knowledge or proper understanding

[deisik]

http://tinypic.com/r/lbhjn/8
Determinism: A ⇒ B  (leaving no explanation for A)
Indeterminism: A (leaving no explanation for A or anything external or intrinsic to A)
Self-determinism: A ⇒ A (closes the loop)
Intrinsic self-determinism: A' ⇒ A₀, A₁, A₂... (provides completeness and self-consistency for A', precludes anything external to A', and providing explanation for A₀, A₁, A₂...)

I don't understand what all of that means. I'd rather say that you are trying to confuse matters but for the benefit of doubt

I'm trying to show you that a 3rd, better option must necessarily exist by virtue of the incompleteness of both determinism and indeterminism.

Most likely, that incompleteness exists only in your mind. In any case, I don't see any incompleteness apart from the incompleteness of our knowledge as such. But, I guess, this is not relevant and doesn't necessitate a third option. But since the incompleteness of our knowledge is a given, you can't possibly even prove that your incompleteness (that of determinism and indeterminism) is a "true" one (and not due to a lack of knowledge)... Remember about falsifiability?

Determinism is a model which fails to account for itself, but accounts for that which it contains.
Indeterminism is a model which fails to account for itself or anything else.
Self-determinism accounts for itself and that which it contains.  By virtue of this alone, it is self-evidently a better model. The proof is in the pudding, so-to-speak.

To be honest, this is bullshit, a-la "self-determinism accounts for itself since it accounts for itself" (A ⇒ A). What is self-determinism beside just saying that it "accounts for itself and that which it contains"? How does it account for itself and that which it contains? What does it contain actually? And why doesn't indeterminism account for itself when it ultimately and legitimately says that all is possible (at zero time, when there is no time or anything else yet)?

[the joint]

This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both)...

I wasn't trying to prove that reality is "either deterministic or random."

You evidently tried to prove your point by excluding both options ("there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it"), that is why I pointed out that they can be "enabled" from inside the world

1)  The point is that we know deterministic and indeterministic explanations of events both exist and that they are at odds with each other.  Treated as the only two options, we're left with a paradox in need of resolution.  Regardless of what that resolution is, we know it's desperately needed, else we're forever at an impasse, similar to the impasse between classical and quantum physics.  Neither type of explanation is sufficient for comprehensive explanation.

I strongly disagree with that. Ultimately, discrepancy between explanations of events arises not because determinism and randomness are mutually exclusive but due to a lack of knowledge at one side and even greater lack of knowledge at the other. Your seeming paradox disappears if you deign to accept that we just don't know enough to make a final judgment (and, most likely, will never know)...

So, as I said before, there is no "true" randomness in the world, since all randomness is "fake", in a sense (even if reality is truly random), and can be reduced to just lack of knowledge or proper understanding

But the context in which you had originally discussed determinism is one of infinite regression, and the context in which you had originally discussed determinism and indeterminism is one of mutual exclusion:

...since there is nothing that would forbid the "causes" for both determinacy and indeterminacy (whichever you choose to stick with) to be this Reality's attributes, i.e. inherent properties...

Thus, your own explanation is self-inconsistent.  First, it is inconsistent in that you acknowledge the issue of deterministic infinite regression, then make the determinate assumption that there is some unknown causal agent 'x' which determines that which we don't comprehensively understand, by virtue of "no 'true' randomness" (thus contradicting the idea that causal agent 'x' can be a source of prime causation at all).

Second, it is inconsistent in that you acknowledge you must choose between a determinate or indeterminate explanation (and then you do so, choosing a determinate one), and then switch the context of your argument to one in which it should be possible to explain, at least in part, deterministic events in relation to indeterminate ones (else they would remain treated as mutually exclusive).

In other words, the inconsistency arises from a shift in argumentative context.  A self-determinate model homogenizes these contexts such that they can be explained relatively in terms of each other, and absolutely in terms of the model as a whole.  That is, it provides a means of describing determinism and indetermism as both mutually-exclusive and not mutually-exclusive simultaneously.  As a result, there is no need for a shift in argumentative context.

Your objection is precluded by:

Determinism is a model which fails to account for itself, but accounts for that which it contains.

...lending to infinite regression (i.e. what caused this deterministic relationship, or the deterministic process itself?).

Indeterminism is a model which fails to account for itself or anything else.

...lending to mutual exclusion (i.e. indeterminism cannot in any way account for causality)

Self-determinism accounts for itself and that which it contains.  By virtue of this alone, it is self-evidently a better model. The proof is in the pudding, so-to-speak

...lending to resolution (i.e. by providing a consistent explanation of how determinism and indeterminism are interrelated and exclusionary in a single, descriptive understanding).

[deisik]

I strongly disagree with that. Ultimately, discrepancy between explanations of events arises not because determinism and randomness are mutually exclusive but due to a lack of knowledge at one side and even greater lack of knowledge at the other. Your seeming paradox disappears if you deign to accept that we just don't know enough to make a final judgment (and, most likely, will never know)...

So, as I said before, there is no "true" randomness in the world, since all randomness is "fake", in a sense (even if reality is truly random), and can be reduced to just lack of knowledge or proper understanding

But the context in which you had originally discussed determinism is one of infinite regression, and the context in which you had originally discussed determinism and indeterminism is one of mutual exclusion:

...since there is nothing that would forbid the "causes" for both determinacy and indeterminacy (whichever you choose to stick with) to be this Reality's attributes, i.e. inherent properties...

Thus, your own explanation is self-inconsistent.  First, it is inconsistent in that you acknowledge the issue of deterministic infinite regression, then make the determinate assumption that there is some unknown causal agent 'x' which determines that which we don't comprehensively understand, by virtue of "no 'true' randomness" (thus contradicting the idea that causal agent 'x' can be a source of prime causation at all).

I don't know what you mean by "deterministic infinite regression". I guess, you imply a chain of infinite causes where each cause is an effect of the previous cause and so on. Yes, this is what determinism implies (as an option here discussed), and I acknowledge it as such. And so what?

Further on, I don't understand what you mean by me "making the determinate assumption that there is some unknown causal agent 'x' which determines that which we don't comprehensively understand" and how that contradicts "the idea that causal agent 'x' can be a source of prime causation at all". What is causal agent 'x', or, rather, what actually were you going to say?

Keep it simple. It pretty much looks like a meaningless blue streak to me, and, wtf, it may well be one

Second, it is inconsistent in that you acknowledge you must choose between a determinate or indeterminate explanation (and then you do so, choosing a determinate one), and then switch the context of your argument to one in which it should be possible to explain, at least in part, deterministic events in relation to indeterminate ones (else they would remain treated as mutually exclusive).

I don't understand your point. And it is in your context that I have "to choose between a determinate or indeterminate explanation". So, I guess, you are ascribing to me what I neither said nor meant...

As to me, you are pretty much trying to conceal the absence of thought behind some sophisticated wording

[deisik]

Indeterminism is a model which fails to account for itself or anything else.

...lending to mutual exclusion (i.e. indeterminism cannot in any way account for causality)

And, in fact, it shouldn't, since then it couldn't explain what is known in determinism as the Primary Cause. But, as I said before and say again, since indeterminism doesn't exclude anything, it necessarily doesn't exclude causality. So, in a sense, it may give rise to determinism, and reality seems to be confirming just that

Self-determinism accounts for itself and that which it contains.  By virtue of this alone, it is self-evidently a better model. The proof is in the pudding, so-to-speak

...lending to resolution (i.e. by providing a consistent explanation of how determinism and indeterminism are interrelated and exclusionary in a single, descriptive understanding).

You still didn't explain what is self-determinism per se and how it is different from "pure" determinism, apart from saying that "it accounts for itself and that which it contains" and "provides a consistent explanation of how determinism and indeterminism are interrelated" without actually telling how they are interrelated and providing "a consistent explanation"...

I am afraid, this is not what anyone would expect as an "explanation". Wtf?

[the joint]

Indeterminism is a model which fails to account for itself or anything else.

...lending to mutual exclusion (i.e. indeterminism cannot in any way account for causality)

And, in fact, it shouldn't, since then it couldn't explain what is known in determinism as the Primary Cause. But, as I said before and say again, since indeterminism doesn't exclude anything, it necessarily doesn't exclude causality. So, in a sense, it may give rise to determinism, and reality seems to be confirming just that

Self-determinism accounts for itself and that which it contains.  By virtue of this alone, it is self-evidently a better model. The proof is in the pudding, so-to-speak

...lending to resolution (i.e. by providing a consistent explanation of how determinism and indeterminism are interrelated and exclusionary in a single, descriptive understanding).

You still didn't explain what is self-determinism per se and how it is different from "pure" determinism, apart from saying that "it accounts for itself and that which it contains" and "provides a consistent explanation of how determinism and indeterminism are interrelated" without actually telling how they are interrelated and providing "a consistent explanation"...

I am afraid, this is not what anyone would expect as an "explanation". Wtf?

If you admittedly lack the knowledge to arrive at a definite conclusion...

Your seeming paradox disappears if you deign to accept that we just don't know enough to make a final judgment (and, most likely, will never know)...

...then maybe you shouldn't have an expectation of what the explanation ought to be, and then try to fit a square peg into a round hole when you get one.

Edit:  What don't you generally understand about self-determinism after:

The set of Reality contains that and only that which is real.  If there were something 'real enough' outside of Reality so as to be able to affect it, then obviously it wouldn't be outside of Reality, but rather inside.

Accordingly, there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it.  There is no need to look for an infinite regression in a self-contained system.  Reality must embody the rules of self-configuration because there is nothing external to it which is real enough to configure it.

?

[deisik]

Maybe you will never know, but I do.  Sorry.

No need to be sorry. Just don't forget about falsifiability, quantum mechanics or no quantum mechanics

Edit:  What don't you generally understand about self-determinism after:

The set of Reality contains that and only that which is real.  If there were something 'real enough' outside of Reality so as to be able to affect it, then obviously it wouldn't be outside of Reality, but rather inside.

Accordingly, there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it.  There is no need to look for an infinite regression in a self-contained system.  Reality must embody the rules of self-configuration because there is nothing external to it which is real enough to configure it.

This still doesn't explain how it came to be as it happens to be. Unless and until you manage to convincingly explain that point somehow (that of the Primary Cause), I don't see much of a difference between your breed of determinism and plain vanilla determinism...

In short, I don't understand how it is different

[the joint]

Maybe you will never know, but I do.  Sorry.

No need to be sorry. Just don't forget about falsifiability, quantum mechanics or no quantum mechanics

Edit:  What don't you generally understand about self-determinism after:

The set of Reality contains that and only that which is real.  If there were something 'real enough' outside of Reality so as to be able to affect it, then obviously it wouldn't be outside of Reality, but rather inside.

Accordingly, there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it.  There is no need to look for an infinite regression in a self-contained system.  Reality must embody the rules of self-configuration because there is nothing external to it which is real enough to configure it.

This still doesn't explain how it came to be as it happens to be. Unless and until you manage to convincingly explain that point somehow (that of the Primary Cause), I don't see much of a difference between your breed of determinism and plain vanilla determinism...

In short, I don't understand how it is different

I discussed falsifiability.  But I'll explain it further.

There are different kinds of falsifiability.  One kind is the scientific kind.  Another is the logical kind (of which the scientific kind is a mere derivative).

A logical model can be falsified on two levels.  On a lower level, it can be falsified if new information is discovered that should necessarily be explained by the model (i.e. the information falls within the scope of the model) but isn't.  This renders the model internally inconsistent and thus intrinsically invalid.  On a higher level, it can be falsified if a greater, more comprehensive model of greater scope not only accounts for and explains all information contained by the original model, but also accounts for and explains information which falls outside the scope of the original model.  This renders the model externally inconsistent and thus extrinsically invalid.

The *ideal* model is one that can never be falsified.  How would this work?  Well, suppose you have a model about which any attempt to falsify it only serves to reinforce it.

Consider the following statement:  "Absolute truth exists."  Any attempt to falsify this statement actually reinforces it.  For example, if we then consider the statement "absolute truth does not exist," it is akin to saying "it is the absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist," and thus the statement renders itself contradictory and invalid.  If one were to try to argue that this latter statement is not implied by the former -- perhaps by suggesting that all truth is relative -- then "it is the relative truth that absolute truth does not exist" carries no objective weight whatsoever, and therefore we cannot ascribe any objective validity to it.

Regarding your 2nd statement, yes it does.  Consider again the truism, "Sound logic is soundly logical because sound logic says so."   So, what causes logic to be logical?  Logic does.  But, what causes logic to be logically capable of ascribing sound logic as logical?  Again, logic does.  It is its own primary cause.  Logic is a self-contained system, and thus relies only upon the logical rules of self-containment to be logical.  Similarly, Reality is its own primary cause.  There is nothing real enough which could be a real primary cause for Reality other than Reality itself.  If the primary cause is Real, then it is axiomatically self-contained within the Real set.

Self-determinism is different from "vanilla" determinism in that it closes the causal loop as opposed to leaving it open and incomplete.  An infinite regression does not result from  a closed loop.  Consider, for example, a computer feedback loop in which individual proxies relay informational feedback to a central syntax controller.  The controller receives this feedback, processes it according to a utility function, and transmits it back again to the proxies, and the cyclical process continues.  This is a mechanical type of self-determinism.

So, why doesn't a self-determined Reality require an external primary cause in the same way that a computer feedback loop, self-deterministic as it may be, requires a computer programmer?  The answer lies mostly in the question.

If you ask, "So...what caused Reality's self-configuration?", the question itself can possibly throw you off.  Generally, most people would interpret this in a time-based fashion, assuming that there must be a cause that must occur before its effect.  We know from Einstein that this is a topological understanding of causality, and a real understanding of causality is one that involves superposition.

Edit:  The mechanism by which Reality primarily causes itself is perception.  That is, real perceivers perceive and affirm the existence of Reality; Reality is self-referential.  This is self-apparent, and we can observe this mechanism in action via every moment of our experience.  We are constituents of that mechanism.  Some parts of Reality (e.g. us) perceive and affirm the existence of other parts of Reality.  Just as logic is self-referential, so is Reality.

[deisik]

Self-determinism is different from "vanilla" determinism in that it closes the causal loop as opposed to leaving it open and incomplete.  An infinite regression does not result from  a closed loop.  Consider, for example, a computer feedback loop in which individual proxies relay informational feedback to a central syntax controller.  The controller receives this feedback, processes it according to a utility function, and transmits it back again to the proxies, and the cyclical process continues.  This is a mechanical type of self-determinism

So I guessed right. You deployed what is known as tautology at a new level ("it accounts for itself since it accounts for itself", A = A, and all that nonsense). But you still escaped to convincingly explain how the reality came to be, that is who started that "feedback loop". Okay, no one did this, and how is that different from "deterministic infinite regression" then? Substitute loop for regression and what did it actually change? Nothing, since your endless loop is not much better than an endless regression. Your self-reinforcing "mechanism" of causation is a chimera, and I could just as well say that the Primary Cause causes itself in a tight loop (with the reality existing somewhere within that loop, e.g. being a transfer mechanism), and so what?

Alas, I won't buy this (as pretending to be substantially different from good ol' determinism)

[the joint]

Self-determinism is different from "vanilla" determinism in that it closes the causal loop as opposed to leaving it open and incomplete.  An infinite regression does not result from  a closed loop.  Consider, for example, a computer feedback loop in which individual proxies relay informational feedback to a central syntax controller.  The controller receives this feedback, processes it according to a utility function, and transmits it back again to the proxies, and the cyclical process continues.  This is a mechanical type of self-determinism

So I guessed right. You deployed what is known as tautology at a new level ("it accounts for itself since it accounts for itself", A = A, and all that nonsense). But you still escaped to convincingly explain how the reality came to be, that is who started that "feedback loop". Okay, no one did this, and how is that different from "deterministic infinite regression" then? Substitute loop for regression and what did it actually change? Nothing, since your endless loop is not much better than an endless regression. Your self-reinforcing "mechanism" of causation is a chimera, and I could just as well say that the Primary Cause causes itself in a tight loop (with the reality existing somewhere within that loop, e.g. being a transfer mechanism), and so what?

Alas, I won't buy this (as pretending to be substantially different from good ol' determinism)

If by "endless" you mean "closed," then okay. (You are correct that I deployed tautology.  Points for that.)

Determinism: x ... A --> B --> C --> D ...   (where x = some unknown primary cause)

There is no unknown primary cause in self-determinism.  I think of "endless" and "infinite regression" as a line extending infinitely, not a closed loop, and not synonymous with "endless process" or something similar.  In any case, we can skip these semantics.

What determinism does not explain is how mind factors into theory-making.  If we have an explanatory model, great, but if we want the model to be truly comprehensive, then it also must account for and explain itself.  Models and theories, no matter what kind (e.g. even scientific ones, etc.) contain purely abstract elements of the mind which determine the nature of models and theories themselves.  So, if it is these purely abstract elements that enable and catalyze theory-making, and if these theories are what help us ultimately explain the Reality we inhabit, then we might as well just look to these abstract elements and see what they might tell us about Reality all by themselves.  They are the tools with which we create these mental constructs (i.e. theories/models), and so we should see how they allow us to gain an understanding of Reality in terms of mind.

I'd point out a third time that logic is self-referential.  It says, "Sound logic is logical because sound logic says so," and accordingly, any logical theories/models derived therefrom are simply logical constructs which refer back to theoretical properties of logical self-referentce.  This self-referential property lends itself to a logical 'boundary,' or a limit of logic that acts as a core from which we can identify limits of theorization.  If we know that a limit of theorization exists, and what it is, then we can extract categorical relationships between this thoeretical limit and real objects/events in order to provide a fundamental explanation of them in terms of the mind, and in terms of theoretical self-reference.

For example, knowing that deterministic and indeterministic explanations exist and that we are capable of forming theories/models in these contexts, we can relate each of these distinct contexts back to the self-referential properties from which they necessarily arise, and instead describe them in the context of self-reference itself.

And, "so what?"  Well, for starters this eliminates infinite regression precisely because any attempt to falsify it would necessarily challenge self-reference itself and evoke self-inconsistency, thereby serving to reinforce the original model.