New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Ahh.. you had trouble with the quote function before (I just noticed it!)

That's why I never try embedded quotes. I'm horrible at it.

Only on my iphone.

So basically, you're stating that determinism can only go in one direction.

Yet, its self evident that people make mutually exclusive choices for satisfaction constantly.

That's a contradiction right there.

Care to clear that one up?

It's only a contradiction if you are defining determinism the way you are, which is not completely accurate. Scroll up. That's why a definition that clarifies certain things is so important to reconcile this longstanding conflict.

[Ecmandu]

Ahh.. you had trouble with the quote function before (I just noticed it!)

That's why I never try embedded quotes. I'm horrible at it.

Only on my iphone.

So basically, you're stating that determinism can only go in one direction.

Yet, its self evident that people make mutually exclusive choices for satisfaction constantly.

That's a contradiction right there.

Care to clear that one up?

It's only a contradiction if you are defining determinism the way you are, which is not completely accurate. Scroll up. That's why a definition that clarifies certain things is so important to reconcile this longstanding conflict.

No. This has nothing to do with how I'm defining determinism. I'm using your definition and showing it to be irreconcilably false.

If you like hurting others and work really hard at this to gain more satisfaction.

And I like preventing harm and work really hard at this to gain more satisfaction.

We have mutually exclusive satisfactions

There is no one direction for greater satisfaction

Another example:

Lots of people want cigarettes banned worldwide because they think cigarettes are gross, and people who smoke them are stupid

Lots of people need cigarettes to self medicate psychotic disorders

The list goes on and on...

There is no "one direction towards greater satisfaction"

This is easy to demonstrate and is self evident.

Your conditions and definition doesn't work.

[peacegirl]

Ahh.. you had trouble with the quote function before (I just noticed it!)

That's why I never try embedded quotes. I'm horrible at it.

Only on my iphone.

So basically, you're stating that determinism can only go in one direction.

Yet, its self evident that people make mutually exclusive choices for satisfaction constantly.

That's a contradiction right there.

Care to clear that one up?

A contraption? I don't get it.

It's only a contradiction if you are defining determinism the way you are, which is not completely accurate. Scroll up. That's why a definition that clarifies certain things is so important to reconcile this longstanding conflict.

No. This has nothing to do with how I'm defining determinism. I'm using your definition and showing it to be irreconcilably false.

How so?

If you like hurting others and work really hard at this to gain more satisfaction.

And I like preventing harm and work really hard at this to gain more satisfaction.

We have mutually exclusive satisfactions

There is no one direction for greater satisfaction

Each satisfaction is relative Ecmandu. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Another example:

Lots of people want cigarettes banned worldwide because they think cigarettes are gross, and people who smoke them are stupid

Lots of people need cigarettes to self medicate psychotic disorders

And??? What does this have to do with the price of eggs, if you know what I mean.

The list goes on and on...

There is no "one direction towards greater satisfaction"

No one is identical to another, so what one finds to be of greater satisfaction may not be that of another.

This is easy to demonstrate and is self evident.

Really? Show me where this law of our nature doesn't work, and I promise I will concede.

Your conditions and definition doesn't work.

Show me the goods.

[Ecmandu]

I already did show you the goods, you just wave your hands and say I didn't show you the goods.

Determinism is when one thing is caused (determined) by something else. Absolute determinism is when there is zero percent autonomy.

You're arguing absolute determinism.

Using the definition of absolute determinism I gave you the limit proof, which shows that some level of autonomy (freewill) must exist.

Next, all I have to do to crumble your entire house of cards is show that your own definitions are internally inconsistent, and to do that, all I have to do is show only ONE example of a mutually exclusive satisfaction, which I did.

Your idea is false.

[peacegirl]

I already did show you the goods, you just wave your hands and say I didn't show you the goods.

Determinism is when one thing is caused (determined) by something else. Absolute determinism is when there is zero percent autonomy.

You're arguing absolute determinism.

You are arguing against a false definition around the word "cause". Absolute determinism does not negate autonomy. This discussion has understandably become something irreconcilable the way it's framed.

Using the definition of absolute determinism I gave you the limit proof, which shows that some level of autonomy (freewill) must exist.

Agreed, but it's not what you think it is. We can have autonomy and our choices be fully determined. Do you see why words can cause logical contraptions that have no basis in reality?

Next, all I have to do to crumble your entire house of cards is show that your own definitions are internally inconsistent, and to do that, all I have to do is show only ONE example of a mutually exclusive satisfaction, which I did.

You did not Ecmandu. You would have to show that you can choose a dissatisfying option when a more satisfying option is available to you.

Your idea is false.

Can you at least preface this with "in my humble opinion". That would go a long way.

[Ecmandu]

I already did show you the goods, you just wave your hands and say I didn't show you the goods.

Determinism is when one thing is caused (determined) by something else. Absolute determinism is when there is zero percent autonomy.

You're arguing absolute determinism.

You are arguing against a false definition around the word "cause". Absolute determinism does not negate autonomy. This discussion has understandably become something irreconcilable the way it's framed.

Using the definition of absolute determinism I gave you the limit proof, which shows that some level of autonomy (freewill) must exist.

Agreed, but it's not what you think it is. We can have autonomy and our choices be fully determined. Do you see why words can cause logical contraptions that have no basis in reality?

Next, all I have to do to crumble your entire house of cards is show that your own definitions are internally inconsistent, and to do that, all I have to do is show only ONE example of a mutually exclusive satisfaction, which I did.

You did not Ecmandu. You would have to show that you can choose a dissatisfying option when a more satisfying option is available to you.

Your idea is false.

Can you at least preface this with "in my humble opinion". That would go a long way.

You're saying that (in saying we have autonomy that ultimately determined), that we can choose anything that we want, but it's all just determined in an ultimate sense. What if I choose not to have everything determined in an ultimate sense?

Oh! You're saying I don't have autonomy there and only there, but I have autonomy everywhere else.

You're argument is that no matter what any or everybeing does, nobody has a choice but for it all to be for the greater good (as you proved) You're the one wearing rose colored glasses not me.

That's exactly what your arguing!

It's not true.

[Ecmandu]

Read the above post as well!

Let me give a concrete example:

I'd feel horrible for punching a random person walking down the sidewalk in the face. So for greater satisfaction, I will not do it.

Not everyone is like me!!

Not everyone is like you!!

But you assume that they are.

You assume that it's a universal law, that no matter what anyone does, that we have (ultimately), NO CHOICE but to make the best decision!!

That's actually REALLY offensive !!

[peacegirl]

I already did show you the goods, you just wave your hands and say I didn't show you the goods.

Determinism is when one thing is caused (determined) by something else. Absolute determinism is when there is zero percent autonomy.

You're arguing absolute determinism.

You are arguing against a false definition around the word "cause". Absolute determinism does not negate autonomy. This discussion has understandably become something irreconcilable the way it's framed.

Using the definition of absolute determinism I gave you the limit proof, which shows that some level of autonomy (freewill) must exist.

Agreed, but it's not what you think it is. We can have autonomy and our choices be fully determined. Do you see why words can cause logical contraptions that have no basis in reality?

Next, all I have to do to crumble your entire house of cards is show that your own definitions are internally inconsistent, and to do that, all I have to do is show only ONE example of a mutually exclusive satisfaction, which I did.

You did not Ecmandu. You would have to show that you can choose a dissatisfying option when a more satisfying option is available to you.

Your idea is false.

Can you at least preface this with "in my humble opinion". That would go a long way.

You're saying that (in saying we have autonomy that ultimately determined), that we can choose anything that we want, but it's all just determined in an ultimate sense. What if I choose not to have everything determined in an ultimate sense?

If you mean by the word autonomy an uncoerced external choice (not having a gun to your head), that does not grant us free will. We can use the phrase "I did something of my own free will" if it's qualified. Again, the word cause is misleading. That's the other side of the two-sided equation which we haven't even touched upon. Before making a choice we have the option of choosing A or B (or anything we want that is within our reach) since nothing is preventing us from choosing either/or except for our preference toward one or the other (which is the meaningful difference desire is forced to take). Looking back, this makes any other option at that moment an impossibility because it would have given less satisfaction under the circumstances. If B is an impossible choice because it is less satisfying, we are not free to choose A.

The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly
correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to;
nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise
had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because
of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense
that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates
that his will is free. In fact I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’
frequently myself which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning
to see how words have deceived everyone?

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.

Oh! You're saying I don't have autonomy there and only there, but I have autonomy everywhere else.

You aren't being explicit. To be autonomous does not conflict with determinism. I know my will is not free and still say I am autonomous when I am making an independent choice.

autonomy: the ability to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else

You're argument is that no matter what any or every being does, nobody has a choice but for it all to be for the greater good (as you proved) You're the one wearing rose colored glasses not me.

Yes, you are on the right track. Nobody has a choice and under changed environmental conditions the desire to hurt another will not be the greater preference. Remember, we can only go in one direction and when that direction is the desire to hurt no one, our problem is solved.

That's exactly what your arguing!

It's not true.

Are you not jumping to conclusions AGAIN when you haven't even read the book?

[iambiguous]

It's irrelevant to you. Therefore others are obligated to see it as irrelevant too? Even in an autonomous universe? After all, in a wholly determined universe, the laws of matter decide what we think we know is true or not true.

No no no iambiguous. Stop using "a wholly determined universe" as your "get off the hook" card that exempts you from answering directly.

Well, in a "wholly determined universe" as I have [necessarily] come to understand it, the only answer that I am able to give comes directly from nature.

Right?

No one is obligated to see anything they don't want to see. I am not out of line to say that it's irrelevant to know whether 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that it is true here on earth and is the basic building block of many physical structures.

Unless of course nature obligates you to want to.

That's not how the word "obligated" is normally used. Obviously we have no control over what we desire or don't desire. There you go again saying the same old thing as if it's a new revelation.

How anything is used is normal. Why? Because it can only have ever been used as it in fact was used.

Right?

Thus...

And you are not out of line only because you were never really able to want to be anything here other than what you must be. Your own obligatory embodiment of nature. Then it's back to the assumptions that nature obligates us both to make here.

You're not obligated to say anything you don't want to. Stop using the term in an unconventional way, which can only cause confusion.

Unless of course I am not able to want anything other than that which nature compels me to. And then [again] around and around and around we go.

It gets us somewhere because you simply dismiss all those "unknown unknowns" as irrelevant to that which you seek to convey here: that your own "progressive" future hinges on having enough people "choose" to grasp the author's wholly determined point of view.

This new world is not dependent on your understanding specifically.

As though pointing this out has anything at all to do with actually responding to my point that you simply ignore all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what you think you know and all that can be known about these relationships.

I gave two undeniable principles that lead to the two-sided equation (which you have no knowledge about.) There are no unknowns that stand between the soundness of these principles. You do not know what you're talking about iambiguous.

So what? "In your head" that makes the unknown unknowns go away. As though that need be as far as it goes. As though that actually does make them go away!

And you know what you are talking about because the psychological comfort and consolation that you cling to with the author and his "progressive future" has become the center of the universe for you now. Everything that grounds your own particular "I" in this particular assessment of these particular principles is what is now at stake here. I can't know what I am talking about because if I do all of this might come crashing down all around you.

And the reason I'm not letting you...? Then around and around we go. Only I am more than willing to concede that my frame of mind here is beyond my own capacity to demonstrate as either free or determined. How on earth could I possibly know that given all that I am still unable to grasp about the objective relationship between "I" and "all there is". If it is even objective at all.

The objective relationship between you and all there is, is irrelevant to the knowledge that life on earth moves in one direction only, rendering FREE choice an illusion, but a persistent one.

Asserting this as you do here is no less preposterous to me now than it was before. You reduce everything that can be known in and about the universe down to how you have come to understand things here and now on earth.

And then expect me and others to just go along with it while acknowledging that our reactions here are in fact beyond our control.

You may not understand many things that I do, and I may not understand many things that you do. So what? This has no relation to the undeniable nature of this discovery.

Again, as though merely insisting that this is true need be as far as you and the author go. You demonstrate nothing substantial. You can't take someone through their day and explore the choices that they make other than by way of fitting them all into the intellectual assumptions you make about having or not having a free will. Nothing can be pinned down either experientially or experimentally.

How in the world can our choices be free when we are under a compulsion to choose what gives us greater satisfaction from one moment to another? This is an invariable law that cannot be broken.

Yeah, that's my argument too. But how you are able to make it your own argument in turn basically encompasses the gap between us.

If there is a gap between us, there is NO need to close it. Your lack of understanding (the gap) will not stop this discovery from coming to light when the time is right. Do you think a lack of understanding of Edison's discovery on your part would have prevented the lightbulb from being discovered?

As though the things that we think we need to do are not in turn only the things that nature compels us to think that we need to do. You want to make our "choices" the exception to the rule somehow. But I'm simply unable to understand why and how you think you accomplish this -- can accomplish this -- in a determined unviverse.

...when I say "determined universe" I am acknowledging right from the start that my own understanding of that can only reflect the gap between what I think it means and all that can be known about the universe that I am simply not privy to here and now. Anymore than you are. Only I am willing to own up to the "for all practical purposes" implication of that because unlike you I have not imagined some "progressive" future that seems to be predicated on others understanding these things as I do.

You're off the beaten track. You sound like a nihilist very determined to prove that a progressive future is not something we can achieve.

I'm off the beaten path only because nature put me there. I call myself a nihilist only because at this point in time nature compels me to. Instead, my assessment of moral nihilism in ILP revolves around the assumption that I am in fact [up to a point] autonomous. I am able of my own volition to conclude that moral and political values are rooted existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

And that the behaviors you deem to be a prerequisite for "peace and prosperity" are precisely the behaviors that others hold in contempt.

You said in a determined world there are no victims. I said yes there are. I get what you're saying when looked at in total perspective, but who in the world can see it this way when they have been attacked and left for dead?

My point is that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now those who are left for dead and those who leave them for dead are like the characters and the guests in West World.The characters are wholly programmed to think and feel and say and do only what they must. While the guests presume that they are free to do these things autonomously. The show then explores what happens when the two worlds begin to intertwine.

But: in a determined universe [again, as I understand it] there is no distinction between the characters and the guests. They are all compelled to think and feel and say and do things as nature commands given the immutable laws of matter.

[Ecmandu]

Well, you blew over the limit proof, as if i had never made it.

When I pointed out that mutually exclusive satisfactions exist, and thus made your argument internally inconsistent. You blew that over with a massive quote that didn't address something that simple.

And now you're saying people not only always make the best possible decision by universal law (implying that this is the best possible universe regardless of what we think because you "proved it")

You're also arguing that people can actually make very basic choices about what they want: one word for you: undesired addictions, otherwise known as diseases, considered incurable currently.

Let's look at other stuff that goes on in the world!

A man loves his family, never wants to hurt them, then he gets a brain tumor and murders his whole family. These kinds of things really do occur.

I don't think you have much experience with the sheer breadth of life, however, you certainly have no trouble making sweeping statements about it, that for basically anyone besides you (now granted my limit proof requires abstraction, so I'll let it drop) knows is false self evidently: that we all have a choice of the better of two options.

[Ecmandu]

Well, you blew over the limit proof, as if i had never made it.

When I pointed out that mutually exclusive satisfactions exist, and thus made your argument internally inconsistent. You blew that over with a massive quote that didn't address something that simple.

And now you're saying people not only always make the best possible decision by universal law (implying that this is the best possible universe regardless of what we think because you "proved it")

You're also arguing that people can actually make very basic choices about what they want: one word for you: undesired addictions, otherwise known as diseases, considered incurable currently.

Let's look at other stuff that goes on in the world!

A man loves his family, never wants to hurt them, then he gets a brain tumor and murders his whole family. These kinds of things really do occur.

I don't think you have much experience with the sheer breadth of life, however, you certainly have no trouble making sweeping statements about it, that for basically anyone besides you (now granted my limit proof requires abstraction, so I'll let it drop) knows is false self evidently: that we all have a choice of the better of two options.

I want to clarify this post more concretely...

There are hundreds of puzzles like the prisoners dilemma or the let's make a deal dilemma, where the best option is counter intuitive, where only geniuses and people who rotely remembered the solution can make the best decision.

The rest of us are totally fucked.

Since the solutions are counter intuitive, even if someone proves it (like I did to you) they'll still pick the worst of two options (in your case: contradiction)

How does it fit into your "proof" that most people will pick the worst of two options?

[peacegirl]

It's irrelevant to you. Therefore others are obligated to see it as irrelevant too? Even in an autonomous universe? After all, in a wholly determined universe, the laws of matter decide what we think we know is true or not true.

No no no iambiguous. Stop using "a wholly determined universe" as your "get off the hook" card that exempts you from answering directly.

Well, in a "wholly determined universe" as I have [necessarily] come to understand it, the only answer that I am able to give comes directly from nature.

Right?

Of course it comes from nature, even your sly way of answering.

No one is obligated to see anything they don't want to see. I am not out of line to say that it's irrelevant to know whether 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that it is true here on earth and is the basic building block of many physical structures.

Unless of course nature obligates you to want to.

That's not how the word "obligated" is normally used. Obviously we have no control over what we desire or don't desire. There you go again saying the same old thing as if it's a new revelation.

How anything is used is normal. Why? Because it can only have ever been used as it in fact was used.

Right?

That's your escape hatch every time we talk. I can't carry on a normal conversation because you keep reverting back to the fact that everything is only what it could ever be. WE KNOW THAT, but the way a word is used is either considered normal language or not and there is nothing wrong with me pointing that out, even though it is only what it could ever be.

Thus...

And you are not out of line only because you were never really able to want to be anything here other than what you must be. Your own obligatory embodiment of nature. Then it's back to the assumptions that nature obligates us both to make here.

You're not obligated to say anything you don't want to. Stop using the term in an unconventional way, which can only cause confusion.

Unless of course I am not able to want anything other than that which nature compels me to. And then [again] around and around and around we go.

You are obligated by nature to choose only that which you are compelled to choose, which is why will is not free. But that's not the kind of obligation I was referring to. When someone says they were obligated to do something, the word "obligated" often means doing something that they really didn't want to but felt they had to. We know that the feeling of obligation was also all it could ever be.

It gets us somewhere because you simply dismiss all those "unknown unknowns" as irrelevant to that which you seek to convey here: that your own "progressive" future hinges on having enough people "choose" to grasp the author's wholly determined point of view.

This new world is not dependent on your understanding specifically.

As though pointing this out has anything at all to do with actually responding to my point that you simply ignore all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what you think you know and all that can be known about these relationships.

I gave two undeniable principles that lead to the two-sided equation (which you have no knowledge about.) There are no unknowns that stand between the soundness of these principles. You do not know what you're talking about iambiguous.

So what? "In your head" that makes the unknown unknowns go away. As though that need be as far as it goes. As though that actually does make them go away!

There are many unknowns in the universe. This is not a prerequisite to understanding what can be known. It's not that in my head it makes the unknowns go away. It's just not something I need to know about in order to explain this discovery.

And you know what you are talking about because the psychological comfort and consolation that you cling to with the author and his "progressive future" has become the center of the universe for you now. Everything that grounds your own particular "I" in this particular assessment of these particular principles is what is now at stake here. I can't know what I am talking about because if I do all of this might come crashing down all around you.

There you go again, making accusations that this is all about my comfort zone and my clinging to a progressive future that you don't believe is possible.

And the reason I'm not letting you...? Then around and around we go. Only I am more than willing to concede that my frame of mind here is beyond my own capacity to demonstrate as either free or determined. How on earth could I possibly know that given all that I am still unable to grasp about the objective relationship between "I" and "all there is". If it is even objective at all.

The objective relationship between you and all there is, is irrelevant to the knowledge that life on earth moves in one direction only, rendering FREE choice an illusion, but a persistent one.

Asserting this as you do here is no less preposterous to me now than it was before. You reduce everything that can be known in and about the universe down to how you have come to understand things here and now on earth.

And then expect me and others to just go along with it while acknowledging that our reactions here are in fact beyond our control.

I was hoping there would be more interest. I'm not expecting anything from you because if you don't find this interesting that's also beyond your control. I'm trying to whet your appetite but I think it's a lost cause.

You may not understand many things that I do, and I may not understand many things that you do. So what? This has no relation to the undeniable nature of this discovery.

Again, as though merely insisting that this is true need be as far as you and the author go. You demonstrate nothing substantial. You can't take someone through their day and explore the choices that they make other than by way of fitting them all into the intellectual assumptions you make about having or not having a free will. Nothing can be pinned down either experientially or experimentally.

Because I haven't been given a chance. Anyway, if you know so much about the book offering nothing substantial, you must have studied it. So what is the two-sided equation? I gave the first three chapters to everyone. You know you didn't read it.

How in the world can our choices be free when we are under a compulsion to choose what gives us greater satisfaction from one moment to another? This is an invariable law that cannot be broken.

Yeah, that's my argument too. But how you are able to make it your own argument in turn basically encompasses the gap between us.

If there is a gap between us, there is NO need to close it. Your lack of understanding (the gap) will not stop this discovery from coming to light when the time is right. Do you think a lack of understanding of Edison's discovery on your part would have prevented the lightbulb from being discovered?

As though the things that we think we need to do are not in turn only the things that nature compels us to think that we need to do. You want to make our "choices" the exception to the rule somehow. But I'm simply unable to understand why and how you think you accomplish this -- can accomplish this -- in a determined unviverse.

I never said there is an exception to the rule that man's will is not free. I have said over and over that it's an invariable law.

...when I say "determined universe" I am acknowledging right from the start that my own understanding of that can only reflect the gap between what I think it means and all that can be known about the universe that I am simply not privy to here and now. Anymore than you are. Only I am willing to own up to the "for all practical purposes" implication of that because unlike you I have not imagined some "progressive" future that seems to be predicated on others understanding these things as I do.

You're off the beaten track. You sound like a nihilist very determined to prove that a progressive future is not something we can achieve.

I'm off the beaten path only because nature put me there. I call myself a nihilist only because at this point in time nature compels me to. Instead, my assessment of moral nihilism in ILP revolves around the assumption that I am in fact [up to a point] autonomous. I am able of my own volition to conclude that moral and political values are rooted existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

You can be autonomous, but you cannot separate yourself from the laws of nature that created you. Just because nature causes you to choose certain things based on your desires does not mean you can't think for yourself, do for yourself and be independent...yet still be working within the framework of determinism.

And that the behaviors you deem to be a prerequisite for "peace and prosperity" are precisely the behaviors that others hold in contempt.

I don't know of anyone who would rather be poor than rich, have war rather than peace, or hold these values in contempt. What they hold in contempt is exploitation.

You said in a determined world there are no victims. I said yes there are. I get what you're saying when looked at in total perspective, but who in the world can see it this way when they have been attacked and left for dead?

My point is that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now those who are left for dead and those who leave them for dead are like the characters and the guests in West World.The characters are wholly programmed to think and feel and say and do only what they must. While the guests presume that they are free to do these things autonomously. The show then explores what happens when the two worlds begin to intertwine.

But: in a determined universe [again, as I understand it] there is no distinction between the characters and the guests. They are all compelled to think and feel and say and do things as nature commands given the immutable laws of matter.

I agree that the guest and the characters are both doing what they are compelled to do. The only thing I have an issue with is your using the term "programmed" which indicates that you can't make a choice because it's already made. This is where there is a lot of confusion as I've already expressed.

[Ecmandu]

Well, you blew over the limit proof, as if i had never made it.

When I pointed out that mutually exclusive satisfactions exist, and thus made your argument internally inconsistent. You blew that over with a massive quote that didn't address something that simple.

And now you're saying people not only always make the best possible decision by universal law (implying that this is the best possible universe regardless of what we think because you "proved it")

You're also arguing that people can actually make very basic choices about what they want: one word for you: undesired addictions, otherwise known as diseases, considered incurable currently.

Let's look at other stuff that goes on in the world!

A man loves his family, never wants to hurt them, then he gets a brain tumor and murders his whole family. These kinds of things really do occur.

I don't think you have much experience with the sheer breadth of life, however, you certainly have no trouble making sweeping statements about it, that for basically anyone besides you (now granted my limit proof requires abstraction, so I'll let it drop) knows is false self evidently: that we all have a choice of the better of two options.

I want to clarify this post more concretely...

There are hundreds of puzzles like the prisoners dilemma or the let's make a deal dilemma, where the best option is counter intuitive, where only geniuses and people who rotely remembered the solution can make the best decision.

The rest of us are totally fucked.

Since the solutions are counter intuitive, even if someone proves it (like I did to you) they'll still pick the worst of two options (in your case: contradiction)

How does it fit into your "proof" that most people will pick the worst of two options?

I want to explain what I stumbled upon to enhance this point:

Please don't ask me for this proof in this thread, and please don't make it a topic in this thread... it's just an example that I'm offering at face value ...

I discovered that every instance of male and female sexual relations have been sexual assault or rape: I proved it.

It's totally counter intuitive!

Men and women are like, "this is the love of my life, impossible! You're crazy, misguided or deranged"

But! The thing is, in spite of it being counter intuitive, it's a fact.

So here's the deal!

Every man and woman, given a better option, in all of human history have all, and still continue to use, the worst of the two options.

Not your "proof" about satisfactory determinism, but my proof about rape is actually the number one cause of strife on earth.

But nobody gives a shit.

Yet here you are saying that we always pick the best of two options, when it's easy to demonstrate that people generally pick the worst of two options.

[peacegirl]

Well, you blew over the limit proof, as if i had never made it.

When I pointed out that mutually exclusive satisfactions exist, and thus made your argument internally inconsistent. You blew that over with a massive quote that didn't address something that simple.

I'm not sure where I did that. Can you give me an example of mutually exclusive satisfactions?

And now you're saying people not only always make the best possible decision by universal law (implying that this is the best possible universe regardless of what we think because you "proved it")

It is a fact (based on careful observation) that man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of life from making decisions to scratching an itch. Animals who don't make choices like we do are also moving in this direction, which is the movement of all life. The best possible decision may not be the best choice for you but better for the person who is making the choice. Moving toward greater satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied. It just means we make the least dissatisfying choice if that's what is available to us at a particular moment in time.

You're also arguing that people can actually make very basic choices about what they want: one word for you: undesired addictions, otherwise known as diseases, considered incurable currently./quote]

Addictions are hard to break but they can be broken. People often choose what they know is not good for them because the desire to get high or to keep from going into withdrawal is greater than the desire to stop. It takes a lot of strength to get over an addiction but it's not impossible if a person wants it bad enough and with enough support. IOW, he has a choice although it's a difficult one to make for many. I'm not sure where you think that the choice to take drugs based on a person's life events does not follow the universal law of greater satisfaction.

Let's look at other stuff that goes on in the world!

A man loves his family, never wants to hurt them, then he gets a brain tumor and murders his whole family. These kinds of things really do occur.

I'm sure they do. If a killing was caused by a brain tumor (which is controversial), then that would have been an event where the shooter had no power of choice at all. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2016/07 ... rain-tumor

I don't think you have much experience with the sheer breadth of life, however, you certainly have no trouble making sweeping statements about it, that for basically anyone besides you (now granted my limit proof requires abstraction, so I'll let it drop) knows is false self evidently: that we all have a choice of the better of two options.

If you carefully analyze your choices, you will see that the purpose of deliberation is to choose what IN YOUR EYES is the best option at that moment. A moment later you may decide it was not the best option and choose differently. Each moment offers a new set of alternatives that affect choice.

I want to clarify this post more concretely...

There are hundreds of puzzles like the prisoners dilemma or the let's make a deal dilemma, where the best option is counter intuitive, where only geniuses and people who rotely remembered the solution can make the best decision.

The rest of us are totally fucked.

Since the solutions are counter intuitive, even if someone proves it (like I did to you) they'll still pick the worst of two options (in your case: contradiction)

How does it fit into your "proof" that most people will pick the worst of two options?

We can only choose the best option based on our limited knowledge of a situation. It is true that the more you know about a situation, the more informative your choice will be. That being said, regardless of how little or how much you understand before making a choice does not take away from the fact that we are compelled to pick the best possible option (based on our particular circumstances) of available alternatives. Good question.

[Ecmandu]

Peacegirl,

Based on what we know (most people) about complex game theory solutions that are counter intuitive.

They assume even odds where it's not even odds.

From their perspective, it doesn't matter what they choose, as in their ignorance, they assume all the odds to be even. (Meaningless to choose)

Now, you state that a person always makes the best decision from their knowledge.

If their ignorance makes 4 choices all even odds, even though a non ignorant person knows that one of those 4 decisions is the best odds...

You have a situation with the ignorant people where the best decision is any of the 4 equally or no decision.

They have 5 equally probable "best" decisions to make.

But let's that rest for a moment.

We're literally talking about someone giving a proof of what the best decision is, and like you, they simply don't understand it, so they make the worst decision because the best decision triggers their denial system or is counter intuitive.

Even given proofs, they still make, not the better decision, but the worst decision.

That is counterfactual to your argument.

An example of mutually exclusive satisfaction is a sadist doing sadist things, and an anti sadist doing anti sadist things.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl,

Based on what we know (most people) about complex game theory solutions that are counter intuitive.

They assume even odds where it's not even odds.

From their perspective, it doesn't matter what they choose, as in their ignorance, they assume all the odds to be even. (Meaningless to choose)

Now, you state that a person always makes the best decision from their knowledge.

If their ignorance makes 4 choices all even odds, even though a non ignorant person knows that one of those 4 decisions is the best odds...

You have a situation with the ignorant people where the best decision is any of the 4 equally or no decision.

They have 5 equally probable "best" decisions to make.

But let's that rest for a moment.

We're literally talking about someone giving a proof of what the best decision is, and like you, they simply don't understand it, so they make the worst decision because the best decision triggers their denial system or is counter intuitive.

Even given proofs, they still make, not the better decision, but the worst decision.

That is counterfactual to your argument.

An example of mutually exclusive satisfaction is a sadist doing sadist things, and an anti sadist doing anti sadist things.

It is not counterfactual to my argument because there is no way a person could desire to hurt another given 4 choices. This knowledge cannot prevent someone from not making the best decision --- when his denial system kicks in --- as long as either of the choices are benign (regarding how it will affect others), but it can prevent the desire to strike the very first blow of hurt. How can a sadist do sadist things as the only option when there is always the option not to do sadist things, IF that is the desirable choice. At this time in our history nothing has been powerful enough to prevent people from doing bad things because, once again, the satisfaction of doing bad things overrides the desire to do good things. But this discovery changes all that.

[Ecmandu]

Peacegirl,

Here's the problem with your commandment, and a not rigorous proof:

You're telling sadists to do, for the rest of their lives, that which gives them the least satisfaction so that you can have the most satisfaction. You're doing the same thing to the sadist that they do to others!! You're just another sadist!! Telling sadists not to be themselves!!! Sadists truly are people who ONLY gain satisfaction if they're violating the consent of others. They may not be smart enough consciously to see that you're just another sadist, but their subconscious mind will know that, and they'll just ignore you.

This is different than people ignoring proofs because they don't understand them, and then make the worst decision -- which everyone in earth is doing!!

You're not looking at the situation realistically -- I do think you've not had much experience with the breadth of life... when you explain things to people, even if they agree it's the best decision, most people don't have the strength to make that decision. That's the way the world is, that's the way that people are, and because they don't have the strength, they'll just form a denial system of claiming ignorance or some other type of denial system ("I guess we just agree to disagree") to shelter themselves from the cognitive discord of just being a weak person.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl,

Here's the problem with your commandment, and a not rigorous proof:

You're telling sadists to do, for the rest of their lives, that which gives them the least satisfaction so that you can have the most satisfaction.

How can that be when this discovery tells no one what to do? Do you see what you're doing? You're trying to find loopholes when you haven't understood how this principle works in the real world.

You're doing the same thing to the sadist that they do to others!! You're just another sadist!! Telling sadists not to be themselves!!!

That's not what I'm doing. I am only showing a way, through this discovery (which is not mine) where no one can be hurt because the desire to hurt (whether it's for enjoyment due to a build up of hatred for everyone, or for revenge) has been permanently removed, without taking anything away from anyone.

Sadists truly are people who ONLY gain satisfaction if they're violating the consent of others. They may not be smart enough consciously to see that you're just another sadist, but their subconscious mind will know that, and they'll just ignore you.

I understand that there are people who love hurting others. Hurting people hurt people. This desire to get enjoyment out of hurting for the sake of it (which is not very common) probably stems from a predisposition to rage as well as the conditions that lead one to express that rage in horrendous ways. But this sadist tendency will not have a chance to develop when this new world becomes a reality. Those sociopaths who are beyond help and cannot be controlled by this law (which will be a relatively small number) may need to be institutionalized just as a mad dog would need to be, but with compassion.

This is different than people ignoring proofs because they don't understand them, and then make the worst decision -- which everyone in earth is doing!!

How can someone make the worst decision when this is not what they want? You are assuming that under changed conditions a person would want to hurt others (especially when the world knows what constitutes a hurt) when not to would not make them a loser.

You're not looking at the situation realistically -- I do think you've not had much experience with the breadth of life... when you explain things to people, even if they agree it's the best decision, most people don't have the strength to make that decision.

What strength is involved to put all guns away because they're no longer needed or wanted, whether it's to rob, to kill, or to create war?

That's the way the world is, that's the way that people are, and because they don't have the strength, they'll just form a denial system of claiming ignorance or some other type of denial system ("I guess we just agree to disagree") to shelter themselves from the cognitive discord of just being a weak person.

But this knowledge doesn't involve weakness or strength. It involves conscience which will not permit one to cause harm when there is no justification.

[Ecmandu]

So, here's another glaring contradiction to this "proof" you're espousing.

We all have choice.

But!

On the ULIMATE level, we all have zero choice !

Well if it's ultimate! Then how can the subset have choice? Or even more... how can the subset ever find itself in something against its will?

[peacegirl]

So, here's another glaring contradiction to this "proof" you're espousing.

We all have choice.

But!

On the ULIMATE level, we all have zero choice !

Well if it's ultimate! Then how can the subset have choice? Or even more... how can the subset ever find itself in something against its will?

That's just the point, it can't. This is the second principle that leads to the two-sided equation.

The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.


<snip>

Choice in this context only means we have the ability to compare options. Ultimately, the choice is never free because we cannot choose the alternative that gives us less satisfaction when a more satisfying option is available. Again, this does not mean that we are completely satisfied with our choices all the time.
That is not how the word is being used.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s
nature, but to reiterate this important point...he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration,
does not change the direction of life which moves always towards
greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must
bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that
a juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that
affect choice.

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.”

[Ecmandu]

So, here's another glaring contradiction to this "proof" you're espousing.

We all have choice.

But!

On the ULIMATE level, we all have zero choice !

Well if it's ultimate! Then how can the subset have choice? Or even more... how can the subset ever find itself in something against its will?

That's just the point, it can't. This is the second principle that leads to the two-sided equation.

The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.


<snip>

Choice in this context only means we have the ability to compare options. Ultimately, the choice is never free because we cannot choose the alternative that gives us less satisfaction when a more satisfying option is available. Again, this does not mean that we are completely satisfied with our choices all the time.
That is not how the word is being used.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s
nature, but to reiterate this important point...he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration,
does not change the direction of life which moves always towards
greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must
bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that
a juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that
affect choice.

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.”

I just proved that this entire post was false just a few posts back when I talked about game theory ...

like the Monty hall problem, there is a proof of the best choice. Even when given this proof, some of the smartest people on earth said all the odds were even.

If all the odds are even, it's impossible for someone to make the best choice from their perspective ...

Let's look at another disease:

Gambling.

Every gambler on earth knows they can't win, they know it for a fact. The evidence never contradicts this. But they knowingly always choose the worst of two options and continue to gamble. Destroying their life and their families life.

[Meno_]

Just so as to understand all that went on since my last contribution, let me add a thing about sets and subsets.

The major set being is the one dealing with action . There really is no problem with the cognizant aspect of either zecisong to act or not, since a thoughtless decision revolves around a simply decisive choice between actup and non action, whatever option s there are, measuring by whatever criteria, pleasure, or any other.

Once the action is started, it can have either variable or fixed criteria for that action , its either automatic , autonomous, supported , or a derelictio out of duty. These are not exclusive exclusive, but have relative validity based on other considerations, which effect was other, so the pin pointed casual chain is never clear, consciously, unconsciously, subconsciously, or whatever.

In fact , freedom and determination can not even be said to be cut off from responsibility.

So to my mind to solve this problem by the use of am artificial conceptive process of either/or , shows a reduction where solution is sought from premises which do not justify such.

I think that consideration is poignant as well, to consider, in coinjunction to the overall understanding of it in situ

[peacegirl]

Just so as to understand all that went on since my last contribution, let me add a thing about sets and subsets.

The major set being is the one dealing with action . There really is no problem with the cognizant aspect of either zecisong to act or not, since a thoughtless decision revolves around a simply decisive choice between actup and non action, whatever option s there are, measuring by whatever criteria, pleasure, or any other.

Once the action is started, it can have either variable or fixed criteria for that action , its either automatic , autonomous, supported , or a derelictio out of duty. These are not exclusive exclusive, but have relative validity based on other considerations, which effect was other, so the pin pointed casual chain is never clear, consciously, unconsciously, subconsciously, or whatever.

In fact , freedom and determination can not even be said to be cut off from responsibility.

So to my mind to solve this problem by the use of am artificial conceptive process of either/or , shows a reduction where solution is sought from premises which do not justify such.

I think that consideration is poignant as well, to consider, in coinjunction to the overall understanding of it in situ

Responsibility increases with the truth of determinism, not decreases, which many philosophers have mistakenly believed. If you were following this thread it was stated that nothing external can cause us to do anything against our will as in a causal chain. That is why this demonstration is so important because it brings together the ability to "choose of one's own accord" with "determinism".

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

[peacegirl]

So, here's another glaring contradiction to this "proof" you're espousing.

We all have choice.

But!

On the ULIMATE level, we all have zero choice !

Well if it's ultimate! Then how can the subset have choice? Or even more... how can the subset ever find itself in something against its will?

That's just the point, it can't. This is the second principle that leads to the two-sided equation.

The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.


<snip>

Choice in this context only means we have the ability to compare options. Ultimately, the choice is never free because we cannot choose the alternative that gives us less satisfaction when a more satisfying option is available. Again, this does not mean that we are completely satisfied with our choices all the time.
That is not how the word is being used.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s
nature, but to reiterate this important point...he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration,
does not change the direction of life which moves always towards
greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must
bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that
a juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that
affect choice.

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.”

I just proved that this entire post was false just a few posts back when I talked about game theory ...

like the Monty hall problem, there is a proof of the best choice. Even when given this proof, some of the smartest people on earth said all the odds were even.

How could they be the smartest people on earth if they didn't understand the proof?

If all the odds are even, it's impossible for someone to make the best choice from their perspective ...

From their perspective, they believed they were correct. Maybe they didn't agree with the proof and needed to be shown objectively why it was correct. You didn't disprove anything. This isn't about making the right choice always. It's about making the choice you believe is best given the knowledge you have at the moment of choice. Certainly you can delay making a choice if you're not sure and you need more info. Obviously if they had understood the proof, their choice, in the direction of greater satisfaction, would have been in line with the proof given.

Let's look at another disease:

Gambling.

Every gambler on earth knows they can't win, they know it for a fact. The evidence never contradicts this. But they knowingly always choose the worst of two options and continue to gamble. Destroying their life and their families life.

This is like any addiction, but that doesn't mean they have no choice. It's just that the choice to gamble is very strong when compared to stopping. But if someone threatened that if they didn't stop gambling their child would be collateral damage, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have the strength to stop because now the tables have turned and gambling provides less satisfaction than keeping their child safe.

[Ecmandu]

Their child safe?

Did you not read the little passage that they destroy their whole family with gambling?

They know that this is what they're doing, but do it anyways