New Discovery

Again to simplify things structurally, to reduce definitive conclusions on basis of meaning, lets go back to the pleasure principle whereby our sequencing of desired compatibility between our willful self chosen acts and the determined choices subscribe toward an equanimity.

Sometimes pleasure as from which arise the inxreasing building blocks of civilisation , may actually counter the solidity , utility, and even the coherent functional cohesion of future progress.

And many examples abound in that scenario, but for the sale of brevity will illustrate upon request.

Is a negative outcome of that underlying choice, based on a determined set of variables as well?
That that question has been raised and solved as well, philosophically, psychologically and morally as well, there is no doubt.

Therefore , apart from a dissection of the meaning of ‘pleasure’ is there any other way for coping with this issue?

It gets more basic than the pleasure principle. Moreover, willful self-chosen acts ARE Synonymous with determined choices. I’m not sure where equanimity comes into play if self-chosen acts are determined based on greater satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with desiring what is pleasurable, but in the new world willful self-chosen acts of pleasure would never step beyond the boundary of someone else’s right to pleasure as well. Until you understand how this natural law and the corollary to it, changes human relation for the better, your questions will be premature.

To repeat, pleasure is not synonymous with greater satisfaction. I gave an example where someone may find greater satisfaction in saving someone at his own peril. People throughout history have sacrificed their personal pleasure for something bigger than themselves.

Part of the ability to make choices is the ability to change course if an unexpected negative outcome results from said choice. We are constantly reevaluating our options based on new information. This discovery is revolutionary in that we can change the environment where the underlying determined variables that compel us to hurt others in order to survive are no longer necessary. In other words, it would be a much better world if we didn’t have to choose between outcomes that are both negative rather than both positive.

But you don’t want to prove that you have free will since that gives you less satisfaction.

obviously we have quite a few philosophers here who are positively livid with excitement and very passionate about this subject. i’m watching it unfold very nicely, i think, even as the discussion follows the usual patterns of reasoning which lead directly into the classic linguistic confusions that are produced wherever and whenever this old beast rears its ugly head. now normally one would encourage philosophers to ‘work it out for themselves’, do their own leg-work, and eventually get there on their own (although this runs the risk of permitting the slackers to fall behind). so sometimes we want to give them a little push and show them the way, especially if the path has already been blazed by those who preceded us.

it is therefore with much gratitude for the masters that came before us, that i present to you perhaps the single most splendiferous attempt to unravel this peculiar philosophical puzzle, ever witnessed before in history. but a small sacrifice will be made; you must commission the assistance of your wallet for a small fee of $7. this $7 will buy you 48 hrs of time… and it will be the best 48 hrs you ever bought.

you should reason thus: is it more reasonable to spend seven dollars and resolve the matter in 48 hrs, or spend nothing and talk in circles for three weeks. shirley your time is more important than that, but i’d not call you shirely unless you were absolutely shir about the importance of the venture you are about to take.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd … checkout=1

I don’t want to prove that we have free will because there is no way I could prove this. We cannot go back in time, undo what has already been done, to show that we could have chosen otherwise, which is required for proof. Obviously, you believe that two options that are equal in value halt the deterministic process. That is incorrect. There does not have to be a leaning in one direction to prove determinism. Whatever option is chosen is the option that had to be chosen. Having to choose between two identical options would be like choosing between two identical apples (as close to identical as any two apples could be with the naked eye) . What difference would it make which apple I chose? It would not matter one bit. Choice usually involves meaningful differences, which involves contemplation to decide one’s preference based on the advantages and disadvantages of the choices under consideration. If there are two equally liked choices, it would still be like choosing between two identical choices unless a preference for one over the other came into view. Sometimes not having to choose either is the preferable choice. There is no halting of our constant movement toward greater satisfaction. Each moment offers a new set of possibilities, but only one choice can be made from moment to moment which must be in this direction. This IS an invariable law.

It is correct. A deterministic system as I mentioned before takes one state of affair and return another state of affair, what produces a chain of causality. In here, when a decision is involved, we are dealing with two states of affair, two chains of causality, which only one can be chosen. A deterministic system cannot deal with such a situation. You can. Therefore you are not deterministic or are free.

You are defining determinism incorrectly. Nothing from the past (or any antecedent event) necessarily spits out an output like a software program. We don’t have free will based on the accurate definition I gave. No wonder you are in opposition. I would be too if I held onto the conventional definition, which turns us into automatons. :open_mouth: Just remember that definitions mean nothing unless they reflect what is actually going on in the real world.


Part of the ability to make choices is the ability to change course if an unexpected negative outcome results from said choice. We are constantly reevaluating our options based on new information. This discovery is revolutionary in that we can change the environment where the underlying determined variables that compel us to hurt others in order to survive are no longer necessary. In other words, it would be a much better world if we didn’t have to choose between outcomes that are both negative rather than both positive.


Yes, however, such corrective choice in respect to a negative, is still prone to the determined chain of causal derivitives from which the latest negative choice emerges. So would that imply a determined course with occasions of undetermined causal links?

To my mind , this would connect the noted onto-philosophical and psycho- variable parts of the argument , as more tentatively a posterior then a-priori, while at the same time, reinforcing the hypothetical assertability of its functional utility.

Which is Bahman’s (construct of States).


We don’t have free will based on the accurate definition I gave. No wonder you are in opposition. I would be too if I held onto the conventional definition, which turns us into automatons. :open_mouth:

Then, if You could , what is Your definition again, of free will, for those of is who missed that point?

Thanks Peace girl

What is your definition of determinism?

This is exactly the issue which makes compatibility objectionable in part, via: questions focusing on defining the underlying gaps which separate the casual links which define constructed ideas with indefinite casual chains of referential meaning.

This is why I stray from a positive defining modus operans toward the reductive ontology of which its base emerges from. Note I did not use ‘emerged’ for that would treat the casual chain contrary to its intended function.

[i]The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice, consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good. In this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
[/i]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4[/youtube]

Yes.

Why is hurting others not also subsumed in all of the choices that you could never not make in a determined universe?

If someone is doing something to you that do not want them to do, how is them doing it and you not wanting them to do it not also necessarily embedded in the laws of matter unfolding only as they must?

From my frame of mind, once you accept that the universe and all that is in it [including “I”] is matter unfolding in sync with its own laws, how does anyone or anything “escape” what simply is?

On the other hand, I still grasp in turn that “I” may well have some capacity to choose freely. It is just not accomplished in a way that is fully understood by either science or philosophy. Or, for others, by theology.

But: in separating the chaff from the wheat, is this not too just the illusion of choosing to do so freely?

And you ask me to contain my skepticism as [from my point of view] someone who believes in free will would. As though of my own volition, I can choose to step back, rethink the arguments, and then choose to see things as you do.

Instead, in a determined universe, I am only “choosing” to do these things.

I believe we are bound to the system of what is but we may choose what may be to the extent of what could or can be as well. This doesn’t mean we have a free will, but my definition of free will is to be able to shape oneself completely without restriction, we do have a will to choose even if our choices are limited. It’s logical to choose what brings most comfort, but then where does knowledge come in when learning is to train oneself to seek the uncomfortable? Is this a manipulation by us of the system? Or is it supposed to be this way and they are lessons to be sought?

It’s only a freedom to do what we want within an already established system which is both “free” but also the opposite due to us being who we are and not changeable outside of the ego.

In simple terms, we may shape the ego to an extent of what we wish, with environment and manifestation of archetypes but are still bound to this system of existing through chaos, order, genetics, etc.

There are layers that go over each other, it’s paradoxical.

Like you can demonstrate beyond all doubt that you chose freely, autonomously to post this.

Hell, you can have a dream in which you are confronted with the same thing. In the dream you are convinced that you are calling the shots. And then you wake up and realize it was a “reality” created entirely by the brain.

I believe there is a reason for this system. If everyone had what I define as “free will” of being able to shape self completely then would not everyone be identical to each other due to societies manipulative crafting of egos and seeking comforts instead of wisdom? This would be even worse than what it already is for change and evolution, change would no longer be inevitable for humanity I would think. We need the system of forced diversity, to evolve.

Of course we are free. Do you have any problem with my argument?

I don’t think that I am a brain. I am a mind. What I experience is caused by other minds whether if I am awake or asleep.

Or: Of course you must believe this in a determined uniuverse.

And how do I go about demonstrating that my reaction to your argument [like the argument itself] is rooted in human autonomy?

What, you have this “gut feeling” that you freely choose to make it?

Or is simply believing that something is true “in your head” as far as it needs to go?

The problem here revolves around a philosophical/scientific puzzle that has plagued the species now for centuries: do we have free will?

And, sure, some insist that they have the answer. And that [trust them] it is their answer. And that if others don’t share it then they are wrong.

And not just in regard to determinism, but to, well, everything. Including moral and political conflicts. Of course they are right.

What’s that really have to do with my point about “I” in dreams? What you experience in the dream is not something that you choose freely to experience. Not in the manner in which you are convinced that your “mind” does choose freely to experience while awake.

And the mind/brain conundrum has in turn intrigued science and philosophy now for thousands of years. Where does one stop and the other begin? And, for some, where do both end and the soul begin?

All the wars, crimes, accidents, inequalities have been part of man’s development but that does not mean these things have to continue once we find better ways.

That is true.

It certainly can keep you more relaxed. :slight_smile:

We can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, therefore free will is an illusion although a persistent one.

I never said any choice was free. You are the one doubting determinism.

Of your own volition, you can choose to step back, rethink arguments, and possibly see things more clearly but only if you desire to do so. Your choice to rethink arguments does not mean you have free will. Your definition of these terms is different than mine which is why we don’t see eye to eye.

To repeat: You are given the ability to choose, but it’s not a FREE choice because of the reasons given. The choice you make is the choice that could never not have been made, but that does not mean determinism forced a choice on you like bowling pins being knocked down. IOW, you can’t say, “due to my lack of free will my causal chain made me speed up in a school zone. It was already embedded in the laws of matter that I run over a child.” That’s not how determinism works.