I am talking about options which are equally liked. You are saying that you eventually find a solution for it. The options are not liked equally if you can find a preference in one of them.
How a system which can only move in one direction from moment to moment can resolve a situation with two options, two chains of causality, to a situation with one option, one chain of causality?
There cannot be two chains of causality since only one choice can be made at any given moment in time. If I choose milk over juice, I could not have chosen juice over milk at that exact same moment. IOW, the option chosen could not have been otherwise (I think the phrase “chain of causality” is problematic if not qualified) given the available choices at my disposal.
The point is that two chains of causality cannot turn into one chain of causality in a deterministic system. One chain of causality coincidentally vanishes at the point of decision?
There is only one chain of causality in a deterministic system because only one of the potential chains was ever a real possibility. If two choices could be made simultaneously then you could say there are two chains of causality but this cannot be done. Choice only gives one possibility. That is why free will is an illusion since you were never free to choose A once B was chosen. IOW, if choice B gives you greater satisfaction under the circumstances, you are not free to choose A. You are not free because whatever choice you make or not make IS the only choice that could ever have been made. Determinism is compelling you to make a choice (even when both choices are of equal value) whether it’s to choose one or the other, or neither. To pick one or not to pick one is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with saying you are free to make this choice or that choice (no one has a gun to your head), but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. No movement from here (point A) to there (point B) gives you any free choice whatsoever.
The choices that you are considering, however limited or unlimited they may be. If it’s an important decision, you may take more time to gather information that will help you to make the best choice possible. If it’s a choice that doesn’t require much thought, you may use the information you already have without doing further research. You need to bear in mind that every movement from point A to point B is in the direction of greater satisfaction. I gave the example of changing position while you’re sleeping. Suddenly you have become uncomfortable so for greater satisfaction you turn on your back, relieving the discomfort. You have gone from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, which is the movement of all life. Animals move in the same way but they don’t have the ability to contemplate options like we do.
There is no such a thing as potential chain of causality. Moreover, do you have any reason that why one chain of causality always vanishes at the point that decision is made? Why does what we always want correlated with the actual, no the potential, chain of causality? Can you describe these within determinism?
why do i keep cringing when i see the title of this thread? because this ain’t no ‘new discovery’ PEACEGIRL. ‘determinism’ is not new news, dammit! we cannot educate the world with badly produced re-runs. our educational institutions are already over-multifarious. we need homogenized schools of learning. where’s guide? he’ll tell you all about it.
it’s time to work, guide. front and center, buddy. and NO THESAURUS.
What’s wrong with multifarious? Homogenized sounds scary. I haven’t begun to explain the knowledge that lies locked behind the door of determinism. Determinism is not the discovery, which I’ve said all along. It’s the gateway.
Right. There are only options. It’s a potential choice which would then lead to the chain of causality that could never not have been chosen.
The potential chain of causality vanishes once a decision is made because it is no longer a viable choice. It’s illusory. What we want is what we choose. period. The alternative was never an option because it gave less satisfaction than the option actually chosen. Choice always comes from the ability to select, not something forced upon us, which most people think of when it comes to determinism. The problem with the present definition is that we believe that we are caused to do what we do even without our permission. That is false because nothing can force us to do what we ourselves don’t permit. If we don’t straighten this out, nothing will be solved not because it can’t but because the standard definition is misleading.
Bahman actually did give a situation that he believed gave us free will. He stated that two options of equal value would give a person free will because there was no leaning in one particular direction, therefore we are free. I disputed that by giving examples to show that even when two options are equally desired, this in no way grants us free will. I don’t know what he understood.
I don’t want to keep my argument in sky. I want it as simple as possible so everybody can understand it.
Do you want example? Suppose you want to buy chocolate or ice cream.
Now suppose that you want ice cream more that chocolate but you don’t want to get fat so you think that chocolate is somehow is better for you. At the end you fall in a situation that both options have the same weight when you consider all circumstances. So you are trapped because you don’t know what to choose.
You are simply not bounded with what choices and your preferences are when you make free decision. In this argument, I however use a situation when a deterministic system cannot resolve. We however can resolve such a situation. Therefore we are not determined. A thing however is either determined or is free. Therefore we are free.
This is so hard because everyone is going by a definition of determinism that makes free will, as its opposite, unavoidable. But the problem is not that determinism is false, but the definition is misleading. Determinism does not necessarily force a particular response, like a computer program. If people refuse to try to understand why the conventional definition is not completely accurate, there will be no progress, not because this author was wrong, but because his demonstration is falling on deaf ears. Would you take more time to listen if he was a well-known philosopher?
It is human tendency to not appreciate what they have until it’s gone, then they attempt to delve deeper into understanding them when gone, while trying to add their own twist to truth.
The context must be defined first, semantics, if one is to debate this subject clearly. Must define words and use simile to express them. Whomever first goes back on the definition that is agreed upon in debate is the one who must accept the other as truth, it is a backing into a corner. I am curious as to whether both exist, just in different levels or of different elements. The mind could be an element of itself and the binding is to physical manifestation/objectivity.
Thank you Artimas. That’s what I’m trying so hard to do. This author tried his entire life to explain his findings but to no avail. Sixty years later it’s only gotten worse because people are so arrogant. I’m not saying the people here are, but in general. It’s sad. It may take another 2000 years for this knowledge to come to light. Not one person has taken the time to read the first three chapters. I challenge anyone after carefully reading to ask me one pertinent question, and I think I’ll faint.
Ok, we are on the right point in here now. You didn’t explain why the potential chain of causality vanishes at the point of decision when options are equally liked. In another word, what is the deterministic mechanism that terminates one of the chain exactly at the point of decision? You simply skip the problem by saying that a decision is made.
What do you make of this beautifully written aphorism, bahman:
“At the waterfall; When we see a waterfall, we think we see freedom of will and choice in the innumerable turnings, windings, breakings of the waves; but everything is necessary; each movement can be calculated mathematically. Thus it is with human actions; if one were omniscient, one would be able to calculate each individual action in advance, each step in the progress of knowledge, each error, each act of malice. To be sure, the acting man is caught in his illusion of volition; if the wheel of the world were to stand still for a moment and an omniscient, calculating mind were there to take advantage of this interruption, he would be able to tell into the farthest future of each being and describe every rut that wheel will roll upon. The acting man’s delusion about himself, his assumption that free will exists, is also part of the calculable mechanism.” - Nietzsche
