New Discovery

Of course, from my point of view, you were no less making the same points over and over and over again in our own exchanges.

As she tends to as well in our effort here.

All we can do then is to situate those points out in the world that we live in.

And, no, I do not think of myself as a domino. I am instead unable to make up my mind as to whether or not the choices that I make are [at least in some respect] of my own volition.

I merely suggest in turn that even to the extent that they are, “I” in the is/ought world is the embodiment of dasein in a world of conflicting goods that are, as often as not, “resolved” in favor of those with the political and economic power to actually enforce particular sets of behaviors.

I’m not sure.

Human autonomy meaning free will. Why don’t you use the term “free will?” The is a semantic problem not a genuine contradiction.

This discussion fascinates me only because of its value once we understand that responsibility increases with this knowledge, not decreases.

Conflicts will naturally go away when the first blow of hurt goes away.

And when the decision that predisposed you to making a decision that requires punishment no longer exists, our problem is solved.

The nature of choice is not at stake. As long as man can deliberate and compare, choice will remain. What matters is that when this principle is put into effect, the choice to hurt another will be the least preferable alternative rendering this option an impossibility under the changed conditions.

Of course your choices are of your own volition or desire. Could they be anyone else’s? But… just because your choices are of your own volition (or free will, according to compatibilism) does not, in actuality, grant you freedom of the will due to the fact that you are never given a free choice since you are compelled to move in the direction of what offers you greater, not less, satisfaction, and only one choice can be made each and every moment of time. Moreover, when there is no more need for government because the conflicts have been resolved, how can there be political and economic powers that create an unfair advantage?

[i]Decline and Fall

There is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong
in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is
removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another, then
whatever value existed in asking for and giving advice has been
permanently done away with.[/i]

Doesn’t that support his position that you are not really making a choice?

But he says that he’s not making a choice.

That’s the point that he keeps repeating which seems to directly negate your ideas about choice, decision, responsibility, etc.

How can you cross that fence between you?

Yeah. I’m used to this.

You hammer on the same thing over and over. Then when someone addresses that consistent message, you shift entirely.

Of course, you could never not respond in this way. And you will always respond in this way until you don’t.

You can think of yourself as an actor with choices or you can think of yourself as a domino without choices.

Why pick one over the other? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Can you switch around from one to the other? Are you better off adopting one view?

You hit the nail on the head. It’s difficult when there are only one or two participants because it seems to shut off any further curiosity by others. It surprises me that there has been so little interest in this discovery.

Why pick one over the other? Because one is true and one isn’t. Of course, if you are pushed down like a domino and hit another person who also falls down, this is not what we are talking about. This falling down is not of your own volition because something is being done to you due to physics. Choice, although not free, does exist. We choose every single day of our lives. Can you think of a day where you don’t deliberate over options to decide which one is the most preferable in your eyes?

I don’t know if I can cross that fence between us because he defines determinism as being forced, by nature, to say, act, and do. He is just a domino with no autonomy or free will. I keep telling him that nothing (not heredity, background, nature, parents, or God himself) has the power to force a person to do what he does not want to do, for over this he has mathematical control. It is okay to say I was compelled, of my own free will, to do what I did if it means I did something of my own volition because this is what I desired. This does not mean will is free although many philosophers define free will in this way. When I bring this up he back peddles to include the fact that he does have a choice which is embedded in natural law. He vacillates back and forth on a whim saying one minute he is a domino with no choice, and the next minute he says he has a choice which would mean he has some kind of autonomy. This doesn’t jive either since someone can have autonomy (independence) and still be under the control of determinism.

Autonomous, if I am wrong about any of my interpretation, please correct me. I don’t want to state anything that is a misrepresentation.

I think that discussions of determinism and free-will have little value. You end up making the same decisions , using the same process, no matter what label you stick onto life. Nothing really changes.

Well, no. Both are maps used to navigate through life. Both are true in some ways and false in others. Both are simply tools which can be picked up, used and discarded.

You can think of yourself as not deciding anything … the universe is deciding. You can think of yourself as not even being here. If there is no ‘you’, then there is nobody making decisions.

You are 100% incorrect.

[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil

Since my discovery
would bring about the greatest change in all of history, it appeared
that this man would be willing to let me explain my findings. By
convincing him on the phone that it was now possible to put a
permanent end to all war as a result of my discovery, he agreed to
meet me on a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C. Our
conversation went as follows:

“I’m really not a scientist, Mr. Lessans, and in all probability you
should be talking to someone else. Your claims are absolutely
fantastic, but I want you to know that even though I wrote an article
about science, I am not a scientist. Besides, after you hung up I
became more skeptical of claims such as yours because they not only
sound impossible but somewhat ridiculous in view of man’s nature.
Frankly, I don’t believe your claims are possible, but I am willing to
listen if it doesn’t take too long and if I can see some truth to your
explanation; I do have another engagement but I can devote at least
one hour. Would you get right on with it?” I then told him the story
about the earth being flat and he smiled at this, and then told him
that a theory exists regarding man’s nature that is accepted as true by
98% of mankind, and I pointed out that this theory is actually
preventing the decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door
to a vast storehouse of genuine knowledge.

“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnston, but in order for me to
reveal my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its
hiding place because they are related to each other.”
“What is this theory?” he asked.

“You see, Mr. Johnston, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”

“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me
that man’s will is not free?”

“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnston. I don’t believe it; I know
this for a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door
marked ‘Man’s Will is Not Free,’ just like the invariable laws of the
solar system were concealed behind the door marked ‘The Earth is
Round’ — until some upstart scientist opened it for a thorough
investigation.”

“I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it
make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be
affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if
the will of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery,
consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors
that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as
long as the door marked ‘The Earth Is Round’ was never opened
thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the
undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to
discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”

“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of
the most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any
discoveries to change the world.”

“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none
of them had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there.
Most people do not even know it is a theory since it is preached by
religion, government, even education as if it is an absolute fact.”

“Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have
discovered but whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it
cannot be valid because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank
you very much for coming out but I’m not interested in discussing
this matter any further.” And he would not let me continue.
[/i]

We can deny anything or believe anything. We can even believe we’re worms thinking we’re people. There has to be a solid basis of communication or there’s no way a sensible discussion can take place.

One needs to understand the other person’s POV in order to communicate or discuss effectively.

That’s certainly possible.

I hope you keep an open mind. That’s all I am hoping for. If not, I will move on because there seems to be very little interest. It’s okay to be skeptical, but to think that there is nothing more to be discovered is a killer of new knowledge.

Again, there’s my bottom line here and yours.

Mine: how we define determinism in a wholly determined universe is how we could only ever have defined it. Just as any gap between how we define it and the way it really is reflects nature’s way.

Yours: that I’m still trying to grapple with.

From my perspective: There you go again!

We were never really free not to have been through this. But somehow the natural fact of it is still the embodiment of my flaw and not yours.

Now, I’m not arguing that we are either free or not free. I’m merely pointing out that here and now I don’t have access to either an argument or a demonstration that convinces me one way or the other. Why? Because, like you, I don’t have access to a complete understanding of existence itself.

So, everything that we do is necessarily in sync with nature’s way. But, unlike dominos, we “choose” to be in sync with nature. Even though that “choice” must in turn be subsumed in everything.

And how would the “definition that you are using” – “choosing” – not also be subsumed in everything?

The laws of nature would compel particular brains to define determinism “normally”. Just as the laws of nature compel my brain not to. Just as how your brain defines an “accurate” definition of determinism is compelled by whatever set into motion the laws of nature.

My brain is wholly determined by the laws of matter. And that would seem to include my brain ignoring your important adjunct. My brain cannot freely choose to lead the horse to water. The horse’s brain cannot freely choose to drink the water.

Instead, nature unfolds such that I was never not able to lead it to water and it was never not able to drink or not drink it. Only the horse’s brain is not able to reconfigure its “choice” into a philosophical quandary like mine “chooses” to.

If you could never not say that 2 + 2 = 5, and someone else could never not correct you, and you could never not have appreciated it…

We’re just stuck here. I am still – necessarily – at a loss regarding your own – necessary – rendition of determinism defined.

Nor does it take away the fact that any correction that is made was only ever going to be.

And the only reason I was not able to understand how you are using the term “responsibility” was because I was never able to understand it. Nature had other plans. Plans that are reflected only in her immutable laws. Laws that we still have no complete understanding of.

In either context, what this person knows is a natural fact.

Thus:

That is how I would put it. We veer or do not veer because we must. We want or do not want to injure someone because we must. The consequences are what they are because that is quite simply nature’s way.

Nothing at all that unfolds is other than as nature compelled it to.

Bingo. If I could allow you to show me…". But: however I want to sustain what I construe to be my greater satisfaction here is all at one with nature itself.

Then back to you concuring with me…

There is no final analysis here other than that which is necessarily in sync with nature unfolding as it must. “I” am just along for the ride.

Again, from my own necessary frame of mind you have yet to demonstrate to me that this “knowledge” is anything other than an argument – a world of words – wholly in sync with the internal logic of its own assumptions. Not only am I compelled to “choose” not to read it but I am compelled in turn to note that your own assumptions regarding “peace and brotherhood” in the future are just existential contraptions, rooted in dasein and conflicting goods. And, as well, in the assumption that we do have some measure of autonomy in choosing to understand them as we do.

I think of myself as unable to determine [conclusively] what I ought to think of myself as here. If my “I” is but an adjunct of my brain is but an adjunct of the laws of nature then these very words that I am “choosing” to type here and now I was never able not to type here and now.

Only my attempts to wrap my head around that are in turn wholly in sync with nature. Or there is some aspect of “I” as “mind” which is somehow able to transcend the laws of nature in a “dualistic” universe where [either through God or No God] “I” am [up to a point] able to choose certain things of my own volition.

Either because I pick only that which I could never have not picked or, given some degree of autonomy, I pick that which here and now seems more reasonable.

And being better off depends on my own existential understanding of a particular situation construed subjectively from the perspective of “I” as dasein.

It’s not a flaw to say determinism in a wholly determined universe is how we could only ever be (let’s leave the definition out for a second). But the problem is you keep repeating it, as if I am denying this fact.

It is not a prerequisite to be all knowing. What you are implying is that we will never know the truth of our nature because no one can ever get close to understanding the meaning of existence itself.

Nothing. We are all obeying the law of greater satisfaction when meaningful differences between two or more alternatives are compared.

We don’t choose to be in sync with nature, as if we have a choice not to be in sync. We can’t help but be in sync with nature. It’s beyond our control.

It is. I am only clarifying two things. One, we are always moving in the direction that pushes us away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position every single moment of our lives. This means we can’t choose what we, not others, believe is worse for ourselves when something better, in our eyes, is offered as an alternative. Two, nothing but nothing can force us to do anything against our will, or without our consent, not nature, not God, not anything therefore it is incorrect to say “I was made to do something against my will” because nothing has the power to do that.

That’s true, your brain is compelled to define determinism one way, and mine another, but they are not that different in the most important sense (i.e., could not do otherwise) and do not have to create a stumbling block.

The horse’s brain can’t freely choose to drink the water, but he also can’t freely choose not to drink the water. The only adjunct is that the horse can’t be forced to drink the water (barring being forced physically by being held down, which is not what I’m referring to) if he doesn’t want to. There is nothing inconsistent here.

That is true. Life moves in one direction only (toward greater satisfaction even if it’s just scratching an itch), which is why no living creature has a free choice.

Nothing could not be as it is. I was only saying that most people, when shown they are incorrect about something will want to know how to correct their mistake. Their desire to fix their error would give them greater satisfaction than not fixing it.

No one is disputing this.

We do have an understanding of determinism. We don’t have to have a complete understanding of all of nature’s immutable laws to understand some of nature’s immutable laws. Determinism, the way it’s accurately defined, is one of them. What lies beyond this understanding is fantastic because it has the power to prevent war, crime and poverty on a global scale.

Regardless of what a person believes regarding nature’s purpose, the cars piling up and the human brains that brought this situation (apart from dominoes crashing where there is no choice whatsoever) will be prevented from coming into existence as part of the “unfolding as they must” deterministic process.

True, and as we understand how to prevent conflict and create cooperation, this unfolding is also nothing other than as nature compels it to be. Today, some want to injure as they must. Tomorrow, they will be compelled to not injure as they must. Same nature, but veering in a different direction as it must.

I’m having difficulty with this because what you are saying in so many words is back to having no choice because nature (as if nature is something other than ourselves) is forcing our choices. Obviously, the future is a continuation of antecedent events, our heredity, and our experiences.

We are just along for the ride but we do play a part in how nature unfolds. None of the unfolding “as it must” is of our own free will but that does not mean we simply do nothing, nor does it mean we don’t find great satisfaction in finding a sense of purpose based on our talents and what we’re called to do.

There are no assumptions here, and this is not logic.

Man has the ability to think, to create, to observe, and to discover. Call it autonomy if you like. The label you give it doesn’t matter. It’s the reality behind the label that counts. I’m not sure why you call the claim that peace and brotherhood are within our reach, just assumptions. You have no basis for this comment other than your opinion and your belief that peace is impossible. You are dead wrong.

No, the problem is that, given my own understanding of determinism, I can never not keep repeating it as long as repeating it is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

So “flaws” are merely built right into this exchange. Whereas in an autonomous universe flaws result from you and I having the actual capacity to get something right…but one of us still keeps getting it wrong.

I’m merely pointing out the obvious: That, here and now, neither you nor I can connect the dots between the truth about determinism and the manner in which cause and effect itself is wholly explanable given a complete understanding of existence.

Then the part about the future here is either going to be what it could only ever be or [somehow] human brains/minds have the inherent capacity to shape that future one way rather than another.

Then it is back to be rephrasing that and you being entirely in agreement:

As though our “greater satisfaction” is not in turn a necessary aspect of nature unfolding like clockwork – with or without a clockmaker.

It’s “beyond our control” to be in sync with nature. We “can’t help it”. But somehow that’s not the same as a domino being in sync with it because dominos can’t “choose” to be.

If there are stumbling blocks how are they not entirely of nature’s making? Again, they are not stumbling blocks in the manner in which autonomous human beings view them. Why? Because autonomous human beings are able to actually get around them of their own volition. They accomplish this, whereas entirely determined men and women merely “accomplish” it.

Hmm. That sounds familiar. Just as the points I raise sound familiar to you. So, the “stumbling block” here is either within our capacity to move beyond or it’s not. Meaning that if one of us does make a breakthrough and the other finally “sees the light” it was only because that was always going to be the case.

Nature prevails! Again!!

If determinism is embedded in that which explains a complete understanding of all of nature’s immutable laws, how can we have a complete understanding of one without a complete understanding of the other? That makes no sense.

Here I keep coming back to this:

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

This continues to boggle my mind. All this stuff about “free will” in a universe where the “immutable laws of matter” relect less than 5% of the universe.

Or the multiverse?

Sure, shrug that part off. That’s what all folks who have these grand understandings of all things do, in my view.

For example:

From my frame of mind, it is the believing in things like this itself that propels you into the future. A whole new progressive world if only others would grasp the author’s points. Or, perhaps: If only others could grasp his points. In a world where nature and nature alone decides these things. Ultimately.

How we both agree and disagree about the very same things! That’s what fascinates me. In many ways, you reflect what I imagine a wholly determined universe is. But then we imagine the consequences of it in very different ways.

The future is as it must be but it must be more progressive if nature compells enough people to read the author’s book. This makes sense to you in a way that does not to me. I’m not saying that you are wrong, only that I still have no capacity [autonomous or not] to grasp it here and now.

Thus:

I’m not arguing that men and women here on earth don’t choose behaviors that propel the future in one or another direction, only that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now, they have no option, no capacity to actually choose anything other than what nature’s laws compel them to “choose”. At least in our 5% of the universe.

From my frame of mind, to say that human beings have the capacity to think, to create, to observe, and to discover is merely to acknowledge that you were compelled to think, feel and say that here and now. And that, in turn, how I and others react to it is no less compelled by the laws of nature. And that whatever I call it I was never able to not call it. And thus the “basis” for all of this is determinism.

And I’m not saying that peace is impossible. I am merely pointing out that it will be predicated on those who have the capacity to enforce particular sets of behaviors in particular contexts.

Hitler might have conquered the world way back when and the world war would have been over. Peace would prevail.

Not what some would call a “progressive” peace, but peace none the less.

But in an autonomous universe we would at least have the capacity to judge that peace from conflicting moral and political narratives. Whereas in a wholly determined universe Hitler was no more flawed in his thinking than those who fought against him.

The Holocaust simple was what it could only ever have been.

And it is the implications of this that [I would imagine] most deeply disturb the free will folks among us.