Your argument about time travel has always been a straw man argument.
Compatibilists have no problem stating “in order for me to smoke a cigarette, a cigarette must exist”
A compatibalist likewise has no issue stating that “in order for me to exist, time travel can’t change me”
This isn’t rocket science here.
I gave you a real debate with that link there and you avoided it, and just keep attacking straw men. You’re actually not interested in any truth whatsoever in your own thread on your own topic.
That may be true, and learning what those choices are may give people greater opportunity, but how does this challenge the fact that will is not free?
These people had a burning desire and the determination that it took to survive, but they didn’t do it of their own free will. All of the factors that made them who they are allowed them to get through the nightmare. None of this was done of their own free will. Self-determined means they had free will, according to the dictionary definition. This is false because no one has free will.
[i]self-determined
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.
self-de·ter·mi·na·tion (sĕlf′dĭ-tûr′mə-nā′shən)
n.
Determination of one’s own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will.
Freedom of the people of a given area to determine their own political status; independence.[/i]
I didn’t say they had no choice. And of the choices available, most are made consciously. What does this have to do with free will? Their choices were limited but they were able to think positively and gather as many resources as they could to try to beat the odds, but none of this was done of their own free will. They moved in this direction out of necessity and their desire to self-preserve, which was in the direction of greater satisfaction.
This is important to understand.
[i]Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.
“I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves.
The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a
discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did
what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this
demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not
be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.
[/i]
If you want to use the term “free will” to mean that they still chose to do whatever they could in spite of the restraints, to stay alive, that is perfectly fine. What it does not mean is that, given their circumstances, they could have done differently than what they did. Some people whose genetics, personality, fears, confidence level before being taken captive were not as strong, did not allow them to make the same choices that kept the others alive, and they died as a result. But in both cases, they chose what they were only able to choose given their circumstances.
Of course I have heard of the saying. We have the capacity to make lemonade out of lemons only if we are given that capacity. Some don’t have it, and cannot transcend hardship. If they could transcend being bound, you would think they would, but many cannot for reasons that we may not be aware of.
The fact that you say “that to me is free will” shows me that you don’t understand that this is not an opinion. Either we have free will or we don’t. We can’t have both because they are opposites. It is wonderful to be able to overcome adversity. The only thing I’m trying to explain is that whatever a person chooses, is in actuality not done of his own free will. He does what he can to make his life better if he is able. But that doesn’t mean he is any freer (or that he could do otherwise) than a person who can’t make his life better, for whatever reason. Both are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given their particular circumstances. Once again, the confusion over the meaning of terms is problematic. I see it over and over again.
I’ve said this before that it’s okay to say I did this of my own free will, if it means I did something because I wanted to, but this doesn’t mean your will is free in the sense that you could have done otherwise.
I think what he meant by that is that human beings can overcome many atrocities, and that we can stand up to our oppressors. He can also be encouraged not to give in or give up, which may help him to fight the good fight, but this does not mean he has ultimate control or can pull himself up by the bootstraps if he does not have the wherewithal to do so. As individuals we are doing the best we can given our life circumstances, which only means given the hand we’ve been dealt we try to make the best choice we can (in the direction of greater satisfaction), even if to others it is the worst choice.
I’m only trying to define determinism in a way that reconciles what we do “of our own accord” with the fact that our will is not free so that I can show how this changes our world for the better. People often think determinism would reduce them to robots (which it doesn’t), and why they resist the truth. Determinism hasn’t shown how to overcome the problem of moral responsibility, which is what I’m trying to show.
That was a misunderstanding.
We can aspire to this kind of freedom, but this realization is also a product of influence and training therefore this is not free will. But…the way you are using the term is fine. Who wouldn’t want to be free from negative influences and from being internally imprisoned by earlier conditioning resulting in lack of confidence and low self-esteem?
I think the differences could be due to many things such as the will to turn one’s life around (which is not the same for everyone if they don’t have hope for a better life), a good support system, having economic opportunity, finding a sense of purpose that gives a person a reason to turn his life around, believing that one’s life matters, etc.
Doing that which you must do is not free will. It’s the compulsion to do that which you have no choice not doing.
Determinism does not mean that our choices are pre-determined by something external. This is what I’ve been trying to explain. This would mean we must make a particular choice because it’s been preset, even if that’s not what we want our choice to be. That’s not how it works. We have the final word as to what choices we permit and which one’s we don’t.
I think we agree with each other but we’re using the term “free” to mean different things. Language confusion especially with a topic as deep as this one, can be a problem.
We are often able to make our own decisions, but what we do of our own free will, or what philosophers often call free will, is not free will in actuality (even though it feels free) because we are compelled to move in only one direction; the direction of greater satisfaction which only offers us one possibility each and every moment of time.
No need to apologize. I’m glad you stopped by. Maybe you will desire to read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If you request it, I’ll post it for you.
If discoveries made by anyone are but necessary components of nature’s immutable laws of matter embodied in the human brain, then calling them genuine is just another manifestation of this in turn.
You seem [at least to me] intent always on making the “choice” to discover something [anything] as somehow being “outside” of that which nature compels of all matter.
However conscious matter is not fully understood by anyone such that they can demonstrate definitively what and how and why it is. Let alone being able to fully explain matter that becomes self-conscious.
In my view, You merely take these subjective leaps into your own intellectual contraptions and insist that by asserting what you believe is true, this makes it true.
You acknowledge that you have no free will in accomplishing this, but your own no free will still gets us closer to the whole truth than my no free will. Or the no free will of anyone who refuses to “define” free will and determinism exactly as you do.
No, the conflict revolves around whether I was ever able not to make points that you concluded were mumbo jimbo, and whether you were ever able not to now conclude that I couldn’t help myself.
It’s either all necessarily intertwined in the only possible reality or autonomy on some level does exist and it may be possible to distinguish which frame of mind here is in fact more reasonable.
Again, however, it’s not a question of the right word or the wrong word, but of whether or not you were free to choose one word over another. If you are not then any word you choose is the right word becasue it is the only word you were ever able to “choose”.
The discussion is inherently stuck given the manner in which I construe the existential relationship between a determined universe and “I” as in fact an essential relationship wholly embodied in the laws of nature.
Thus [as I see it]:
And I’m just trying suggest that in a determined universe you are not free to note this, but only compelled by nature to note it. And nothing can ever really be superflous if intrinsically it is entirely natural.
And what can possibly be “outside” of nature? Certainly not your brain or my brain. Certainly not the entirety of this exchange that they are creating.
This seems by far to be the biggest stumbling block between us. The part about nature, the laws of matter, my brain, “I”, what “I” want, and the “satisfaction” it brings to “me”. From my frame, what I want to choose, what I think to choose and what I do choose are all an inextricable manifestions of the same immutable reality. There’s nothing to reconcile here. There is only the brute facticity of what is. At least, in my view, in a No God world.
You insist on giving the mindful “I” more significance in toppling over the mindless domino. Why? Because the mindless domino doesn’t choose, doesn’t want, doesn’t have a sense of satisfaction. BUT: “I” am no less compelled by nature to topple the domino than the domino is compelled to fall.
Back again to this: That is what I am compelled to argue too! “Get it” or “not get it” – past, present, future – nature is behind it all. But: What is behind nature?
Then the author is there to cling to his definitions. Then repetively nature brings us back to this part in the exchange:
In other words, nothing new here. Unless of course we can finally pin down once and for all the defintion of “fate”. In sync with the definition of “choice” “want” “satisfaction” “reason” “cause” etc.
Then down to earth. The part where we in fact choose to do something:
Yeah, that’s what I am assuming as well. Only I am also assuming that there may well be a break – a break embedded in the understanding of mindul matter we are not able to fully grasp yet. There may well be autonomy in our interactions. Unlike you, I don’t claim to know everything here.
Or: I wanted to only because my brain is hard wired by the laws of nature nature to want to.
If only [so far] “in your head”.
We can prevent it if nature compels us to prevent it. And you speak of this “progressive” future as though the part where some consider abortion to be the political right of women [abortion a good thing] and others consider birth to be the natural right of the unborn [abortion a bad thing], just dissolves as somehow nature compels our descendants to grasp and to act on the principles embedded in the author’s “discovery”.
And the fact that nature compels you to gain comfort and consolation from this doesn’t make it any less…what exactly?
Apparently there is this universal “standard” for differentiating right from wrong behavior and it just so happens to be entirely in sync with human behaviors in the author’s own “peace and prosperity” future.
In the past some thought this revolved around one or another God, or one or another political ideology, or one or another moral obligation rooted deontologically in one or another rational assessment of the human condition or of nature.
Instead, it all really comes down to the author’s “discovery” about the future?
Or: Compelled by nature, “[w]e are the ones doing the deliberating, the preferring, and the choosing, therefore WE are responsible for making those choices.”
That is why in a wholly determined universe some people are compelled by nature to hold others responsible for behaviors that they are not in fact free to choose. Just as the one holding them responsible is not free to do that. Nothing is not in sync with the laws of matter. Including this exchange of course.
Again, I suspect that only being inside your head and having the capacity to understand this as you do, will bridge this gap between us. The gap that revolves around the actual existential implications of this being true for human interactions.
Up to now…
But “now” is different. “Now” we actually have more control over…over what exactly? How are the choices we are compelled to make here and now any different in a determined universe from the choices we were compelled to make yesterday and will be compelled to make tomorrow? The difference in my view is how you are able to reconfigure the physcial world that you live in into the reality you have been compelled to construct in your head. Out of definitions and intellectual contraptions is what I am compelled to believe.
Assertions that you are no less able to actually demonstrate than I am mine.
Still, from my own “frame of mind”…
But how does any of this really address the point that I am making? Spinozian or not, God is no less part of the mystery that is matter evolving into life, evolving into brains, evolving into minds making choices that may or may not be autonomous.
Okay, explain how understanding why there is something instead of nothing, and this something instead of something else, isn’t profoundly relevant to the purposes of this discussion?
Come on, we are on this teeny tiny “track” on this unimaginably teeny tiny planet in a humdrum galaxy embedded in a universe that consists of billions more in what may well be but one of an infinite number of other universes. And that’s all shrugged away?
You can’t seriously believe this other than as a psychological need to make it all disappear in defending the author’s discovery. Or so it certainly seems to me. But given my own understanding of determinism you are off the hook because there was never the possibilty of you not believing it.
Or: People are compelled by nature to believe that they have an actual choice to believe or not to believe something but that is only a necessary component of the human brain able to create and then to sustain this psychological illusion of an actual choice.
I couldn’t have said it better myself!!
But, again:
I readily acknolwedge that I don’t have one for my own point of view.
That is not true iambiguous. Everything that has happened or ever will happen is the only way it could happen. But where is the intellectual contraption? That we do what we must? Is that it?
Huh? I am not demonstrating the what and how and why of conscious matter, so it’s not relevant.
This is totally your intellectual contraption not mine. Don’t you think I’m well aware that asserting something that I believe is true doesn’t make it true? But that’s not what I’m doing.
No one has free will, but some people get closer to truth than others. As I said, a person can argue that one plus one is three but you cannot tell me he’s closer to the truth, or equal in truth value to the person who says that one plus one is two. If someone defines free will and determinism different than the author by saying that the laws of matter are causing a person, without his consent, to do what they do, THEY ARE WRONG. That does not mean they could help themselves. Obviously, they couldn’t because their will is not free.
That’s not the point. We already know you couldn’t help yourself, so why do you keep repeating it? How can anyone move forward in a discussion that keeps going back to the premise that both participants are in agreement with? I have said autonomy is an okay word to use if you mean without involvement from others. But this does not mean we are free from the antecedent events that lead us to making the choice that offers us the greater satisfaction.
autonomy: In developmental psychology and moral, political, and bioethical philosophy, autonomy is the capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision. Autonomous organizations or institutions are independent or self-governing
There you go again. This is not the issue because we already know that. Repeat repeat repeat. That’s why we’re getting nowhere. No, it’s not the most important thing because it’s an established foundational principle that man’s will is not free, according to the demonstration I gave. Even if you believe there could be an element of free will, you really need to put it aside so we can move forward. It’s like the mathematical principle of 1+1=2 is the basis that allows a bridge to be built but you keep saying that this is not important. You don’t seem interested that building the bridge which will help us to get from one place to another, create jobs, and help us develop. You just want to understand mystery as to why 1+1 is 2. Who cares as long as we can build the damn bridge.
They are just two sides of the same coin, but it is important to clarify that necessity in determinism does not mean that you don’t have a choice. That’s false. It’s just not a free choice. As long as you mean the “I” or self gets to choose (which is an attribute of man due to his ability to contemplate), we’re on the same page.
I am compelled due to my preference which is always in the direction of greater satisfaction that my desire is forced (or compelled) to take.
That is true, but in order to move forward you need to make the effort not to keep going back to the premise that we are part of nature’s immutable laws. I explain it by saying we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. You are right now moving in this direction by being more satisfied to post here than not. If you lose interest, you will stop posting in the direction of greater satisfaction.
But you are still choosing iambiguous. You are still permitting or forbidding your choices to either be actualized or not. You are making it seem as if you’re not a participant but are the victim of nature’s vicissitudes in whatever way the wind carries you.
There is a difference, not in the sense that you are no less compelled by the laws of nature to topple the domino, but that you have to give consent to topple over the domino in order for the domino to fall. Obviously, the consenting of toppling the domino, once you make this decision, is not of your own free will. We know that so don’t repeat it.
You are changing topics again. It doesn’t matter what or who is behind it all. You can ask this question until the cows come home. A more important question is if the claims are true and this discovery can change our world for the better, it needs to be brought to light sooner rather than later.
The author said that the word ‘choice’ is misleading because embedded in the word is the word “free”. That’s how free will is defined conventionally; we have a choice therefore will is free. WRONG.
[i]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]
Fate is not synonymous with determinism because it implies that regardless of what you do, your destiny is sealed. That is obviously not true. If your child was running into traffic would you say, too bad that the car is going to hit him because it’s already predestined, so I won’t try to save him? You can use the word fate to mean once you do everything you can to make a situation better, and it doesn’t turn out, you can then say it was fate ordained.
You are in sync but, once again, by saying nature’s law MADE you step on the accelerator is misleading because nothing outside of YOU made you choose this. Stop putting the blame on nature as if you’re a helpless creature going along with nature’s software program that you have no input in. Recognize that nature is YOU; you cannot distinguish nature as a separate entity, which is how you make it sound. Obviously looking back nothing could have been otherwise but our decisions, based on contingent events happening in the here and now, does not grant you free will in any sense of the word. Nature isn’t separate from you, but that’s how you’re making it sound. “I couldn’t help myself because nature made me do it.” See what I mean? This is the problem with language as a tool since it always needs clarification when discussing topics that require people to be using the same definition.
There is no break whatsoever. It would be a contradiction to BE able to choose otherwise and NOT to be able to choose otherwise. It has to be one or the other. I don’t claim to know everything here, but I may actually know more about this knowledge than you do, and because of that I am more sure that there is no break than you are.
You are hardwired by the laws of nature to desire choosing that which brings you greater satisfaction any time there are meaningful differences under consideration.
No, it’s not just in my head. It’s in a 600 page book.
Once you understand that no one can tell another what to do, the right of the mother gets preference, but the irony here is twofold: people will have better incomes and will not desire aborting in the majority of cases. Rape will be a thing of the past. Lastly, you mocked his discovery regarding death. When you understand the reality that we’re born and again and again, abortion (even if it takes place rarely) will not have the same moral angst that it once brought. You have a mindset that’s difficult to engage because you believe strongly in your worldview. As a result, you immediately superimpose your thought system regarding conflict onto this discovery as if these issues can’t be solved. You are wrong.
It does bring me comfort but that does not mean it’s wrong just because it brings me comfort. This is a ridiculous syllogism.
If a discovery is comforting it has to be wrong.
The discovery brings me comfort.
Therefore the discovery is wrong.
Differentiating right from wrong is basically differentiating between what is a hurt to another and what is not. Obviously abortion is one of those gray areas where a fetus doesn’t have a say, so it must be the mother’s choice. Once again, abortion will gradually decline because people will be married in the new world (not in the conventional way) and their children will be wanted. Please stop jumping the gun, okay?
Interestingly, there is no moral obligation to do anything in the new world. This is not another political or moral ideology that must be obeyed. You’re off the beaten track.
You are making it sound like the author’s discovery is self serving; an ego trip. He took no credit whatsoever. How could he have if man’s will is not free? This discovery is about the laws of our nature that the author observed after years and years of reading and studying human behavior.
Keep trying and hopefully nature will allow you to get it.
In a wholly determined universe nothing could be otherwise, which means that if we see something of interest that propels us to question what this is about IN THE DIRECTION OF WHAT GIVES US GREATER SATISFACTION, that is what we will be compelled to do.
Only time will tell whether he was right.
We have no control other than our ability to refrain from “nature” forcing us to do something we don’t want to do.
Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. That is why the conventional definition of determinism regarding “cause” is misleading. If we don’t get an accurate picture of what determinism means, we will never be able to reconcile doing of one’s own accord with the fact that man’s will is not free. This is the key to peace on earth. Wouldn’t you be interested to know how peace could become a reality? Can’t you contain your skepticism just a little bit?
This discussion is not about God. Give it up!!!
What the hell? Why is the sky blue? Why is the grass green? Why do birds chirp? Why are there so many species? Why do we wonder whether God exists?
Why Why Why? What do any of these questions have to do with what I’m sharing?
God, if you’re there we need your help!!! [-o<
Yayyyy, I AGREE! Can we move on? :-"
But then…you backpaddle by saying you’re not sure if there is a gap where free will could exist. No, it can’t unless your delusional.
Do you really want to learn more? Then why are you so adamant that this author is not the real deal? How could a bridge be built without the raw material (1+1=2) to build the bridge without it crumbling? The same holds true here, we need to have a solid basis for communication in order to move forward. If you can accept that will is not free notwithstanding, then we can move forward so I can show you how the bridge of peace can be built. Game?
Huh? I am not demonstrating the what and how and why of conscious matter, so it’s not a prerequisite to understanding this knowledge.
This is totally your intellectual contraption not mine. Don’t you think I’m well aware that asserting something that I believe is true doesn’t make it true? But that’s not what I’m doing.
No one has free will, but some people get closer to truth than others. As I said, a person can argue that one plus one is three but you cannot tell me he’s closer to the truth, or equal in truth value to the person who says that one plus one is two. If someone defines free will and determinism different than the author by saying that the laws of matter are causing a person, without his consent, to do what they do, THEY ARE WRONG. That does not mean they could help themselves. Obviously, they couldn’t because their will is not free.
That’s not the point. We already know you couldn’t help yourself, so why do you keep repeating it? How can anyone move forward in a discussion that keeps going back to the premise when both participants are in agreement? I have said autonomy is an okay word to use if you mean without involvement from others. But this does not mean we are free from the antecedent events that lead us to making the choice that offers us the greater satisfaction.
autonomy: In developmental psychology and moral, political, and bioethical philosophy, autonomy is the capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision. Autonomous organizations or institutions are independent or self-governing
There you go again. This is not the issue because we already know that. Repeat repeat repeat. That’s why we’re getting nowhere. No, it’s not the most important thing because the foundational principle that man’s will is not free, which was demonstrated, IS the first premise. Even if you believe there could be an element of free will, you really need to put it aside so we can move forward. It’s like the mathematical principle of 1+1=2 is the basis that allows a bridge to be built but you keep saying that this is not important. You don’t seem interested that building the bridge will help us to get from one place to another, create jobs, and help man progress. You just want to understand the mystery as to why 1+1 is 2, and who or what is behind it all. Who cares as long as we can build the damn bridge.
They are just two sides of the same coin, but it is important to clarify that necessity in determinism does not mean that you don’t have a choice. That’s false. It’s just not a free choice. As long as you mean the “I” or self gets to choose (which is an attribute of man due to his ability to contemplate), we’re on the same page.
I am compelled due to my preference which is always in the direction of greater satisfaction that my desire is forced (or compelled) to take.
That is true, but in order to move forward you need to make the effort not to keep going back to the premise that we are part of nature’s immutable laws. I explain it by saying we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. You are right now moving in this direction by being more satisfied to post here than not. If you lose interest, you will stop posting in the direction of greater satisfaction.
But you are still choosing iambiguous. You are still permitting or forbidding your choices to either be actualized or not. You are making it seem as if you’re not a participant but are the victim of nature’s vicissitudes in whatever way the wind carries you.
There is a difference, not in the sense that you are no less compelled by the laws of nature to topple the domino, but that you have to give consent to topple over the domino in order for the domino to fall. Obviously, the consenting of toppling the domino, once you make this decision, is not of your own free will. We know that so don’t repeat it.
You are changing topics again. It doesn’t matter what or who is behind it all. You can ask this question until the cows come home. A more important question is if the claims are true and this discovery can change our world for the better, it needs to be brought to light sooner rather than later.
The author said that the word ‘choice’ is misleading because embedded in the word is the word “free”. That’s how free will is defined conventionally; we have a choice therefore will is free. WRONG.
[i]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]
Fate is not synonymous with determinism because it implies that regardless of what you do, your destiny is sealed. That is obviously not true. If your child was running into traffic would you say, too bad that the car is going to hit him because it’s already predestined, so I won’t try to save him? You can use the word fate to mean once you do everything you can to make a situation better, and it doesn’t turn out, you can then say it was fate ordained.
You are in sync but, once again, by saying nature’s law MADE you step on the accelerator is misleading because nothing outside of YOU made you choose this. Stop putting the blame on nature as if you’re a helpless creature going along with nature’s software program that you have no input in. Recognize that nature is YOU; you cannot distinguish nature as a separate entity, which is how you make it sound. Obviously looking back nothing could have been otherwise but our decisions, based on contingent events happening in the here and now, does not grant you free will in any sense of the word. Nature isn’t separate from you, but that’s how you’re making it sound. “I couldn’t help myself because nature made me do it.” See what I mean? This is the problem with language as a tool since it always needs clarification when discussing topics that require people to be using the same definition.
There is no break whatsoever. It would be a contradiction to BE able to choose otherwise and NOT to be able to choose otherwise. It has to be one or the other. I don’t claim to know everything here, but I may actually know more about this knowledge than you do, and because of that I am more sure that there is no break than you are.
You are hardwired by the laws of nature to desire choosing that which brings you greater satisfaction any time there are meaningful differences under consideration.
No, it’s not just in my head. It’s in a 600 page book.
Once you understand that no one can tell another what to do, the right of the mother gets preference, but the irony here is twofold: people will have better incomes and will not desire aborting in the majority of cases. Rape will be a thing of the past. Lastly, you mocked his discovery regarding death. When you understand the reality that we’re born and again and again, abortion (even if it takes place rarely) will not have the same moral angst that it once brought. You have a mindset that’s difficult to engage because you believe strongly in your worldview. As a result, you immediately superimpose your thought system regarding conflict onto this discovery as if these issues can’t be solved. You are wrong.
It does bring me comfort but that does not mean it’s wrong just because it brings me comfort. This is a ridiculous syllogism.
If a discovery is comforting it has to be wrong.
The discovery brings me comfort.
Therefore the discovery is wrong.
Differentiating right from wrong is basically differentiating between what is a hurt to another and what is not. Obviously abortion is one of those gray areas where a fetus doesn’t have a say, so it must be the mother’s choice. Once again, abortion will gradually decline because people will be married in the new world (not in the conventional way) and their children will be wanted. Please stop jumping the gun, okay?
Interestingly, there is no moral obligation to do anything in the new world. This is not another political or moral ideology that must be obeyed. You’re off the beaten track.
You are making it sound like the author’s discovery is self serving; an ego trip. He took no credit whatsoever. How could he have if man’s will is not free? This discovery is about the laws of our nature that the author observed after years and years of reading and studying human behavior.
Keep trying and hopefully nature will allow you to get it.
In a wholly determined universe nothing could be otherwise, which means that if we see something of interest that propels us to question what this is about IN THE DIRECTION OF WHAT GIVES US GREATER SATISFACTION, that is what we will be compelled to do.
Only time will tell whether he was right.
We have no control other than our ability to refrain from “nature” forcing us to do something we don’t want to do.
Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. That is why the conventional definition of determinism regarding “cause” is misleading. If we don’t get an accurate picture of what determinism means, we will never be able to reconcile doing of one’s own accord with the fact that man’s will is not free. This is the key to peace on earth. Wouldn’t you be interested to know how peace could become a reality? Can’t you contain your skepticism just a little bit?
This discussion is not about God. Give it up!!!
What the hell? Why is the sky blue? Why is the grass green? Why do birds chirp? Why are there so many species? Why do we wonder whether God exists?
Why Why Why? What do any of these questions have to do with what I’m sharing?
God, if you’re there we need your help!!! [-o<
Yayyyy, I AGREE! Can we move on? :-"
But then…you backpaddle by saying you’re not sure if there is a gap where free will could exist. No, it can’t unless you change the definition of free will to try and make it appear compatible.
Do you really want to learn more? Then why are you so adamant that this author is not the real deal? How could a bridge be built without the raw material (1+1=2) to build the bridge without it crumbling? The same holds true here, we need to have a solid basis for communication in order to move forward. If you can accept that will is not free notwithstanding, then we can move forward so I can show you how the bridge of peace can be built. Game?
[/quote]
Huh? You are acknowledging that you are unable to fully explain and to demonstrate what and how and why conscious matter is and came to be. You don’t know why it is instead of not. You don’t know why it is what is and not something else. But this gigantic gap between the knowledge encompassed in your author’s discovery and all the knowledge there actually is to be known about these relationships is not something we should take into account when reacting to this discovery.
But the question [mine] is this: how are any intellectual assessments expressed by any human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter not in fact manifestations of whatever mechanical “contraption” nature itself is?
Sans God of course.
And, for objectivists of your ilk, getting closer to truth means getting closer to thinking that the truth itself is what you assert it to be. Not that you aren’t compelled by nature to do so. But for subjectivists of my ilk, the leaps we make to particular conclusions “here and now” are recognized to be in that gap between what we think we know and what in fact we don’t actually know about existence at all.
But here you are basically telling me that whether I tell you this or not I am not compelled by nature to tell you only what I must. Telling you or not telling you is beyond my autonomous control.
Who is able to judge right and wrong in a determined universe other than as they are compelled to by nature? I see you somehow putting the author over and above all this and being able to grasp nature in such a way that even nature itself is eventually compelled to be in sync with that which he construes to be “progressive” behaviors.
But that is my point: I keep repeating it because I do not possess the free will to stop repeating it. Why? Because nature compels me to keep repeating it. Just as nature compels you [in this exchange] to keep pointing out that to me.
Name a single word in this entire exchange that nature has not compelled either one of us to post. That we “choose” to in a way the computer technology used to create the words does not is always [seen by me to be] your default frame of mind here. But this is no less as nature compels it to be.
Or: autonomy as nature has compelled us to define it reflects the psychological illusion of accomplishing these things as though we possessed the will to do so of our own volition.
The “self” here governs only in strict accordance with the mechanical laws of matter that intertwine all of nature into one and only one necessary reality.
No, the reason we are not getting anywhere is that nature has yet to compel me to agree with your own intellectual contraptions embedded in your own definitions and word meaning. Unless of course it is because nature has not compelled you to agree with mine.
Note for us the clearest example of where this has been demonstrated. How has the author set up a set of circumstances in which he was able to show us beyond all doubt that man’s will is not free. What actual experiments did he conduct in regard particular chosen behaviors in a particular context such that others can replicate the same results.
And how would I do that unless and until nature compels me to?
No, I said that a bridge is not able to be built by engineers who insist they can ignore mathematical truths.
But that one of them might be compelled by nature to try to anyway. What is important however is the extent to which one is able to choose to build a bridge. Whether it stays up or not.
And what if in building a particular bridge the result increases the satisfaction of some and decreases it for others. Who gets to decide when building the bridge reflects real progress?
Right, like your preference toward a particular greater satisfaction is not in turn compelled by nature. Thus making the things you “choose” to sustain ever and always in sync only with what nature compels you to want and desire.
If I am “choosing” only what nature has necessarily propelled and then compelled me to, well, we clearly are compelled by nature to understand this differently. There are no “vicissitudes” in nature. There is only what must unfold because it cannot not unfold.
Human minds seeing interactions as vicissitudes is merely another manifestation of how the human brain is such extraordinary matter. But how and why is this the case? Nature compels me to think that I don’t know. As it compels you to think that you do.
Also, nature compels me to give my “consent” to all of this. But then nature compels you in turn to believe that having this “consent” is of vital importance.
Then this part…
I am compelled to make this decision. I have no free will not to make it. But it seems from your frame of mind that only after I make it does the “no free will” part kick in.
Then [once again] you “order” me to not repeat something that nature will either compel me to repeat of not. One of us is clearly being compelled to grasp this less reasonably than the other.
I’m sorry, but when you note things like this I can’t help but wonder if you are altogether there from the neck up. All of this is smply presposterous given the manner in which “I” construe determinism out in the “for all practical purposes” world of actual human interactions. I can only presume you are compelled to note things like this. Either because nature is literally in charge here or given some measure of autonomy your own particular “I” is utterly locked into believing what you do about the present begetting a future in sync with your author’s own political prejudices. Why? Because, in my view – compelled or not – that is how you attain a foundation for “I” psychologically; and then sustain a comforting and consoling frame of mind by believing it in a world filled with so many terrible things.
It’s like a religious person reconfiguring the horrors embedded in the “human condition” here and now into a salvation and a paradise there and then once God’s mysterious ways are finally understood.
But: From my frame of mind that becomes this: We have a “choice” the moment nature compels us to contemplate two or more options…
As long as we were never able to freely choose among the options, only one “choice” was ever going to be made.
Here again [to me] this mysterious, incomprehensible manner in which you insert this [to me] unexplained “break” between “I” and nature. “I” to me is just another necessary manifestation of a material nature unfolding only as it must. Mindful matter that cannot be fully grasped other than as you and the author are compelled to. Why? Because there is no true break between nature and your “selves”.
First there’s this:
And then this:
Which is exactly the opposite of how I make it sound.
I’m afraid another here will have to explain this more clearly to me. You seem to have tied your own arguments into knots. And I am simply unable to untangle them. And that’s just part of my nature in this exchange. So far.
But if nature compels me to make it sound that way, then how could I help but – naturally – to be in sync with that? And language is a tool of the human brain. And the human brain is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
And then those who argue that since it surely hurts the unborn to be literally shredded alive, to die, the living must be there to take that hurt away. It must be the unborn’s natural right to life that prevails. Ah, but that’s not in sync with your own political prejudice so you just “think” the unborn out of the equation and insist/assert that it must be the mother’s choice that counts. All the while admitting that throughout the entire sequence you were never able to freely choose any of this.
You untangle it all in your head by fitting it into the intellectual contraption that the author “discovered” to propel the abortion wars here and now into a “progressive” future. At least for the mothers, if not for the dead babies.
Then truly mind-boggling predictions like this one:
And, of course, in predicting this “peace and prosperity” future re abortion the author jumps no guns at all.
And speaking of guns how might the author come down on the issue of the 2nd Amendment in America’s “progressive future”?
Nothing could be otherwise except that somehow the manner in which you construe what we perceive “in our head” to be “in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction” does matter. Even though we are compelled to perceive, feel, experience this satisfaction as but another necessary adjunt of the laws of matter themselves.
I know. That’s the beauty of intellectual contration discoveries like his. He can always imagine this future being far enough down the road that he doesn’t have to be around if it doesn’t come true.
There are scientists and others who can answer questions of this sort. But what do all of those things/relationships share in common? The fact that they exist in an overarching reality that is intertwined in all of the components of existence itself. As though the things that you are sharing here don’t as well. Sure, convince yourself that all that you don’t know about existence is irrelveant to all that you do know. After all, all that you think you do know is [for now] the psychological foundation for all that comforts and consoles you.
And that, in my view, is the motherlode here. That, above all else, must be protected. You are just one of many right here in ILP who have concocted these general descriptions of the human condition out of the endless assumptions that they make about things they have no real capacity to demonstrate at all. In part because there are far, far, far more things that they don’t know about existence then they ever possibly could know.
Indeed, dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are the components of my own frame of mind when the discussions shift to “I” in the is/ought world. It’s just that my own intellectual contraption tends to rip “me” apart, to distress and depress me. My own frame of mind is unimaginably bleak. Both on this side of the grave and the other.
But that doesn’t make it seem no less reasonable to me. If only here and now.
And that makes my point go away?
You tell me: Can I? Or will I move on [from here] only as nature compels me to?
And then you don’t backpaddle, insisting that all I do here is only as I ever could have done unless I am compelled by nature to want to redefine free will to be in sync with your own. The difference is I am compelled to acknowledge my inability to demonstrate conclusively that my beliefs here are entirely in sync with a complete understanding of existence itself while nature compels you to dismiss all of that and cling to the author’s discovery as the new center of the universe.
I don’t have to for the purposes of this discussion. Why do you keep bringing it up? If the thread was titled: How and why conscious matter is and came to be, that would be a different story.
I don’t know why it is that one plus one is two instead of not. But knowing it is two will still help me to build the bridge.
Where is the gap? Where are we ever free from moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, which offers us only one choice each and every moment of time? The two principles that comprise the two-sided equation (not math per se) lead to this discovery, but we haven’t even gotten to the discovery yet. If these two principles are accurate (which they are), then when we extend them into all areas of human relation, we get a sound result.
And what if these are manifestations of whatever mechanical “contraption” nature itself is? It doesn’t take away from the fact that we are not robots that have no say; we do have a say and we do give consent to whatever “mechanical” choices we make. Call it a contraption if you will, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is our brains are wholly in sync with the laws of matter because they can’t not be in sync, but this does not mean we can’t contemplate and are at the mercy of nature’s will as if it’s separate from our own will.
I don’t label myself an objectivist. Some people don’t believe there are any objective truths. I believe my existence as a human is an objective truth. There are some people who don’t believe their existence is an objective truth. They may believe they are worms believing they are humans. Don’t you see that we have to have a basis for communication or we will get nowhere?
There are many gaps in knowledge. Just because I know that man’s will is not free does not mean I know everything about existence, and I don’t have to. Many subjective ideas fall in the gap between what a person thinks he knows and what in fact he actually does know.
I am not saying that at all. You are compelled to think and say and do what you think and say and do. What I am saying is that the person who says one plus one is three is not as close to the truth as the person who says one plus one is two.
Who is judging what is right and wrong for another, if we know for a fact that man’s will is not free?
[i]As we follow the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which
will act as an infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and
wrong while solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be
obeying the mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no
choice when we see what is truly better for ourselves. By removing all
forms of blame which include this judging in advance of what is right
and wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice
from being struck.
This corollary is not only effective by your
realization that we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt
done to us, but also by our realization that any advance blame, this
judging of what is right for someone else strikes the first blow since it
is impossible to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will
never blame this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in
advance that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong
to do something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of
it being done which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of
this advance accusation that has already given justification.
[/i]
How can nature be compelled to do anything when nature is not an entity that can think. Nature is ourselves and how we behave according to immutable laws.
You keep going back to autonomy as if this means we can extricate ourselves from the laws that we are part of. That’s like saying we can extricate ourselves from being human.
Nature doesn’t compel you. You, as part of nature’s law, are compelled to keep repeating yourself, because it gives you greater satisfaction.
That is true, but you need to understand that nothing external to you, not nature (the way you define it), not God, not your mother, father, or even your heredity, can force on you something you don’t want to do, or you make up your mind not to do. Therefore you have no control over the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction but complete control over what you permit or forbid.
That is true, free will has been a necessary illusion in order to have to justify blame and punishment, for if we didn’t believe that a person couldn’t have done otherwise, how could we have developed the justice system that is the cornerstone of our civilization. But this belief can be changed when we understand that free will is not only an illusion but is preventing us from experiencing peace on earth. Let me clarify once again: we can say we did something of our own volition if we mean we did something because we wanted to; we did something of our own desire. Obviously, our desire to do something is not of our own free will either. Everything we say and do falls under the umbrella of deterministic law.
Why are you suddenly using the word “mechanical” which makes a person feel that they are just robots? The “self” is governed in strict accordance with the laws of matter, but what I’ve been trying to express to you is that a self does exist and is responsible for what it does. I, as a conscious being, with a brain, am responsible for typing this message. Can you agree that you didn’t type this message so you can’t be responsible for the words that I typed? (in the sense of how I’m using the word responsible)? You didn’t force me to write back to you. You gave me something to think about which caused me to desire writing you back, in the direction of greater satisfaction. By the same token, you are responsible for your posts because you posted them. You can’t blame me for making you type your ideas.
That could be the case. What don’t you agree with? Do you believe we can move in the direction of less satisfaction when an option of greater satisfaction is available to us? Do you disagree that we have to give consent to any choice that we make?
Greater satisfaction is not something that can be replicated through an experiment but the proof comes when it is shown that humans cannot desire to hurt one another when not to hurt them becomes the preferable choice.
It depends. If you want to continue making progress, you will put it aside. You are able to if you want to iambiguous. If you don’t want to, then you won’t, in the direction of what gives you greater satisfaction and we will make no progress.
Same here. Peace and brotherhood cannot be achieved by libertarians and compatibilists who insist they can ignore the law of determinism, but remember, the conventional definition leaves much to be desired because we are not caused by a past event. We make choices in the present based on past events that lead us in a certain direction, but they don’t cause or force us to make certain choices against our will. We find greater satisfaction in choosing one thing over another, which is the only direction we can go.
We don’t have a choice as to the extent we are able to choose to build a bridge. That’s not of our doing. But once the desire is there, I think most architects would desire building a sturdy bridge because it is in his best interest and the interest of others to know what he is doing. We have seen when people don’t take important safety precautions because they don’t see the risks (maybe they aren’t experienced enough), they don’t think the corrections are necessary, or they skimp on safety for economic reasons. Whatever the case, people are killed as a result. But what if we could create a world where people would never take a chance where safety is concerned, and where these tragedies don’t continue. Wouldn’t that be nice?
These issues can be easily solved just like they are today. If more than person is involved, they can take a vote. These are not serious issues and can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The serious issues have to do with creating a world where there is no economic insecurity and where the desire to hurt another is the result of being a loser if one doesn’t hurt someone in the process.
Exactly. Where have I said otherwise? I am compelled, by my nature, to choose only that which gives me greater satisfaction when moving from here to there.
But what must unfold hasn’t unfolded yet so there is no “must” way something has to unfold beforehand. Or at least there is no prescription that says how we must respond. What you’re saying is I must repeat myself before I repeat myself. Only if you you desire repeating yourself and actually make the choice to repeat yourself (in the direction of greater satisfaction) can you then say that your response unfolded the way it did because you had no other choice…but not before.
The word is still okay to use in context. I believe people understand what I’m saying. You seem to be the only one that doesn’t. I’ve said so many times, we are not puppets that have no say (puppets can’t choose) regarding how we respond to the vicissitudes of life that we all encounter. We do have a say, and we are given a choice; it’s just not a free one. We are not puppets, robots, or dominoes. It’s true that our choices are in sync with nature’s laws. I am only pointing out an important nuance where the ability to contemplate comes into play. Choosing between options is something we all do everyday, but those choices are never free. We can’t help but move in a certain direction, which is why we are never given a free choice.
It is only important because of the issue of responsibility. You cannot say nature was responsible for compelling you choose something you didn’t want. That would be putting the responsibility on something external to you. Nothing has the power to make you do anything you don’t want to do. You chose something because it was your preference, not because nature forced you to do it. That’s all I’m saying and you still don’t get it.
This is the crux of the problem. You are not compelled before you do it.
That is very true. You cannot say “out of necessity” I must repeat myself before you even make the choice. You repeat yourself because you get satisfaction out of repeating yourself. Maybe you think that by repeating yourself, I will get it. I do get it but there’s a flaw in your analysis. Before you do something, you have a choice. You do not have to repeat yourself if you don’t want to. Nature isn’t causing you in advance to make the choice to repeat. You are repeating, once again, because it gives you greater satisfaction. Once you choose this option as a preferable alternative, you could not not have chosen this option.
Your desire to repeat is compelling you to repeat, not nature, unless nature is YOU. I’m not ordering you to stop. It’s just slowing down progress and this is all due to the way you are defining determinism. You always come back that nature is making you repeat, but nature can’t make you do anything especially before you do it. Your repetition, therefore, is not some predetermined program that you cannot change, if you find a more preferable alternative. No wonder you think about autonomy the way you do. I would too if I thought I didn’t have the ability to think independently (we know there is no real independence if everything is determined, but that’s not how we’re using the word) and make choices that are uncoerced. You are not forced to keep repeating yourself unless you find it valuable in some way, which is why you are doing it.
That is the disconnect; it’s preposterous because of the way you construe determinism but you refuse to allow this author to explain why the present definition is creating problems that could be resolved. But no, you won’t budge, not even to hear the explanation.
That is the problem. You are making determinism a forced prescription where the choice is made for you, which would necessitate an “I” that only believes the illusion of having a choice to have a choice. But this is not necessary. The problem is with the definition. Once it is made clear that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, but that we have a choice although not a free one, we can move to the two-sided equation. I really don’t know if it’s possible because you are convinced that his definition is made up, and you won’t let go of your definition. So we’re deadlocked.
Nothing is being reconfigured. There are horrors in our modern world but that doesn’t mean that these horrors are forever embedded in the “human condition.” If you want to think of me in religious terms, that’s okay by me. The thing is religion is coming to an end because it will no longer be needed once all evil declines and falls.
Very true, but you can’t say nature dictates that you must make a particular choice before you make it. You must give consent because this is your preference.
There is no gap between you and nature as long as you understand that nature and you are one and the same. You choose one thing over another because you find it more advantageous at that moment. Nature, as an entity outside of you, cannot make you do anything, unless you offer permission.
Exactly my point, but what you are not grasping for whatever reason, is that nothing but you makes the decision, even though your brain is pushing you in that direction. You, no one else, makes the choice. Nothing can force you, against your will, to do something you don’t want. I’ve said this a thousand times. Saying I cannot not do what nature compels me to do, makes it sound like you have no say in the choice made before you even make it. But you do have a choice. Having a choice does not negate determinism.
Isn’t that what you’re saying? Even when you say the “I” is also embedded, you are still of the impression that the self that is YOU is not a participant. Of course you are and your choices are yours, even though the word choice implies incorrectly that we can choose one or the other option equally. But if you use the word choice to mean we have options to consider, we very much have choice with options. Nature’s laws don’t embed anything beforehand that says we have to choose this over that, which may turn out to be something we don’t want. Can’t you see the problem with the way determinism is presently defined?
By saying nature’s law compels you and the “I” is also in the same framework of this invariable law, then we are basically saying the same thing. But somewhere along the line you are using nature as dictating to you what you must choose even before you choose it. That’s the rub and that’s where we part ways. If you use the “I” as being in sync with nature’s law, that’s fine but you must give consent to the choice. You can’t say he made me choose this because nothing has this kind of power unless you give permission. Does that make sense?
I’m not saying you could help it, but let’s try to be more clear with our definitions. You can try a little harder, nature is not forcing you to give up.
I am saying that once conscience reaches a higher level (due to the fact that no one will blame anyone for anything, and this will be known in advance) where the mere thought of causing pain to any sentient being would be a terrible thing to contemplate, people will want to reduce pain and suffering wherever it occurs. Some people think that killing animals for food is wrong. Some people don’t. In this case, people will have to use their own feelings regarding this to determine if they want to eat meat, but they will not tell others what to do. The biggest change is how an animal will be slaughtered if they are being used for food. In the Jewish religion they have very strict laws so that the animal will feel no pain at all.
You don’t understand his chapter on death which proves that consciousness is not just an individual thing. This doesn’t mean people will not care about abortion because it still hurts to lose a child growing inside of you. So people will still take precautions if they don’t want more children. But this knowledge does take away the sting that this individual (which he has the potential of becoming) will not be born to see our wondrous world.
Will there be a need for a 2nd amendment law when all laws are being done away with (although there is a higher law of man’s conscience that supercedes all manmade laws) and when guns are no longer needed since crime will be no more? Most ammunition will be destroyed or converted.
That is true but as we learn more and realize that there is a better way, we will be compelled to learn more about the ways we can overcome these obstacles.
That is true, but if we can change the environment in such a way to compel people to choose not to hurt anyone, as their preference in the direction of what gives them greater satisfaction (the only direction they can go) then it matters greatly, even though they are still within the framework of nature’s immutable law.
quote=“peacegirl”] Only time will tell whether he was right.
[/quote]
Most discoverers are not here to see the fruits of their labor unfortunately. He tried to bring his discovery to light in his lifetime but to no avail.
Once again, we don’t need to know all things to know that there are discoveries to be made in different fields that will help us progress. Edison didn’t know all about existence itself but he certainly made discoveries that have helped humanity. Why you keep insisting that this is all about my comfort is upsetting to me because that’s not what it is.
You aren’t making sense. I have given the first three chapters that demonstrate why man’s will is not free and why nothing can make man do what he makes up his mind not to do. You should read the chapters carefully and maybe you will realize that this is no joke.
It is reasonable because your thoughts have led you to believe these depressing thoughts are true. I really hope you don’t throw this knowledge out and try to understand it. It may just cheer you up.
You keep thinking I’m blaming you. I’m not. I’m just pointing out what I believe is causing a stumbling block in our conversation. I cling to the author’s discovery because it is genuine. Your skepticism is normal but your accusation that this can’t be a discovery and it’s only about my comfort is wrong. Furthermore, a complete understanding of existence itself is not a prerequisite to knowing that man’s will is not free and what this means for the benefit of all mankind. This discovery is not the center of the universe, bu when this principle is applied worldwide, it certainly changes the trajectory of our world from one of war to one of peace. I say that’s a good thing indeed.
I cannot explain in words how wrong you are. Your logic is so twisted it’s amazing how you actually believe you proved that compatibilism is right when it’s impossible to be able to choose otherwise and not be able to choose otherwise. The two are opposites and cause a contradiction. Not being constrained by extreme factors does not give one free will. Secondly, the fact that this debate has gone on for so long has nothing whatsoever to do with the possibility of the debate being solved once and for all as we learn more and more about human behavior. Thirdly, what does free will (the ability to choose without constraint according to libertarians and compatibilists) do for the world other than hold onto the status quo of blame and punishment, which has only gotten us so far because it’s not the best deterrent especially when it comes to those who want to commit heinous crimes.
Punishment could easily be the solution produced by a determinist. It presumes causation. That will be informed of consequences and avoid them. Also that experiencing unpleasant things, will associate the punishment with the crimes.
Now one can argue whether there are other, better ways to deter certain activities, but that argument can be had between people who believe in determinism or not.
In fact there can be free will arguments against punishment: since people are still free, the punishment need not act as a deterrent or preventative, and even that people need not experience the punishment as negative, since they are radically free.
We can’t avoid using it because this is how our justice and penal systems work at this time, and there’s nothing to replace it, but there is a better deterrent than punishment. That’s what this discovery is about.
It’s true that people who want something badly enough will not let anything get in the way. But that’s because they are living in an environment of blame and punishment. It just shows that when the world believes in free will, things get worse not better, which makes sense.
I would like to do that but without reading the actual book (I gave the first three chapters to everyone), it’s not going to work. I have spent pages and pages explaining in my own words why man’s will is not free. I haven’t been able to get beyond this chapter to show the two-sided equation, which is in chapter two. I don’t know how to proceed because no one seems that interested. I’ve only had a few posts by people other than iambiguous, and they are very critical without even knowing what this discovery is about. It’s crazy because you would think people here would be rigorous in their analysis, but they are anything but!
I’m interested in learning what an effective new deterrent might be but you won’t tell me.
I don’t understand that. Why not post a couple of paragraphs which summarize it and then I will be able to decide if I have sufficient interest to read more about it.
Requiring people to read the entire book, before the discussion begins, seems to be a poor way of generating interest and getting your message out.
Break it into small easy to digest pieces and lead the discussion. Move past people who are putting up roadblocks.
When we are hurt we have two options; we can strike back ‘an eye for an eye’ or we can turn the other cheek. This knowledge prevents the first cheek from ever being struck, so there will be no need to do either.
I’m not asking people to read the entire book but I am asking them to meet me half way by reading the first three chapters. If this is a true discovery, 130 pages is not that much to devote your time to. I can’t keep repeating the same thing over and over. I said that this discovery is based on the knowledge that man’s will is not free, but this is just the gateway that leads to the two-sided equation. The two-sided equation is the discovery itself which is explained in Chapter Two. I am not hiding anything. Another problem is if I shorten this anymore than I already have, the clarity could be further compromised. Would you ever think of demanding a synopsis of Nietzsche’s work, or any famous philosopher for that matter? Any of the great philosophers have been carefully studied and their work analyzed and dissected backward and forward. Haven’t you ever read a book the second time around and found things that you didn’t notice the first time. This is that kind of book. It deals with a serious topic and it’s a new perspective which does not permit a quick skim. I know that’s what everyone wants but it won’t do the book justice although I’ve been trying to cater to everyone’s wants since I’ve been here. I have said all along that this is not the best venue for introducing something new, but unfortunately I have been unable to reach philosophers interested in this topic who could be more instrumental.
I’ve explained why man’s will is not free. No one seems to understand that the conventional definition of determinism is a problem. If you read the first chapter (which is not that long) and you have questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability. If you are intrigued and want to read Chapter Two, then after that we can discuss it. I will admit that the introduction and beginning of Chapter One is a little long winded but that is not here nor there. Form is not content. People have criticized the writing and never asked one pertinent question regarding the actual content.
So if a person has this knowledge, then he/she will never do anything hurtful/bad/wrong?
I find that astonishing and unrealistic.
There are only so many hours in a day/lifetime and some many demands for attention. One has to pick and choose where to spend one’s time. And unfortunately, the decision is based on some small and perhaps superficial fragments which pique interest.
We live in a cut and paste world.
Yes I would. There are lots of very short books and even graphic books which are introductions to philosophers and philosophies.
For example: amazon.com/Introducing-Nietz … 1848310099
If somebody is a professor who is teaching philosophy, then he/she would do that. But most people are not going to invest that much time because they have other interests and other things to do.
If you can’t get people interested, then this important “discovery” will be lost.
So make it interesting and accessible. Make it easy.
I’m not asking about that.
I’m asking for an explanation of an effective deterrent.
Mr X kills Ms A.
What reduces the likelihood of that happening in the first place? What do you do with Mr X afterwards?
The way it works now : if Mr X thinks about it prior to acting, then the risk of being caught, imprisoned or executed will reduce the appeal of killing Ms A.
If he does kill her, then he is removed from society so that he doesn’t kill anyone else. Seeing Mr X punished, discourages Mr Y from killing Ms B.
I think we have a few more options than that. An eye for an eye is a specific guideline for punishments. There can be and there generally are other ones. There can be mixtures of education and punishment. There can be incarceration not as punishment to separate out dangerous people from potential victims. There can be community service and any of the above. There can be confrontations and potential reconciliation with victims, they can be civil suit type punishments. And there are more options, many of them practiced or have been practiced. And I don’t know how well turning the other cheek works or in which types of situations or with which people.
First, nobody demanded anything. It was suggested. 2) Nietzsche’s work is summaried in many different media and in many different formats. But then, you are not a famous philosopher. And, as far as we can tell, you haven’t made it through the gauntlet of getting the book published traditionally. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a great text, but perhaps we would feel drawn to read it if our experiences with your disucssions here made us curious. It’s like you do not consider our choice rational and appropriate. There are works by famous philosophers I have not read. Not only did those works make it through the gauntlet of a publisher, they have also stood the test of time.
Consider people’s reactions to your suggestion to read the book as feedback on your posts. Consider your inability to get the work to philosophers as feedback about the quality of your book or your approach to reacing them.
Right now you blame people for not reading your book, instead of taking responsibility for a general lack of interest. Any single one of us may be a closeminded petulant reader who avoids your book for the wrong reasons. But there is a general pattern. Perhaps the book needs reworking. Perhaps you need to hone your online discussion skills to the point where people think ‘hey this guy says interesting things, I want to read more.’
There are thousands of philosophy books, fairly recently written, which have managed to convince a good number of people to read them. This is what you are competing with. To more or less state that we are making a mistake by not choosing to read your rather than one of those is not going to get your book read. Especially since the book in part has to do with morals.
I have just read Chapter One and understand the logic of the argument but I think it would work better on a mathematical level without also referencing God
I say this because as an atheist I am not remotely convinced by any God argument and also the switching between math and religion is not actually necessary
And so this first chapter could have said exactly what it did without any reference to God which would have made it shorter and easier to understand as well
I am assuming that your father was Jewish which would explain the references to rabbis but he could have left that out and just focused on the math instead
Maybe you will desire to read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If you request it, I’ll post it for you.
