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. 
