How seriously can I take someone who actually believes this…unless I assume that they believe it only because they were never able not to?
Sure, you can narrow this discussion down to the things that you assert are true and then just dismiss all the factors that don’t actually reinforce your own point of view as irrelevant. As though understanding how matter evolved into life evolved into brains evolved into minds evolved into your own particular self-conscious “I” is completely incidental to the author’s discovery.
It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the ecxistence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.
Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.
Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christran beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed…but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.
That’s how I see you in a nutshell. There is what you believe. There is the comfort and consolation that what you believe provides you. And you’ll be damned if someone like me is going to insist on expanding the reach of the discussion if that might mean chipping away at this discovery. A world of words that, in my view, has become the psychological foundation [defense mechanism] onto which you anchor “I”.
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.
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.
Note to others:
Do you not see the gap I am talking about here? Do you not see how our own understanding of these relationships [including mine] can only be but considerably short of all that can possibly be known about existence itself?
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.
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.
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 cares? If the person who says 1 + 1 = 2 and the person who says 1 + 1 = 3 are equally compelled by nature to say only what they must? And if somebody caring or not caring is equally compelled by nature to care or not to care…?
The truth is ever and always the embodied of natural laws. If, in fact, that is actually true itself.
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.
How can nature be compelled to do anything when nature is not an entity that can think.
Clearly, in order to understand that you would have to understand what or who is responsible for nature [existence] itself. But you won’t go there for all the reasons I noted above. That and the fact that [so far] nature hasn’t compelled you to go there.
Nature is ourselves and how we behave according to immutable laws.
Back to this: I couldn’t have said it better myself!
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.
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.
You forgot [again] to point out that nature compelled me to go back to autonomy.
Only you are adament that in order to understand fully what “being human” entails others must be wholly in sync with the assumptions embedded in that particular “intellectual contraption” you call The Discovery.
That’s not the point. We already know you couldn’t help yourself, so why do you keep repeating it?
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.
Nature doesn’t compel you. You, as part of nature’s law, are compelled to keep repeating yourself, because it gives you greater satisfaction.
Note to others:
In different words, please explain to me how, if “I” is necessarily, inherently a part of nature, this doesn’t compel me to keep repeating myself. Please explain to me in turn how my embodiment of “greater satisfaction” is not as well the embodiment only of nature itself.
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, 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.
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?
Sigh…
What difference does it make [for all practical purposes] what I agree or disagree with here when [for all practical purposes] I am always being compelled to by nature? We clearly understand the [for all practical purposes] relationship between “I” and nature in very different ways.
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.
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.
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.
Over and again, when I ask you to bring this all down to earth and note how the author has actually demonstrated why his principled assessment works in regards to actual human interactions – actual choices, actual behaviors – I am told that the “proof” will become clear only in the future when “it is shown that humans cannot desire to hurt one another when not to hurt them becomes the preferable choice.”
Even if you believe there could be an element of free will, you really need to put it aside so we can move forward.
And how would I do that unless and until nature compels me to?
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.
And how will I do that unless and until nature compels me to want to continue to make progress?
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.
No, I said that a bridge is not able to be built by engineers who insist they can ignore mathematical truths.
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.
Oh, like 1 + 1 = 2, is the same as peace + brotherhood = the author’s own prescription for a progressive future. Value judgments as mathematical equations.
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.
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.
All I can note here is nature compels me to note that, from my frame of mind, this frame of mind is so incredibly naive, I wouldn’t even know where to begin in responding to it.
Then back to this knot:
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.
I am compelled to make this decision.
This is the crux of the problem. You are not compelled before you do it.
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.
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.
If everything I think and feel and say and do and want and desire is necessarily a manifestation of nature’s laws, then how does time here get broken into “before I decide” and “after I decide”? How does the author demonstrate this other than by merely asserting it to be true? How could this actually be proven in a particular context? Other than by understanding the defintions and the meaning he gives to the words in his world or words discovery as he does?
Somehow in your head you make this before and after distinction between “I” desiring something and nature. As though “I” really does have some control over what it wants and desires.
Whereas I see all aspects of the brain – the more and the less primitive parts – as coordinating everything to be wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
You don’t have the free will to not “not get it” but you could get it later if the laws of your nature compel you to want to get it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Always, the way someone thinks about all this. Always about the definitions. Why? Because [in my view] this allows you keep the discussion up in the clouds of abstraction, and general description, and “principles”.
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.
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.
Indeed. But, in my view, the laws of nature compelled you to conclude that before you in fact did. But only if, in turn, the laws of nature compelled me to conclude that before I did.
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.
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”.
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.
Whatever reason can there be in a wholly determined universe but that nature compels my brain/“I” to not grasp it here and now? I see no break between “I” before concluding I don’t grasp it, and “I” after concluding I don’t grasp it. It’s all nature…past, present and future.
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.
But if nature compels me to make it sound that way, then how could I help but – naturally – to be in sync with that?
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.
This is basically either 1] nonsensical or 2] unintelligable to me. I can’t help but sound as I do. Why? Becasue nature compels me to. But: if I do try a little harder how is that not also because nature compels me to? Nature may not be forcing me to as when we imagine someone forcing another to do something with a gun to his head, but that is because we cannot point to nature as we can the man with the gun. But if nature compels the man to point the gun how can we say that he is to blame for doing so? How can we hold him responsible as you seem to hold me responsible for not trying harder?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What on earth does that have to do with my point though? Even in the future, if a woman becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be, there’s the pain and grievences embedded in shredding the unborn or in forcing the woman to give birth.
Similarly:
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.
This in no way really addresses my point regarding conflicting goods in your so-called “progressive” future. It’s just a frame of mind that you have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them.
Thus in my view…
You untangle it all in your head by fitting it into the intellectual contraption that the author “discovered” to propel the abortion/animal rights conflicts here and now into a “progressive” future. At least for the mothers, if not for the dead babies.
At least for the animals not being slaughtered the way we do it now.
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.
Clearly, we are in two very, very different discussions here. And imagine how embarrassed one of us would be if we did have some measure of autonomy.
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?
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 irrelevant 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.
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.
Yes, but his discoveries all unfolded given the laws of nature in the either/or world. He could demonstrate his own discoveries. Why? Because they did in fact reflect that part of nature which is true for all of us. But how would he have gone about demonstrating that he accomplished all of this autonomously? How would he have gone about demonstrating that an electric current used to, say, execute a prisoner was a “progressive” thing to do?
Then my own bottom line:
Sure, convince yourself that all that you don’t know about existence is irrelevant 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.
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.
Again: What does this have to do with the point I am making? Unless, of course, nature simply isn’t able to take things like that into account.