Hi everyone! I would like to post this everywhere I can.
I have been drawn into some kind of a philosophy world, not by choice. Somebody happened to ask me if I believe in free will. That started everything, about 10 years ago now. I don’t even have a high school education, so how could I know anything. I don’t even have a firm grasp on the english language, although I try my hardest.
Well, I made something, that to me seems to be everything. Exactly how, who knows. It’s called the “Comprehensive Decision Finder”, and I seem to know alot about it. I tried talking to some professors about it but they were not interested because I didn’t have a collage degree. They said I needed one to understand the language that they used. I left trying to figure out how they lost there first language that enabled them to understand me.
The CDF, I call it, is at thecdf.net . If anyone of you can understand simple language please visit it and reply. There is alot still in my head. I don’t have the proper tools to get it all out. The CDF to me seems simple enough but have meet with great resistance because people don’t seem to understand it. Of course, everyone says they do but I can only believe, after hearing from them, they don’t. Maybe they are just the real simple thinkers.
Anyway I would love to engage in conversation about it, hearing all your thoughts. I have tried to read things about free will, but people can go off on journeys that to me mean nothing. I can not do what others can do to learn new things, like reading, I can only read a little at a time. So, everything I know, I thought of it.
Well enough from me for now, let’s hear from you. That is why I’m here.
So, what ultimate decision does this reach on free will? What is your thesis? At first, it seems to provide an analytic tool that would argue against free will, but within that tool there are many subjective points.
Just not sure where you are going with this, please clarify.
Cool… but I do that in my head, and a hell of a lot faster than it would take using the CDF.
Plus, it doesn’t really explain the ontology of choice or beliefs themselves, it simply illustrates your own thought process. This might be better suited for the psychology forum perhaps…
I think it’s apparent you’ve got a fair amount of potential, you seem to have a decent grasp of the English language, but not finishing high school might hold you back a little bit… either way I’m not overly impressed by this.
You guys who say this is done natually is the point. The CDF was designed to show how decisions are made and not how to make them.
I can see you only read the first page. I have tried to explain it on other pages. Are the links not visible, I have changed them to make them more visible but maybe did not go far enough.
Remember the CDF is only to prove a point. That your decision is, at the time of decision, already there. And if it is already there then how can you have free will, to choose differently.
What would the subjective points be that are within the CDF? I’m not sure what you mean.
The CDF was designed to show how decisions are made, not how to make them, even though you don’t physically make the lists and consciously rate your emotions. It is only to show a process of thinking about the factors and reacting to them. To show that your emotions, affected by the factors are what makes your decisions.
It’s funny you say it might be better in the psychology forum. I always thought I made the cross over from philosophy to psychology when it went from thought to making the CDF. I was studying free will and figured out the CDF was the way to prove it. It might be good in both.
That would be an emotion causing you to say that and it can be figured in as a factor having an emotional strength, not free will.
Haven’t cognitive scientists already begun working on this? Haven’t they done a lot of research (and have much more to do) on how people make decisions? Hasn’t mathematics developed an entire dimension based around weighing pros and cons (and many other things) called decision theory? I’m studying single-variable calculus right now, and even in such a low-level math class, we come across optimization.
Dammit, this is what I’ve been saying all along. $#%#%#^ shit and to hell. I hope the patent office and the nobel judges realize that my posts pre-date your website. Why is it Siatd screwed with my theory and is strangely absent here? Why? Why is life easy for everyone but me? Why?
Darn you, well worded person with poor grasp of english!
I’ll tell you what. We’ll split the glory 50-50, ok? I get the name in history, and you can have the money. Seriously though, look at my Evolutionary Utilitarianism thread. It says the exact same thing, kind of.
If positiveconsequences > negative consequences
return 1
else return 0
Similarly, therapists can accept the patient’s desire for revenge, but assert that ruminating about revenge only increases anger, and efforts to extract revenge waste time and energy. For anger patients, no amount of revenge is enough; it becomes an unending quest. Keep reminding patients of the cost/benefit ratio. Is revenge worth the cost?
To reduce hostile attributions, question your patient’s view of the perpetrator’s intent. Ask patients to think of other possible explanations for the unfair or disrespectful behavior they experienced.
Portent
Feelings of disquiet and denial will be experienced.
Well actually, my point was that psychologists and mathematicians have already done this. THEY beat YOU to it.
And most of what this CDF is appears to be just common sense.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that this has been done before, and in more depth. In fact, it seems to be correct in many cases. It just seems to be old business to me.
It doesn’t seem that hard to me, I just don’t think it’s earth shattering.
What this is, is not an ethic nor a free will proof. It a self-evident truth! Hahahahaha.
Anyway. The point is that everybody will always do what they think is the best thing for their purpose. Combine that with the fact that everyone’s purpose is to survive and you have something. I’m not sure what. Nobody will chose the wrong answer, unless they think that choosing the wrong answer will be more beneficial in the future.
You’re right. Because human happiness can be achieved through other people. That’s what I meant, though. It can be in the best interest of the society, with the better society benefiting me.