You’re right … it’s not one guy versus another guy.
It’s an example to make people think about what is taking place for two people who are on polar opposites of free-will and non-free-will.
Well, then there is the chestnut that if we don’t have free-will then we don’t have the free-ability to unlock the door and free-go thru it to a solution. It’s something out of our control. We’re stuck wherever the laws of nature put us.
That’s the stuff that Biggus keeps hammering on with you.
Having no free will doesn’t mean we don’t have the ability to think and find solutions. We’ve been finding solutions since we walked the planet. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that we’re stuck without free will unless you are defining determinism as something that restricts us from doing what we desire. Nature gives us the drive to search out answers but none of this requires free will.
Phyllo, I dont understand what you’re getting at. We live in a world based on the belief in free will; that somehow this person could choose not to ride off the road in the same scenario because he had a free choice? Is that what you’re thinking?
What I’m getting at is that the mechanics of decisions are the same for free-will and non-free-will.
Then the issues of blame and responsibility are separate from the decisions.
You can have free-will and also have reduced responsibility and blame.
For example, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, “love the sinner, hate the sin” … in Christianity.
Compassion and detachment … in Buddhism.
Wrong decisions and actions attributed to ignorance about what is “the good” and where your true interests are … in ancient Greek philosophy.
In all those cases, you still ended up teaching “correct” behavior and enforcing it with punishments. There did not and does not appear to be any way around it.
He’s going to choose whatever he is going to choose. The reasons are not visible to outsiders except in the broadest terms.
If you look at suicide, you see a lot of well-off people killing themselves. Obviously economic security was not the factor that made them do it.
Sure, you take actions to improve people’s lives but it’s pretty arrogant to think that you can control the environment so perfectly that everyone will act in an ideal manner.
That’s something I find very unrealistic about the book.
It’s the idea that when there is no free-will, we have a complete understanding and control of human behavior.
All of these spiritual paths have the elements of forgiveness, love, turning the other cheek, compassion, etc. which have helped many cope with a hostile world, but none of these religions or spiritual paths have been able to prevent murder, crime, and war on a large scale, nor has any political regime. Obviously, there does not appear to be a way around it because law enforcement and punishment have been used for centuries and are known to be a deterrent, but all the punishment in the world has not stopped killers from killing, rapists from raping, cheaters from cheating, thieves from stealing, abusers from abusing, bombs from bombing, people from starving, and hatred destroying our humanity because of the idea of us versus them.
There are probably numerous reasons why a person chooses to commit suicide. Economic desperation is often one factor, it’s not the only reason. Each case of suicide seems to stem from a feeling hopelessness for one’s situation or even for the world. It drives people to do the unthinkable because living is just too hard and they don’t feel there’s a way out. So they choose this as their way of finding peace. It still is an effort to get away from a life not worth living (or dissatisfaction) to greater satisfaction, even though it’s their last breath.
Phyllo, it does sound impossible and I understand that. That’s why you have to contain your skepticism all the more, otherwise you’ll never see how this can be accomplished. It’s not “no free will” that will cause this great change. It’s the corollary of “no blame” that veers us in a completely different direction. The reason for this, as I explained, is the fact that when we are given total freedom and we remove all the hurt done to us (and there are too many to list here), we cannot find justification in striking a first blow, or taking advantage at anyone’s expense. But in order for this to actually get off the ground a lot of changes have to occur such as the removal of anything that is suggestive of blame.
Chapter Two: 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.
Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want which
hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right
for someone else.
I would like to do that. There are plenty of philosophers who would immediately confirm the two principles leading to his discovery are correct, but this is an original so finding sources are hard to come by. That’s why this knowledge needs exposure so it can be thoroughly investigated. Even is a person isn’t sure, it’s well worth seeing how much better the world could be if he’s right!
Forget analogies. Note specifically how the author demonstrates why his understanding and conclusions about free will and evil are on par with those who are able to grasp and demonstrate how a light bulb works.
No, what you do [compelled or not] is to act as though HOW here and now and WHY ontologically something [or anything at all] is what it is – here in regard to either light bulbs or free will/evil – is of no importance at all to the conclusions the author arrives at.
That is simply ludicrous. Again, from my frame of mind, it speaks volumes regarding the extent to which the author’s conclusions reflect your own rendition of the “psychology of objectivism” above.
But even here that is entirely moot in a wholly determined universe as I understand it.
Thus…
…we are left only with [once again] you completely dodging this:
Note to others:
You tell me: does this latest “general descripotion intellectual contraption” from her constitute anything like a demonstration from those able to explain how a light bulb works.
Explain to peacegirl how any accusations made by any of us can never be out of hand if they can only ever be the accusations that, given the laws of matter, we are, in the only possible reality, ever able to make.
Also, when she accuses me of not reading her posts carefully, explain to her that I am entirely compelled to read them only as my brain, enitrely in sync with your laws of matter, has fated and destined me to read them.
Well, unless, of course, our brains have in fact acquired the capacity to opt to read posts here given the real deal free will. And, if that were the case, how as philosophers would we go about pinning down beyond all doubt that which constitutes the most careful reading of all.
As per usual, we are in two different discussions here based on two very different sets of assumptions regarding what “for all practical purposes” constitutes a determined universe given human interactions.
We are all in the same shoes in that we are all compelled to think, feel, say and do what we “choose” wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And that includes the way you are compelled to reconfigure it into a “choice”.
Only I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate myself that this is the case. Compelled or not.
What the author concludes about all of this is, given my own assumptions, no less an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality.
Or…
Up to now, given the laws of matter, you are not able to help me because I am not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. And how we understand, “Mary can do what she wills about aborting her fetus but she cannot will what she wills about it” is [compelled or not] just…different.
Back again to “we have a say in what we choose but not a say in what we say”. The part that your intellectual contraption “free will/no free will” human brain is compelled or not compelled by the laws of matter to sweep under the good/evil rug.
That’s because your idea of a no free will world is different from mine. And that’s because, given my idea of it, I am never able to not keep bringing it up. At least up until now. On the other hand, the laws of nature once compelled me to embrace my own free will as anything but a psychological illusion.
Note to nature:
What’s up with that?
Then up you go, back into your intellectual contraption free will/no free will assessment:
Note to nature:
What gives with that?
Yep: Another intellectual contraption far removed from an attempt on your part to differentiate free will and volition in regard to, say, your posting here.
That, but never quite this:
“Given the laws of matter embedded in the only possible reality, I can’t help you. Nature compels me to insist that nature compels you to think what you do about the author and until nature compels otherwise the book is not for you”.
He explained how these principles work, once they are applied. Why they work — by filling in the gap of existence itself — is irrelevant.
Of course it is important because we can understand how we are able to accomplish something before we understand why it works or why humans have the capacity to make it work. We know how to build bridges and we know it works, but we don’t need to have a discussion going back to the meaning of existence. Have you ever heard the saying: Y (why) is a crooked letter? It means it’s irrelevant because it cannot easily be answered but doesn’t change the benefit of knowing “how” to do something.
[i]Someone wrote this and it’s applicable here:
I always found this answer to be an odd response to a simple question. It was most used when the question had very little relevance to the overall situation at hand. When given a response of this type you are being told that the matter you are raising is not worth validation at the present time. Why is the sky blue? There has to be a scientific answer to that question. I am sure it is not because “Y is a crooked letter.” [/i]
[quote=“iambiguous”]
That is simply ludicrous. Again, from my frame of mind, it speaks volumes regarding the extent to which the author’s conclusions reflect your own rendition of the “psychology of objectivism” above.
But even here that is entirely moot in a wholly determined universe as I understand it.
Thus…
…we are left only with [once again] you completely dodging this:
It isn’t the same because one is material and the other is not. This does not in any way negate the soundness of the author’s observations which can be empirically proven.
From my perspective, when I said you are out of hand I meant that your response, although beyond your control after opting to accuse the author, couldn’t be helped nevertheless it is a false accusation. I am entitled to look at the things you opt to say and give you my thoughts, without you or me having any kind of free will. Just because your choices are beyond your control (note to iambiguous: after you’ve made them not before) does not mean I can’t discuss why our interaction is either productive, unfair, or anything in between.
By investigating this author’s observations with a fine tooth comb. You seem to view him as someone who thinks he knows but doesn’t. Whatever is compelling you to think this way is your intellectual contraption. , You can opt differently if you want to (based on new information) and still have no free will.
Maybe that’s the problem. There is no coming together if you think determinism means one thing and I am saying it means another. Definition means everything.
I am configuring it into a choice because we have options. We get to contemplate those options, all in sync with the laws of matter because the option we end up choosing could not be otherwise. As I’ve mentioned before, contemplation is an attribute we all have but it does not mean we have free will. Everything we think and do is biologically and chemically driven by our brains. In reality, because we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction (which is why will is not free), the word choice is somewhat misleading because we don’t really have a choice to move against what we prefer. Free will is a psychological illusion because it appears that we can pick this or that freely, but we can’t. It just appears that way superficially.
That is true iambiguous, but does that mean that because everything each of us does is a necessary manifestation of the only thing we could ever do, that his proposition must be wrong? No it doesn’t.
We all can see that I am not able to help you because you are not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will and no free will Mary, which makes our communication that much more difficult. We are on a different page.
Huh?? We have a say in what we choose and what we say. We have to give ourselves permission for us to act on what we are contemplating. We also have the ability to not do or say what we make up our mind not to do or say which means that we cannot use the excuse that we were forced to kill someone without our consent. Puppets just do what the strings make them do. They can’t say no because they’re puppets being controlled by a puppeteer. You are trying to compare determinism and falling dominoes in the same vein.
Where is the intellectual contraption and where am I sweeping anything regarding good and evil under the rug? I have been very clear that we are compelled to say and do according to the laws of nature. It appears that your resorting to the laws of matter make everything we discuss meaningless and interchangeable because everything we say and do is is fixed. Once we do and say something, it cannot be altered but we still get to contemplate. Tell me, did you contemplate today? Did you make decisions that involved your analysis and input? Yes, the laws of your nature are pushing you to choose one thing over another due to preference, but it is you that is doing the choosing. The laws of matter are not choosing for you. Here’s how you sound, “I’m sorry but I am not interested in this book because the laws of matter aren’t allowing me to.” No, you are not interested in this book because of your experiences leading you to be extremely dubious that he has anything worth learning about. You are acting on your belief system, all beyond your control. Maybe you will become interested in the future if someone you respect tells you it has value.
Yes you are able to not keep bringing it up, IF YOU WANT TO NOT KEEP BRINGING IT UP, but you want to keep bringing it up as the more satisfying choice.
That’s what life is about. Changing our ideas when new ideas present themselves that appear more accurate.
That’s fine too, just a little wordy but it means the same thing. And, yes, if you don’t desire (which you have no control over; you do or you don’t) to learn more because you can’t will what you will, then the laws of matter will compel you to find a more satisfying thread [in the direction of greater satisfaction].
Again, clicking over to a real deal free will world, you need to ask yourself why you keep avoiding the distinction between explaining free will and evil “in principle” in a “world of words” and demonstrating them in the manner in which a light bulb can be demonstrated.
Then this part…
Okay, okay. Continue to think yourself into believing that How and Why are related only in the manner in which the author construes them to be. Just tell yourself that, yeah, they must be profoundly intertwined in some manner “back then”, but not enough to matter in regard to human interactions “right now”.
From my frame of mind, compelled or not, you avoid this because you avoid any and all criticism of the author because you have anchored your own rendition of a “comforting and consoling” sense of reality to his own objectivist TOE.
Note to nature:
Why is “Y” crooked?
Note to others:
Someone please make an attempt to explain to me how this is not complete nonsense. How on earth can an exchange between two people that could never have been other than what it was produce right and wrong, true or false accusations?
At least in the manner in which we think of this in a free will world.
The only way I can respond to this at all is in assuming some measure of free will. Otherwise we are both posting only that which we could never have not posted. You seem to acknowledge that whether I do examine the author’s observation with or without a fine tooth comb [or in fact not examine them at all] I am locked into a “choice” only as embodied in the psychological illusion of free will. But somehow I am still wrong unless I bring the comb.
And this clarifies exactly…what? Other than you insisting that I am on the wrong page because, as with every objectivist out on the end of the metaphysical limb, others either share your own assumptions or they are wrong.
Only the way that works on other threads is in assuming that we all have the capacity to freely think through to our conclusions.
Not if you subscribe to determinism as I do. Where is the actual hard evidence from brain scientists that we will what we will to say? On the contrary, if the human brain functions wholly in sync with the laws of matter you can’t just pick and choose brain functions and say, “this I ‘choose’ but that I choose.”
Except somehow nature compels you to create this no free will/free will brain that “chooses” things.
To be free one must enjoy or want to be a certain way, as they are actually existing in that way.
So, free will, is happy-will. It’s as simple as that.
Craving happiness and not having it, is freedom which cannot be used or actuated.
Example:
I use my free will to want an ice cream cone,
but i have no money.
I willed it, freely, but it’s not an option until i get money.
I can free-will to want to travel to mars.
Because i can’t, and i really want to, i feel i am trapped on earth.
These are pretty cheap examples,
but it should be enough for now.
No Iambiguous. You are misrepresenting what I said. This just shows me, once again, your complete lack of understanding. I know you have the capacity but you probably have a block. No blame.
Why would I blame him? Where is the hurt? We are only talking about a concrete hurt to another. In the new world, the knowledge that there would be no blame is the key that prevents the action. But we must remove any justification that would permit conscience from giving permission to retaliate. This is important for you to understand: scientists will determine what is a concrete hurt which no one under the changed conditions would desire to strike. There are thousands upon thousands of standards that try to force compliance. These standards will go by the wayside since there are no mathematical standards in human behavior other than this hurting of others. Remember, we are only talking about being hurt in a concrete way, not in an imaginary way. When all justification for hurting others is permanently removed, there is no way striking a first blow (an unprovoked act) would be considered a preferable choice in a “no blame” environment.
Both of course merely assume that they do in fact have the free will to exchange these points of view. In other words, as though they have the expertise and the knowledge regarding the function of the human brain to demonstrate that this is not instead just the psychological illusion of free will rooted in the laws of matter rooted in the biological evolution of life on planet Earth.
As for a “happy” and a “sad” will, what happens when one of them “chooses”/chooses to believe that their own will revolves around certain assumptions they make about, say, race and gender and sexual orientation being rooted in nature and the other roots his own will more in God and religion?
What makes one’s will “happy” makes the other’s will “sad”?
And, given the real deal free will, what about the arguments that I make about all of this in my signature threads? Why do both of them avoid taking the discussion there?
Come on, two people could try to explain how a light bulb works…but only through verbal descriptions. They offer conflicting accounts. How then would we know which account was true? Well, we bring out the light bulb and it is demonstrated how it works. Which verbal account reflects the practical reality?
Now, let’s switch over to free will and evil. Back again to Mary’s abortion. The author gives his account of Mary “choosing” . Others however give conflicting accounts. Someone argues that Mary “chooses” the abortion…but only insofar as this “choice” reflects the psychological illusion of free will in a wholly determined universe. Someone else argues that Mary chooses the abortion…she possesses the real deal autonomy to weigh all the factors embedded in her situation and choose what she thinks to be in her own best interest. With the real deal option down the road to freely choose not to abort the next fetus.
But where is the light bulb equivalent of the demonstrations needed to prove whether Mary “chooses” or chooses or “chooses” an abortion?
Sure, it’s a world of words here. Why? Because on an internet philosophy thread, words are the only option. But my words refer back to the actual substantive interaction of matter that connects the phenomenological dots between existence itself, the Big Bang, the creation of galaxies, solar systems and planets, the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, and the brains of that species it has [so far] culminated in.
As though I could have ever freely opted not to believe what nature compels me to believe. About anything. As though you could have ever freely opted not to tell me I am wrong.
Instead, from my frame of mind, we are back to the profound mystery embedded in how and why matter was able to evolve into brains able to connect the dots between human interactions, mathematics and the universe. And then able to ponder what the capacity to connect these dots in and of itself tells us about Existence.
And, of course, no blame if we don’t. But only one of us is wrong for impeding it.
The manner in which you fuse “choice” and choice into “choice” in creating what I construe to be a free will/no free will set of behaviors encompasses it every time.
Only I am immediately forced to acknowledge that, given my own understanding of determinism, it wasn’t like you had any choice to.
Back to this: “I can hope what I want but not want to hope what I want.”
At least given the manner in which, compelled or not, I understand it.
Forget the lightbulb iambiguous. Stick to the facts. Whatever choice she makes is in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is why her will is not free.
Your words don’t mean a whole lot because they prove nothing. Substantive interaction of matter that connects the phenomenological dots between existence itself?
Yes, from your frame of mind. This whole idea of yours is so unrelated to anything, but of course you can’t help it.
No, only one of us is wrong about free will and the need to go back to the Big Bang to fill in the gap.
I’ve explained to you that the way free will is used in the here and now only means that there is nothing external constraining you to make a choice. They ask this in a court of law. Are you answering the questions of your own free will. This does not mean we have freedom of the will. You will never understand this concept because you can’t let go of your confused definition of determinism.
Why are you confusing the matter? Regardless of where our wanting comes from or whether we can hope what we want but not want to hope what we want (a world of words), we are compelled to choose the option that we believe is the best option given our particular circumstances. You can’t even agree to that simple observation because to you that would be a partial concession that he might be right, and you can’t have that.
I’m switching over to the real deal free world now. You know, in order that this exchange might be understood as something other than the only possible exchange it could ever be.
Okay, peacegirl, note where he accomplished this. Note where he focuses in on a set of circumstances where human behaviors come into conflict and he demonstrates how these interactions unfold in terms of free will and evil in the same way in which someone would demonstrate how a light bulb works
No, that’s what you want to do. The functioning lightbulb is a fact. It can in fact be demonstrated in great detail why it does what it does.
What you and the author do in a world of words, however, is to make certain assumptions about the human brain “choosing” this instead of that. The logic is always circular because no other premises are allowed but yours and his.
The same with me and mine. Only I recognize that I am either compelled by nature to think, feel, say and do only that which the laws of matter necessitate or, given some meaure of the real deal free will, I recognize just how staggering the odds must be that I, in the vastness of “all there is”, really do grasp the whole truth here.
Either the author’s conclusions are embedded in the relationships I noted above or they are not. Either you have the intellectual honesty and integrity to acknowledge the gap between what he thought he knew and all that can be/must be known about those relationships going back to however far back it goes, or you don’t.
Compelled or not.
Okay, give it his best shot. How are his conclusions about free will and evil completely divorced from a need to understand the evolution of matter from the Big Bang, through to the creation of galaxies, solar systems and planets, through to the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, through to the existence of mindful matter – human brains – discussing these things?
And I’ve explained to you how your own explanations are but more examples of something that seems merely “thought up” to me. Your arguments seem to encompass this no free will/free will frame of mind which fails to grasp that external and internal are but inherent components of the only possible reality.
And, given a real deal free will world, you believe what you do because having this belief in and of itself is the whole point of it. What you think allows you to believe that you really do understand yourself in the world around you. It anchors your Self to sense of reality that comforts and consoles you. Especially the part about the future where all of the evil things that people do today will reconfigure into the author’s own rendition of the best of all possible worlds. If not a utopia itself.
And I still suspect that includes something in the way of an afterlife as well.
No, not regardless of where our wanting comes from but the need to really understand where it does come from. Going back to as far as we need to go to grasp that. The part you just shrug off as a trivial pursuit.
And if we really “are compelled to choose the option that we believe is the best option given our particular circumstances” own up to the practical implications of that regarding anything we think, feel, say and do.
