Determinism

Sculptor · June 27, 2021, 9:45am

Not to Irrelevant.
Stop fooling yourself, you aint’ fooling anyone else on this thread but you.

Sculptor · June 27, 2021, 9:47am

I don’t know what game he’s playing. But it is childish.
It’s either because he is genuinely stupid, or has some sort of mental block on this issue.
One thing is for sure - he’s convincing no one.

peacegirl · June 27, 2021, 1:18pm

Sculptor:

peacegirl:

If what I am discussing doesn’t address the points being discussed, and I go off on unrelated tangents that don’t address these points, then I would be just as guilty of creating a strawman. But that’s not what I’m doing. You’re using the term incorrectly.

People will have to read for themselves because you sure haven’t therefore you’re opinion really holds no weight. I have no problem listening to a refutation but that in itself does not negate this discovery. There will be many questions, and they will be answered. The bottom line is that this knowledge can be tested and the proof will be that it works empirically, in the real world.f

I don’t know what game he’s playing. But it is childish.
It’s either because he is genuinely stupid, or has some sort of mental block on this issue.
One thing is for sure - he’s convincing no one.

When it comes down to it, this is not about him. I hope this does not become a situation where this person becomes the focus. He has nothing to say that is true in regard to this discovery. I hope people will use their own judgement once they read the first three chapters. Let’s keep things on track if possible.

iambiguous · June 27, 2021, 6:08pm

Okay, Shemp, let’s focus in just on this:

And of course this part:

Note to nature:

Compelled or not, I’m assuming that this exchange is not only as it ever could have been in the only possible reality.

Unless of course I’m wrong.

iambiguous · June 27, 2021, 6:14pm

peacegirl:

peacegirl:

I believe you need to believe that we must understand the mystery of life and how it evolved (which we may never know) in order to prove these two undeniable principles. This is like saying we must understand the origins of life to know that 2+2=4. It doesn’t fly. This is YOUR anchor in order that you can always sidestep the argument by saying it can’t be proven UNLESS something that is unfalsifiable CAN be. It’s ludicrous!

iambiguous:

Clicking over to free will…

Right, like the author’s understanding of free will is 2, and his understanding of evil is 2, and the book that he wrote is 4.

peacegirl:

That is true. The author’s understanding of determinism is 2, and his understanding of how we can use this knowledge to better our world is 2, and the book he wrote is 4 based on two undeniable principles. You haven’t begun to explore this work.

iambiguous:

Yes, if, in a free will world here on planet Earth, you need to believe that in order to convince yourself that his TOE really is the one and the only Right One – out of hundreds and hundreds down through the ages – by all means cling to that all the way to the grave.

Of course I will cling to this knowledge because it has value. You can’t believe for the life of you that this is a genuine discovery. You won’t even try to address the points made. Is this just me, or do people notice this? Can you answer this question: Give me an example where we do not move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Either we have free will or we don’t. This has nothing to do with the author or my need to convince myself of anything other than the truth. You are the one making this about him. And yes, it took this long in our development to learn the truth. Every theory regarding free will and determinism was necessary. Your appeal to the thousands of years this discussion has been going on, does not automatically make it impossible for a new understanding to be revealed. You’re just a typical skeptic.

iambiguous:

Really, do you have any idea how many objectivists of your ilk I have encountered over the years? All of them insisting that only their own intellectual contraptions explain both the ontological and the teleological nature of both the human condition and reality itself.

Just ask them yourself. We’ve still got quite a few of them here at ILP.

I am not an objectivist. The only objective standard in human behavior is this hurting of others, which no one wants. If there is a way to prevent the desire to hurt others (in the direction of greater satisfaction), why would you object to this iambiguous? Please answer the question.

iambiguous:

Speculating about the existence of existence itself as though that could never be anything other than a strawman!!

peacegirl:

The fact that it could never be anything other than a strawman (in this post) does not mean your logic is not flawed. You have never refuted the actual argument properly.

iambiguous:

What on earth is that supposed to mean? The author’s logic is almost entirely circular.

It is not circular. I addressed this:

[i]Certainly not Circular

One more confusion I want to clarify. Some people insist that tautologies are useless because they are examples of “circular reasoning” (more precisely called “begging the question”). Colloquially, circular reasoning is where you assert your conclusion as a premise. For example:

“Judy is the tallest girl in the class because she is the tallest girl in the class.”

This proposition merely states its conclusion as a premise. To some, this might look like a tautology – “A because A”. But crucially, this is not a tautology; there is an obvious circumstance in which the conclusion is false: if Judy is not the tallest girl in the class – a possibility which doesn’t entail any logical contradiction. This is what differentiates circular reasoning from tautologies.

Contrast this to the proposition, “All of the students in class are students”.

This is a proper tautology; there’s no possible circumstance in which it isn’t true. Negating the conclusion would imply a contradiction – i.e. that “some of the students in class are not students”.

So no, tautologies are not circular. They are simply true in all circumstances. Or you might say “they are not false in any circumstance.” Being necessarily true is a poor reason to dismiss an idea as trivial or redundant.

Overall, it’s a grave error to overlook the usefulness and profundity of tautologies. Not only should we examine them, we should embrace them and incorporate them into the foundations of our ideas.

Discovering tautologies is exciting, and it’s literally synonymous with discovering truth. Not to mention: any sound deductions that follow from tautologies are also necessarily true. If we construct theories that are founded on necessarily-true premises, we can built a robust worldview that is justified all the way to its foundations. steve-patterson.com/tautologies- … dismissed/[/i]

iambiguous:

He and only he gets to define the meaning of the words in the argument. And he and only he gets to insist that this internal logic somehow doesn’t need to concern itself with the very existence of conscious matter itself. It just “happened” somehow. There is nothing at all that I have discerned from your excerpts that comes even close to him explaining free will and evil as others are able to explain how a lightbulb functions.

Maybe it was God, maybe it was something out there in the universe that our minds are not even capable of grasping at all!!

You can’t give this man an ounce of credit, can you? You never opened the book yet you have so much to say. It’s actually funny.

Wikipedia: A strawman is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a strawman.”

iambiguous:

Note to others:

Allow me to translate that from authorspeak: “the only ‘proper ideas under discussion’ here all revolve around the conclusions that I come to. My own conclusions can never be refuted…properly or otherwise. Logically then if you try to suggest situations or contexts not in sync with that then you are creating a strawman to attack instead.”

If what I am discussing doesn’t address the points being discussed, and I go off on unrelated tangents that don’t address these points, then I would be just as guilty of creating a strawman. But that’s not what I’m doing. You’re using the term incorrectly.

People will have to read for themselves because you sure haven’t therefore you’re opinion really holds no weight. I have no problem listening to a refutation but that in itself does not negate this discovery. There will be many questions, and they will be answered. The bottom line is that this knowledge can be tested and the proof will be that it works empirically, in the real world.

If anyone wants to read the first three chapters, here it is. declineandfallofallevil.com/ … APTERS.pdf

I challenge someone – anyone – to note even a single instance above that actually conveys a point we have not already “thumped” each other with dozens and dozens of times.

Now, given how “I” understand determinism here and now, nature has compelled my brain to create a sense of “greater satisfaction” in typing these words and not others. Just as it has compelled your brain to read them and not instead done a hundred others things you were never able to freely choose to do instead.

peacegirl · June 27, 2021, 6:58pm

peacegirl:

peacegirl:

I believe you need to believe that we must understand the mystery of life and how it evolved (which we may never know) in order to prove these two undeniable principles. This is like saying we must understand the origins of life to know that 2+2=4. It doesn’t fly. This is YOUR anchor in order that you can always sidestep the argument by saying it can’t be proven UNLESS something that is unfalsifiable CAN be. It’s ludicrous!

iambiguous:

Clicking over to free will…

Right, like the author’s understanding of free will is 2, and his understanding of evil is 2, and the book that he wrote is 4.

peacegirl:

That is true. The author’s understanding of determinism is 2, and his understanding of how we can use this knowledge to better our world is 2, and the book he wrote is 4 based on two undeniable principles. You haven’t begun to explore this work.

iambiguous:

Yes, if, in a free will world here on planet Earth, you need to believe that in order to convince yourself that his TOE really is the one and the only Right One – out of hundreds and hundreds down through the ages – by all means cling to that all the way to the grave.

Of course I will cling to this knowledge because it has value. You can’t believe for the life of you that this is a genuine discovery. You won’t even try to address the points made. Is this just me, or do people notice this? Can you answer this question: Give me an example where we do not move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Either we have free will or we don’t. This has nothing to do with the author or my need to convince myself of anything other than the truth. You are the one making this about him. And yes, it took this long in our development to learn the truth. Every theory regarding free will and determinism was necessary. Your appeal to the thousands of years this discussion has been going on, does not automatically make it impossible for a new understanding to be revealed. You’re just a typical skeptic.

iambiguous:

Really, do you have any idea how many objectivists of your ilk I have encountered over the years? All of them insisting that only their own intellectual contraptions explain both the ontological and the teleological nature of both the human condition and reality itself.

Just ask them yourself. We’ve still got quite a few of them here at ILP.

I am not an objectivist. The only objective standard in human behavior is this hurting of others, which no one wants. If there is a way to prevent the desire to hurt others (in the direction of greater satisfaction), why would you object to this iambiguous? Please answer the question.

iambiguous:

Speculating about the existence of existence itself as though that could never be anything other than a strawman!!

peacegirl:

The fact that it could never be anything other than a strawman (in this post) does not mean your logic is not flawed. You have never refuted the actual argument properly.

iambiguous:

What on earth is that supposed to mean? The author’s logic is almost entirely circular.

It is not circular. I addressed this:

[i]Certainly not Circular

One more confusion I want to clarify. Some people insist that tautologies are useless because they are examples of “circular reasoning” (more precisely called “begging the question”). Colloquially, circular reasoning is where you assert your conclusion as a premise. For example:

“Judy is the tallest girl in the class because she is the tallest girl in the class.”

This proposition merely states its conclusion as a premise. To some, this might look like a tautology – “A because A”. But crucially, this is not a tautology; there is an obvious circumstance in which the conclusion is false: if Judy is not the tallest girl in the class – a possibility which doesn’t entail any logical contradiction. This is what differentiates circular reasoning from tautologies.

Contrast this to the proposition, “All of the students in class are students”.

This is a proper tautology; there’s no possible circumstance in which it isn’t true. Negating the conclusion would imply a contradiction – i.e. that “some of the students in class are not students”.

So no, tautologies are not circular. They are simply true in all circumstances. Or you might say “they are not false in any circumstance.” Being necessarily true is a poor reason to dismiss an idea as trivial or redundant.

Overall, it’s a grave error to overlook the usefulness and profundity of tautologies. Not only should we examine them, we should embrace them and incorporate them into the foundations of our ideas.

Discovering tautologies is exciting, and it’s literally synonymous with discovering truth. Not to mention: any sound deductions that follow from tautologies are also necessarily true. If we construct theories that are founded on necessarily-true premises, we can built a robust worldview that is justified all the way to its foundations. steve-patterson.com/tautologies- … dismissed/[/i]

iambiguous:

He and only he gets to define the meaning of the words in the argument. And he and only he gets to insist that this internal logic somehow doesn’t need to concern itself with the very existence of conscious matter itself. It just “happened” somehow. There is nothing at all that I have discerned from your excerpts that comes even close to him explaining free will and evil as others are able to explain how a lightbulb functions.

Maybe it was God, maybe it was something out there in the universe that our minds are not even capable of grasping at all!!

You can’t give this man an ounce of credit, can you? You never opened the book yet you have so much to say. It’s actually funny.

Wikipedia: A strawman is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a strawman.”

iambiguous:

Note to others:

Allow me to translate that from authorspeak: “the only ‘proper ideas under discussion’ here all revolve around the conclusions that I come to. My own conclusions can never be refuted…properly or otherwise. Logically then if you try to suggest situations or contexts not in sync with that then you are creating a strawman to attack instead.”

If what I am discussing doesn’t address the points being discussed, and I go off on unrelated tangents that don’t address these points, then I would be just as guilty of creating a strawman. But that’s not what I’m doing. You’re using the term incorrectly.

People will have to read for themselves because you sure haven’t therefore you’re opinion really holds no weight. I have no problem listening to a refutation but that in itself does not negate this discovery. There will be many questions, and they will be answered. The bottom line is that this knowledge can be tested and the proof will be that it works empirically, in the real world.

If anyone wants to read the first three chapters, here it is. declineandfallofallevil.com/ … APTERS.pdf

Iambiguous: I challenge someone – anyone – to note even a single instance above that actually conveys a point we have not already “thumped” each other with dozens and dozens of times.

Peacegirl: Never have you responded directly to the points being made. You dismiss them by saying these are intellectual contraptions.

Iambiguous: Now, given how “I” understand determinism here and now, nature has compelled my brain to create a sense of “greater satisfaction” in typing these words and not others. Just as it has compelled your brain to read them and not instead done a hundred others things you were never able to freely choose to do instead.

Peacegirl: So where is the disagreement? The reason will is not free is because we never have a free choice since we are compelled, by laws over which we have no control, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of our lives rendering any other choice than the one chosen, an impossibility because it would be in the direction of least preference.

But at the same time nothing can make us do something we make up our mind not to do. So when a person says nature made him kill that person; he really didn’t want to but had to, he is lying to himself since nothing in this world has the power to make him kill (not even God himself) against his will. IOW, he must give himself permission to carry out a crime and this can only occur if he can justify the act.

iambiguous · June 28, 2021, 4:00pm

Two assumptions:

1] that for reasons I certainly cannot fully explain, we do live in a world where the human species has somehow acquired free will as a result of lifeless matter evolving into living matter with minds here on planet Earth
2] that my own autonomous reaction to peacegirl’s point above reflects only my own subjective opinion rooted largely in dasein

That said what’s left to say? No one, in my view, will ever respond to the points she and the author make unless and until they agree with the points they make.

And that sounds very, very, very familiar to me.

She is without a doubt one of the most hardcore objectivists I have come across. She is fiercely determined to believe that only the author’s TOE really does explain the human condition. And she believes this because, psychologically, she needs to believe it. It allows her to anchor her Self to a frame of mind that not only solves the problem of Evil in the world but allows her to accomplish this by somehow yanking out a “greater satisfaction” from her very own assumption that she herself does not possess free will.

Maybe Shemp can explain it. Though, once again, I acknowledge that the problem may well be my own inability to grasp how she does pull the rabbit out of the hat here.

In the interim we are back to the part where, to me, this exchange with her still is nothing less than “bizarre”:

See what I mean? She “agrees” with me. And that makes no sense to me. She uses the words “preference” and “satisfaction” in a manner that, to my way of thinking, those who do embrace free will would.

You tell me. From my perspective, this is like philosophy in the Twilight Zone. As though, given my own wild ass guess regarding determinism, nature and its laws are not entirely behind anything and everything that we “make up our minds” to either do or not do.

encode_decode · June 28, 2021, 4:05pm

.

Yes. Yes, it is.

.

peacegirl · June 28, 2021, 9:16pm

iambiguous:

I challenge someone – anyone – to note even a single instance above that actually conveys a point we have not already “thumped” each other with dozens and dozens of times.

peacegirl:

Never have you responded directly to the points being made. You dismiss them by saying these are intellectual contraptions.

Two assumptions:

1] that for reasons I certainly cannot fully explain, we do live in a world where the human species has somehow acquired free will as a result of lifeless matter evolving into living matter with minds here on planet Earth

Peacegirl: Free will has been proven false whether you believe it or not. The human species has acquired the ability to reason and make choices. Those choices appear free when there is no external or internal pressure (like a gun to your head or OCD). This is what capatibilists use to claim we have free will, which is false.

2] that my own autonomous reaction to peacegirl’s point above reflects only my own subjective opinion rooted largely in dasein

Peacegirl: Your choices are not free even though they are your own subjective reactions. You can use the word autonomous to mean free of outside influence, but you cannot use it to mean that your choices are free.

iambiguous:

That said what’s left to say? No one, in my view, will ever respond to the points she and the author make unless and until they agree with the points they make.

And that sounds very, very, very familiar to me.

You still don’t answer any of my questions regarding his two principles. Show me where he was wrong and where it is possible to choose otherwise. BTW, his reasoning is not circular so please don’t use that excuse for why you disagree.

iambiguous:

She is without a doubt one of the most hardcore objectivists I have come across. She is fiercely determined to believe that only the author’s TOE really does explain the human condition.

Just as man believes he has free will and uses this belief in order to justify blame and punishment, so too will it one day be recognized that man’s will is not free and why this matters. In fact this IS one aspect of the human condition that will have a huge impact on human conduct once we transition into a world of no blame or punishment.

iambiguous:

And she believes this because, psychologically, she needs to believe it. It allows her to anchor her Self to a frame of mind that not only solves the problem of Evil in the world but allows her to accomplish this by somehow yanking out a “greater satisfaction” from her very own assumption that she herself does not possess free will.

I, just like you, am moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. As frustrating as this exchange is, it gives me greater satisfaction to answer than not to. BTW, I don’t assume we don’t have free will. I know we don’t have free will.

iambiguous:

Maybe Shemp can explain it. Though, once again, I acknowledge that the problem may well be my own inability to grasp how she does pull the rabbit out of the hat here.

In the interim we are back to the part where, to me, this exchange with her still is nothing less than “bizarre”:

Now, given how “I” understand determinism here and now, nature has compelled my brain to create a sense of “greater satisfaction” in typing these words and not others. Just as it has compelled your brain to read them and not instead done a hundred others things you were never able to freely choose to do instead.

peacegirl:

So where is the disagreement? The reason will is not free is because we never have a free choice since we are compelled, by laws over which we have no control, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of our lives rendering any other choice than the one chosen, an impossibility because it would be in the direction of least preference.

iambiguous:

See what I mean? She “agrees” with me. And that makes no sense to me. She uses the words “preference” and “satisfaction” in a manner that, to my way of thinking, those who do embrace free will would.

Preference and satisfaction can also be used by determinists. We, as agents, make choices that we prefer over others. Because we cannot choose what gives us less satisfaction (even if our choice is the lesser of two evils), we are not free agents. The only choice that could be made is the choice that IS made. That is why will is not free. If B gives us less satisfaction than A, we are not free to choose A. It is important to understand that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of or lives, not just when we are choosing between alternatives. Scratching an itch doesn’t involve consciously choosing, but it is still done in the direction of greater satisfaction when the present position of dissatisfaction (the itch) pushes us to scratch it. Example: I suddenly get thirsty. I, without any thought, get up and go to the refrigerator for a drink. Every single movement is in this direction.

peacegirl:

But at the same time nothing can make us do something we make up our mind not to do. So when a person says nature made him kill that person; he really didn’t want to but had to, he is lying to himself since nothing in this world has the power to make him kill (not even God himself) against his will. IOW, he must give himself permission to carry out a crime and this can only occur if he can justify the act.

iambiguous:

You tell me. From my perspective, this is like philosophy in the Twilight Zone. As though, given my own wild ass guess regarding determinism, nature and its laws are not entirely behind anything and everything that we “make up our minds” to either do or not do.

That is true, and he explains that. It is important because we cannot use the excuse that we can be made to do something against our will. If a person kills someone, he cannot blame it on nature, God, or anything else. He can’t say he didn’t want to but had to since nature made him without his consent. He killed because he wanted to, because it gave him greater satisfaction. This principle takes on importance as you read the text.

[i]Chapter One:

When any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a
compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am
doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make
sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding
further.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought
I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do
something against my will does not mean my will is free because my
desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free
choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did
it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually
did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me
no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”[/i]

iambiguous · June 29, 2021, 4:57pm

First of all, I didn’t respond to your specific points above either because 1] given my own understanding of determinism, my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, didn’t compel me to or 2] given the manner in which I understand human autonomy, I recognize the sheer futility of going back and forth with regard to the same [so far] conflicting sets of assumptions.

So, given the real deal fee will world, I skipped to this one:

Let’s just say that given determinism as I understand it a person achieves greater satisfaction in blaming or not blaming nature for killing someone because he or she was never able to not blame or not blame nature for it. Or anything at all for that matter.

This is just a fundamental obstacle between us. Or will continue to be until [given free will] one of us or Shemp of Phyllo or another following this thread is able to propose an argument that, scientifically and/or philosophically, nails it all once and for all.

Bottom line [mine]: you are an objectivist on steroids. You cling to the author’s TOE because it comforts and consoles you to think that you actually are privy to the One True Path to eliminating Evil from this world.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong. But here I’m the first to admit this: that not only don’t I have the capacity to know beyond all doubt whether I am or am not, but I am inching closer and closer to the oblivion which will make it all moot for, say, all the rest of eternity?

You know, like the author’s fate given the manner in which “I” understand these things “here and now”.

Indeed, a part of me is always reluctant to go down this path with someone like you. Why? Because what if I am successful in disillusioning you? What if my arguments finally do break through and your own objectivist font collapses?

Like mine once did.

I call this the “Mary Lewis Syndrome” by the way.

peacegirl · June 29, 2021, 7:11pm

What set of assumptions are you talking about? Your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled you to DESIRE, based on your environment and heredity, certain choices over others. Are you disagreeing with the fact that YOU (the agent) are making the choice? I’m trying to pinpoint where you disagree so we can talk about it. The program running in the background is the law that pushes us in the direction of greater satisfaction. This law is immutable. This law is part of nature, not just human nature. It can’t be extricated.

Who is saying anything different? All I have done was clarified that nature cannot make you do anything you don’t want to do. You act like the laws of matter are separate from you. It’s as if to say, “I’m not to blame for killing that person because the laws of matter made me do it.” Nothing can make you do anything you DON’T WANT TO DO, not even the laws of matter. I’ve said this countless times and you skip right over it.

Nails what? It’s been proven we don’t have free will, but you don’t want to accept it. You want the mystery to continue, even if war and crime can be eliminated with this knowledge.

You just keep repeating yourself with no proof that the author isn’t correct. What is the discovery iambiguous since you know so much about it? You never opened one page of the book. How revealing. There could be other ways to bring about peace, but this one is a promising path.

You are.

I think you would enjoy his chapter on death.

Point out where I’m an objectivist. Our behavior is subjective. It is based on our life circumstances, which is individual. The only objective standard in human behavior is this hurt to others that NO ONE WANTS. This entire book is based on everyone having an opportunity to follow their bliss, their dream, with no one standing in their way. How can you not want that? This book tells no one what they ought to do. All advice will become unnecessary when all evil (hurt in human relations) comes to a peaceful end. Even though war, crime, poverty, hatred, discrimination were necessary in our years of development does not mean it has to continue. Man is constantly making progress in his attempt to make this world a better place. This is just one more step toward this end. Keep in mind that when the author uses the word God, he used it as a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. He called God a mathematical reality. I didn’t post this to start a discussion on the existence of God.

Now
that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very
moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration
compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards
greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the
sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as
the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony
was this disharmony between man and man which is now being
permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a
mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way,
that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is
a true observation for nothing in this universe when seen in total
perspective is evil since each individual must choose what is better for
himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

Sculptor · June 30, 2021, 11:30am

For people brought up with the myth of free will it can be hard to accept that they have to remain part of the norm of the necessity of cause and effect. Rather than think things through, they tend to react negatively and respond with complete denial.
On the hand side of the fence those that preach the gospel of determinism do little to quell their fears and give a good account of how choices and decisions are made.

Free will is often expressed through the medium of christian ideology which harbours many unscientific notions such as those related to creation and the soul. For those people trying to convince them about determinism is not likley to achieve much unless they have been brought up a Calvinist or similar Protestant tradition which accept determinism in any event. The hinge point here is the notion the we all have the free choice to let “Jesus into our hearts”. The absurdity of this notion should not escape you. What if you had never heard of JC, what if you were born a Muslim? Calvin understood this dilemma and answered it with the belief that an omnipotent god would have to have chosen the saved already. In fact how could it be any other way. If there is a god he must have made me such that I would never be able to beleive that rubbish. And yet since the dawn of time God has designed me that way. SO much for salvation!

However, there is a class of people who could be, and ought to be, convinced of the argument for determinism. And that would require determinists having a good account for the phenomenon of choice. There is no doubt we all make choices, and we all make daily decisions.
First you have to mine their worries. What on earth is a “free choice” anyway? What are they so scared of? When I make a choice as a “free” agent - that is as an agent of my own needs and desires, not compelled by outside forces , what are the factors that allow me to make a choice.
Often our choices are no more than being thirsty and grabbing a drink, needing a pee and finding the toilet.
But each of us has the ability to consider more deeply. When we consider, we access our motivation, need, experience, volition - call the determining factors what you will. Pun intended, because they all amount to our WILL. The human agent projects, , this and accesses the situation, and a new pathway of determinism is wrought.
This is compatibilism. We all do it. Free will only exist because we are determined to have a choice!!

peacegirl · June 30, 2021, 1:20pm

Sculptor:

For people brought up with the myth of free will it can be hard to accept that they have to remain part of the norm of the necessity of cause and effect. Rather than think things through, they tend to react negatively and respond with complete denial.
On the hand side of the fence those that preach the gospel of determinism do little to quell their fears and give a good account of how choices and decisions are made.

Free will is often expressed through the medium of christian ideology which harbours many unscientific notions such as those related to creation and the soul. For those people trying to convince them about determinism is not likley to achieve much unless they have been brought up a Calvinist or similar Protestant tradition which accept determinism in any event. The hinge point here is the notion the we all have the free choice to let “Jesus into our hearts”. The absurdity of this notion should not escape you. What if you had never heard of JC, what if you were born a Muslim? Calvin understood this dilemma and answered it with the belief that an omnipotent god would have to have chosen the saved already. In fact how could it be any other way. If there is a god he must have made me such that I would never be able to beleive that rubbish. And yet since the dawn of time God has designed me that way. SO much for salvation!

However, there is a class of people who could be, and ought to be, convinced of the argument for determinism. And that would require determinists having a good account for the phenomenon of choice. There is no doubt we all make choices, and we all make daily decisions.
First you have to mine their worries. What on earth is a “free choice” anyway? What are they so scared of? When I make a choice as a “free” agent - that is as an agent of my own needs and desires, not compelled by outside forces , what are the factors that allow me to make a choice.
Often our choices are no more than being thirsty and grabbing a drink, needing a pee and finding the toilet.
But each of us has the ability to consider more deeply. When we consider, we access our motivation, need, experience, volition - call the determining factors what you will. Pun intended, because they all amount to our WILL. The human agent projects, , this and accesses the situation, and a new pathway of determinism is wrought.
This is compatibilism. We all do it. Free will only exist because we are determined to have a choice!!

I was with you until you brought up compatibilism which implies our choices are free even though you admit we are determined. FREE WILL is an illusion no matter how efforts try to make it appear otherwise. Compatibilism (by definition) implies that we can have free will alongside of determinism. It is a confusing term that muddies the issue. It’s a contradiction in terms. Yes, we are free to choose between options when there is no apparent force but our choices are NEVER free.

Magnus_Anderson · June 30, 2021, 2:44pm

Why do I have to do that?

Since all that is implied by my post is that I believe that the concept of determinism does not imply fatalism, all I have to do is prove that statement. And in order to prove that statement, I don’t have to explain “how the human brain […] acquired the capacity to shape and to control the chemical and neurological interactions intertwined in the mind”. That seems like a different subject. If you want me to discuss a different subject, that’s okay. But please, make it clear that’s what you’re asking me to do.

What I’m going to do now is make an attempt to explain why I think the concept of determinism does not imply fatalism (in effect arguing in favor of compatibilism.) It will be my own take on the whole “Free Will vs Determinism” debate (although I very much understand this isn’t exactly the right thread to post that.) Also note that this won’t be a response specifically tailored for you but one tailored for the average reader of this forum. I predict that you won’t find it satisfying (and that you will dismiss it in your usual style.) So let’s just say the rest of this post isn’t written for you.

The first step is to define the terms.

Determinism is the belief that if we knew the state of universe at some arbitrary point in time, and if we knew how the universe works i.e. the laws that govern it, that we would be able to calculate with 100% accuracy the state of the universe at any other point in time. This is the standard, layman definition that is rather easy to misunderstand, which is why I’m also going to provide a mathematical one. According to the mathematical definition, determinism is the belief that for every two points in time (t_1) and (t_2), there exists a mathematical function that maps the state of the universe at (t_1) to the state of the universe at (t_2). If the need for this stricter definition doesn’t make much sense, readers are advised to ignore it for now; its relevance will eventually become apparent.

Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that whatever living beings do, they cannot shape the future. In effect, it’s stating that human decisions have no effect on the world. And if we define the word “free will” to mean “the ability to make decisions that have an effect on the world”, it basically means that there is no free will.

The second step, then, is to show how it follows from the two definitions above that determinism and fatalism are not mutually exclusive terms. Since many people can derive the right conclusion on their own, and since I want to keep this post as short as possible, I will skip this step for now; only once it proves to be necessary will I come back to it.

That said, I will take the opporunity to note something I consider rather important.

The word “free will” has more than one meaning.

In normal, everyday use, the word refers to the ability to make decisions that have an effect on the world. Basically, it implies the ability to do what you say you’re going to do e.g. to eat when you say you’re going to eat; and vice versa, to not eat when you say you’re not going to eat. In this sense, it’s pretty obvious that “free will” exists and that it’s compatible with determinism.

However, the existence of free will in the second sense of the word is questionable and its relation to determinism is clearly incompatibilistic. This other notion of “free will” is that of “the ability to make decisions without the influence of the past”. And although this kind of “free will” is not compatible with determinism, it is compatible with a type of indeterminism that I will call probabilistic determinism. Since probabilistic determinism is almost indistinguishable from determinism, it follows that even this kind of free will is in a way compatible with determinism.

What I find strange is the prevalent belief that this second concept of free will is somehow very important. I read people saying that you can’t have creativity without it. I am not convinced. To me, it looks like it is merely adding to the confusion since it’s not clearly distinguished from the first concept (which is the relevant concept.)

iambiguous · June 30, 2021, 5:50pm

The assumption that given the manner in which, in being compelled by nature to “think” about all of this as nature compels me to, I am in turn compelled by nature to type these words and only these words. And that, concomitantly, nature compels you to read them and then to react to them in the only manner in which you can react to them in the only possible reality. Our “satisfaction” is but one more component that is in turn necessarily/inherently subsumed in that as well.

peacegirl:

Your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled you to DESIRE, based on your environment and heredity, certain choices over others.  Are you disagreeing with the fact that YOU (the agent) are making the choice?

Nature and the laws of matter are the agent. My brain/mind/consciousness is just along for the fated/destined ride. I just have no capacity to understand fully what that means. Let alone to defend what I think it means here and now as your objectivist author does in regard to free will and evil.

And with you [in my “opinion”/opinion] nothing is ever pinpointed until someone agrees with the author’s conclusions. For all the reasons I have noted above.

Then back to the surreal/bizarre aspect of out exchange in the real deal free will world:

In other words, whatever that “means” in your head.

This part to me…

…is so hopelessly contradictory, I can only assume all the more that nature – and only nature — is behind a mind able to think something like this. After all, what does being oxymoronic mean to nature?

Thus back again to your own rendition of these:

“A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills.”
“You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Thus [compelled or not] back to this:

If I keep doing this it is because I want to. But if I am not free to want what I want, well, take it up with nature?

Same here:

Take that up with nature too.

On the other hand, I have “read”/read any number of excerpts that you provided. And I can only assume that in picking them, you’d focus in on the most important points that you “think” he makes.

As for his chapters on death, what happens to “I” when we do die? Is there no free will and no evil on the other side as well?

And again does he actually explain death in the manner in which an electrical engineer can explain how and why a lightbulb functions? How about that excerpt?

peacegirl:

Point out where I’m an objectivist. Our behavior is subjective. It is based on our life circumstances, which is individual. The only objective standard in human behavior is this hurt to others that NO ONE WANTS. This entire book is based on everyone having an opportunity to follow their bliss, their dream, with no one standing in their way. How can you not want that? This book tells no one what they ought to do. All advice will become unnecessary when all evil (hurt in human relations) comes to a peaceful end. Even though war, crime, poverty, hatred, discrimination were necessary in our years of development does not mean it has to continue. Man is constantly making progress in his attempt to make this world a better place. This is just one more step toward this end. Keep in mind that when the author uses the word God, he used it as a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. He called God a mathematical reality. I didn’t post this to start a discussion on the existence of God.

Classic intellectual contraption from the classic objectivist. Though I can’t demonstrate that you are one given a free will world. I can only note the reasons that “I” think that you are one. As I did above. And why the authors arguments have to be encompassed in “worlds of words”.

Like this one:

[quote]
Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation for nothing in this universe when seen in total perspective is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

[quote]
I challenge you to note how his conclusions here do not revolve almost entirely around others accepting the definition and the meaning he gives to these words defining and defending other words only.

The Sun and the Solar System would seem to be entirely subsumed in the either/or world where the laws of matter are clearly discernable. But what of the mystery of living matter evolving into minds like ours? What here can we pin down definitively?

iambiguous · June 30, 2021, 5:59pm

Sculptor:

For people brought up with the myth of free will it can be hard to accept that they have to remain part of the norm of the necessity of cause and effect. Rather than think things through, they tend to react negatively and respond with complete denial.
On the hand side of the fence those that preach the gospel of determinism do little to quell their fears and give a good account of how choices and decisions are made.

Free will is often expressed through the medium of christian ideology which harbours many unscientific notions such as those related to creation and the soul. For those people trying to convince them about determinism is not likley to achieve much unless they have been brought up a Calvinist or similar Protestant tradition which accept determinism in any event. The hinge point here is the notion the we all have the free choice to let “Jesus into our hearts”. The absurdity of this notion should not escape you. What if you had never heard of JC, what if you were born a Muslim? Calvin understood this dilemma and answered it with the belief that an omnipotent god would have to have chosen the saved already. In fact how could it be any other way. If there is a god he must have made me such that I would never be able to beleive that rubbish. And yet since the dawn of time God has designed me that way. SO much for salvation!

However, there is a class of people who could be, and ought to be, convinced of the argument for determinism. And that would require determinists having a good account for the phenomenon of choice. There is no doubt we all make choices, and we all make daily decisions.
First you have to mine their worries. What on earth is a “free choice” anyway? What are they so scared of? When I make a choice as a “free” agent - that is as an agent of my own needs and desires, not compelled by outside forces , what are the factors that allow me to make a choice.
Often our choices are no more than being thirsty and grabbing a drink, needing a pee and finding the toilet.
But each of us has the ability to consider more deeply. When we consider, we access our motivation, need, experience, volition - call the determining factors what you will. Pun intended, because they all amount to our WILL. The human agent projects, , this and accesses the situation, and a new pathway of determinism is wrought.
This is compatibilism. We all do it. Free will only exist because we are determined to have a choice!!

Okay, but again, how does your understanding of this pertain to the point I raise with you here:

Do you post what you do here because you were never able to not post what you do here, or, instead, is it something more in the vicinity of peacegirl’s “satisfaction” in posting it?

iambiguous · June 30, 2021, 6:19pm

Magnus Anderson:

obsrvr524:

Determinism doesn’t propose that there is nothing you can do about things.

Magnus Anderson:

That’s how it looks to me – that he [iambiguous] thinks that determinism implies that we can do nothing about the future (fatalism.)

"[url=https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=170060&start=2825#p2820162:

iambiguous[/url]"]Okay, then explain exactly how the human brain composed of matter that evolved over billions of years from the Big Bang, acquired the capacity to shape and to control the chemical and neurological interactions intertwined in the mind in order to do what [seemingly] no other matter has ever done: to think freely of it’s own volition in order to opt for one set of behaviors rather than another.

Why do I have to do that?

Since all that is implied by my post is that I believe that the concept of determinism does not imply fatalism, all I have to do is prove that statement. And in order to prove that statement, I don’t have to explain “how the human brain […] acquired the capacity to shape and to control the chemical and neurological interactions intertwined in the mind”. That seems like a different subject. If you want me to discuss a different subject, that’s okay. But please, make it clear that’s what you’re asking me to do.

What I’m going to do now is make an attempt to explain why I think the concept of determinism does not imply fatalism (in effect arguing in favor of compatibilism.) It will be my own take on the whole “Free Will vs Determinism” debate (although I very much understand this isn’t exactly the right thread to post that.) Also note that this won’t be a response specifically tailored for you but one tailored for the average reader of this forum. I predict that you won’t find it satisfying (and that you will dismiss it in your usual style.) So let’s just say the rest of this post isn’t written for you.

The first step is to define the terms.

Determinism is the belief that if we knew the state of universe at some arbitrary point in time, and if we knew how the universe works i.e. the laws that govern it, that we would be able to calculate with 100% accuracy the state of the universe at any other point in time. This is the standard, layman definition that is rather easy to misunderstand, which is why I’m also going to provide a mathematical one. According to the mathematical definition, determinism is the belief that for every two points in time (t_1) and (t_2), there exists a mathematical function that maps the state of the universe at (t_1) to the state of the universe at (t_2). If the need for this stricter definition doesn’t make much sense, readers are advised to ignore it for now; its relevance will eventually become apparent.

Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that whatever living beings do, they cannot shape the future. In effect, it’s stating that human decisions have no effect on the world. And if we define the word “free will” to mean “the ability to make decisions that have an effect on the world”, it basically means that there is no free will.

The second step, then, is to show how it follows from the two definitions above that determinism and fatalism are not mutually exclusive terms. Since many people can derive the right conclusion on their own, and since I want to keep this post as short as possible, I will skip this step for now; only once it proves to be necessary will I come back to it.

That said, I will take the opporunity to note something I consider rather important.

The word “free will” has more than one meaning.

In normal, everyday use, the word refers to the ability to make decisions that have an effect on the world. Basically, it implies the ability to do what you say you’re going to do e.g. to eat when you say you’re going to eat; and vice versa, to not eat when you say you’re not going to eat. In this sense, it’s pretty obvious that “free will” exists and that it’s compatible with determinism.

However, the existence of free will in the second sense of the word is questionable and its relation to determinism is clearly incompatibilistic. This other notion of “free will” is that of “the ability to make decisions without the influence of the past”. And although this kind of “free will” is not compatible with determinism, it is compatible with a type of indeterminism that I will call probabilistic determinism. Since probabilistic determinism is almost indistinguishable from determinism, it follows that even this kind of free will is in a way compatible with determinism.

What I find strange is the prevalent belief that this second concept of free will is somehow very important. I read people saying that you can’t have creativity without it. I am not convinced. To me, it looks like it is merely adding to the confusion since it’s not clearly distinguished from the first concept (which is the relevant concept.)

From my frame of mind, this is typical of what I’d expect from him. A ponderous intellectual assessment in which “technically” he goes on and on and on and on probing it all – epistemologically? – with his “serious philosophy” definitions. Not really all that different from the points he raises with Ecmandu on the objective morality thread.

Instead, what I am more interested in is in his taking these didactic assumptions and focusing in instead on the point of contention I have with Sculptor here above:

And

Free will, determinism and compatibilism as they relate to moral responsibility; and as they relate to the mystery of human consciousness itself.

Now, if he is not interested in taking the discussion there, fine, we can both “move”/move/“move” on to others.

iambiguous · June 30, 2021, 6:58pm

The latest from the KT free will thread:

We’ll need an actual context of course.

Magnus_Anderson · June 30, 2021, 8:25pm

How can I answer your question without knowing how you define the word “possibility”? Depending on how you define it, the answer can either be “Yes” or “No”. I discussed this with obsrvr524 in another thread (related to Aristotle’s sea battle paradox.) But since like Ecmandu, you have no interest in clarifying things, I have no choice but to guess. So my answer, based on my guess, would be “Yes, it was possible for Mary to not abort her unborn baby/clump of cells”. Where do we go from here?

peacegirl · June 30, 2021, 8:39pm

Of course our satisfaction is one more component that is in turn necessarily inherently subsumed in that as well, but the question remains: who is doing the choosing? You cannot say that nature (e.g., or God, or your mother, or your captors) can make you do anything against your will. You do whatever it is because YOU WANT TO, even if it’s the lesser of two evils.

peacegirl:

Your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled you to DESIRE, based on your environment and heredity, certain choices over others.  Are you disagreeing with the fact that YOU (the agent) are making the choice?

peacegirl:

Nature is YOU. YOU cannot separate yourself from the laws that are part of your makeup. Therefore, you cannot shift responsibility by saying nature made you shoot someone; that you had no choice because it wasn’t even you making the choice. Don’t you see what you’re doing? You are shifting your responsibility to the laws of matter, as if to say you had nothing to do with it, you just went along for the ride, as you put it. But you had everything to do with it because YOU made the choice (greater satisfaction pushed you in this direction). We end up in the same place but the way this author defines determinism is more accurate and brings up the other side of the equation above; that nothing can make you do anything you make up your mind not to do. This is important because it shows that YOU, the agent, must give permission to shoot. IOW, you cannot say the laws of matter made you shoot unless you wanted to in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Nothing is ever pinpointed because you don’t address my questions. If the author’s conclusions are correct, why are you so against someone agreeing? It’s like saying if someone agrees that 2 +2 = 4, something must be wrong because they’re in agreement. I don’t know why you are so against the author being right.

The only difference is that when we learn that not blaming is superior to blaming (which you don’t understand since you never opened the book), we will get greater satisfaction in not blaming because it will give us what we want; a world without war and crime. A fantastic change in human conduct is within reach (as a result of this new understanding) which prevents the very thing blame and punishment were previously necessary.

Whatever you say.

This is not at all contradictory. I already posted where the author showed that both choices (the choice to do something because you want to, or to choose not to do something because you don’t want to) are in the direction of greater satisfaction. This law is invariable. It is not circular just because whatever you choose is in this direction. It is insightful and has value as a first premise.

You are free to do what you want according to the layman’s definition of “free.” You are doing what the compatibilists do. They just choose a definition for “free” that suits them (making some actions free and some not, which is contradictory), and then announce that free will and determinism are compatible. Could we do otherwise (free will) and not do otherwise (no free will) at the same time? They are inherently incompatible.

And your wanting to is also not free.

You can want what you want and choose based on those wants, even if your wants are not within your control. What this discovery proves is that you could never want to hurt anyone under the changed conditions.

I’m just pointing it out. I’m taking it up with you who makes choices. I’m not taking it up with nature as if you are a puppet with no say.

It is not enough to read snippets. This was a 30 year work and you think you can determine whether it is a genuine discovery from this thread?

I don’t want to get into his chapter on death at this time.

Another presumption of yours. We don’t have to physically hold an object to make accurate observations and inferences.

peacegirl:

Point out where I’m an objectivist. Our behavior is subjective. It is based on our life circumstances, which is individual. The only objective standard in human behavior is this hurt to others that NO ONE WANTS. This entire book is based on everyone having an opportunity to follow their bliss, their dream, with no one standing in their way. How can you not want that? This book tells no one what they ought to do. All advice will become unnecessary when all evil (hurt in human relations) comes to a peaceful end. Even though war, crime, poverty, hatred, discrimination were necessary in our years of development does not mean it has to continue. Man is constantly making progress in his attempt to make this world a better place. This is just one more step toward this end. Keep in mind that when the author uses the word God, he used it as a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. He called God a mathematical reality. I didn’t post this to start a discussion on the existence of God.

What world of words are you referring to?

iambiguous:

Like this one:

Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation for nothing in this universe when seen in total perspective is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

All he was saying is that we live in a world that is controlled by laws. Our choices, therefore, when seen in total perspective, are not moral or immoral, right or wrong. They are just what someone wanted to do at a particular moment in his life, even if it was better to kill someone. But now we can prevent the conditions that lead to these crimes without threats of punishment.

It’s interesting to think about but it’s not a prerequisite that we must solve the mystery you keep bringing up. This discovery can stand on its own. It can be empirically tested and proved that under certain conditions man cannot desire to hurt others because it will give him less satisfaction, not more. And we will be the lucky beneficiaries.