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.
In Defense of Compatibilism: A Response to Edwards and Coyne
written by Ben Burgis at the quillette website
Just came across this.
It’s as close as I get to grasping the position of the compatibilists. The hard determinists might be right but given that there is "too much about the universe that we don’t understand” none of us can really be certain.
So, sure, wager on something in the general vicinity of free will. Act as if you have it and, even if you don’t, it still doesn’t change the fact that here and now you bet that you do have it in choosing what you do from day to day.
Besides, even if you bet on determinism, it won’t change the fact that a part of you will no doubt still be upset when others do hold you morally responsible for doing things that they believe are evil. The punishment may be but another manifestation of the only possible reality but, again, your brain is hard wired to delude you into thinking it isn’t just.
His entire book demonstrates how serious conflicts (the kind that produce wars) can be eliminated. He demonstrates why man’s will is not free. It is not the same as demonstrating how a light bulb works because one is material, the other immaterial. That in and of itself doesn’t make his demonstration inaccurate. Please stop using this analogy because that’s what you’re implying. If will is not free, it can’t be free. If we could not do otherwise, could we do otherwise?
[i]Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.
I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there,
which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves.
The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a
discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did
what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this
demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not
be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.[/i]
It’s also a FACT that man’s will is not free. The author demonstrated in great detail why this is so.
Greater satisfaction may be viewed as a tautology (Note: it is not circular), but that doesn’t make it insignificant, remember?
[i]A tautology is any argument where for any combination of truth values (true/false) assigned to the predicates within it, the logical flow of the argument is such that the conclusion will always turn out true.
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[/i]
What a cop-out! You have no free will because if you did, then determinism would be negated. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, but the way the author correctly defines determinism, we still get to do those things that you think require the real deal free will. You still get to think, contemplate, ponder, ruminate, decide, etc., all without one smidgen of free will.
And I will repeat: He did not have 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. You are so off-base, but you’re blind to it. I know you can’t help it, so don’t repeat. I’ll do it for you. Being off-base is embedded in the laws of matter which you have no control over. =D>
It may be interesting to ponder, but it’s not a requirement to understanding that man’s will is not free. Where did you get this idea that is so embedded in your psyche that you can’t for one moment entertain the thought that determinism has been positively proved true. There’s nothing to be afraid of. It’s something to celebrate once you understand how it can benefit our world.
I did not pick and choose brain functions. You are the one that wants to believe there is a ghost in the machine. When you call our brains a machine, it brings up a bad connotation. We are controlled by laws, but we are free to choose between this or that, although the choice is never really free. Why? You should know the answer by now.
You are right. They are inherent components of the only possible reality, but when someone says they did something of their own free will, they are not discussing the internal components of what their brain is doing. They are saying in so many words that nothing external (like pressure from someone, or a gun to their head) is making them feel like they have no real choice.
First of all, it’s not the author’s rendition. You have not followed his reasoning at all, and you haven’t read anything. You just can’t believe that he actually has a discovery, so you assume that all of this is about identifying with the author, consoling myself into a belief that the world is good, etc. That is far from the truth. It just so happens that the world is good and will be even better when we understand our true nature and apply it on a global scale. Finally, his discovery on death has nothing to do with an afterlife. This is just a word with no real meaning.
I don’t need to think about where my wanting comes from because of a need to really understand where it does come from. Where does life itself come from? Where does consciousness come from? We can talk about this forever, but it has nothing to do with his discovery.
The implications on a practical level of anything we think, feel, say and do, given this new understanding is absolutely incredible because it will prevent war, crime, and poverty! It is true that we have gray areas and we live in different cultures, but eventually this transition to a better world will be appealing to every nation on Earth.
"It is not the same as demonstrating how a light bulb works because one is material, the other immaterial. "
That’s my point in the real deal free will world. If a doctor is asked to demonstrate how she performed Mary’s abortion, she can do so in great detail. Pointing to the tools and the body and the procedure from start to finish.
How then is anything the author noted above the equivalent of demonstrating that his own rendition of “no free will” is in fact true here?
And if some insist the abortion is immoral and others insist it is not immoral, how on earth would he go about demonstrating which it was?
Uh, define “demonstrate”? But that’s my point. In a world of words that the author and only the author gets to define, he makes an argument about free will and evil. That becomes the demonstration!!
Thus…
Okay, how is this applicable to Mary “choosing” an abortion? And a doctor “choosing” the best procedure for performing it? Significance here in what practical sense?
As for this…
…how does it help me to grasp once and for all whether you were 1] compelled by nature to note this…embedded entirely in the only possible reality…or 2] the extent to which you “chose” to note it given that there was the possibility that your greater satisfaction might have “prompted” you to note something else?
I’m still confused as to how you differentiate your no free will mind from my no free will mind. With mine the distinction is essentially moot because neither of us was ever able to not note what we do. With yours…
Note to others:
Any suggestions?
Again, exactly the reaction we would expect from a real deal free will advocate!
“Cop-out:
1: to back out (as of an unwanted responsibility)
cop out on jury duty
2: to avoid or neglect problems, responsibilities, or commitments
accused the mayor of copping out on the issue”
Someone “backs out” of a responsibility or “avoids or neglects” a problem. He or she is accused of this as though they had the option not to cop-out but chose wrongly to cop-out.
Again, how you see this given your own “cop-out” intellectual contraption is still a mystery to me.
Now, I’m not saying that you are wrong, only that, given the manner in which I understand a wholly determined world, right and wrong are “naturally” interchangeable.
It’s you who wants your cake and to eat it too. I’m not arguing that we don’t “still get to think, contemplate, ponder, ruminate, decide, etc.”, but groping to understand how you understand doing these things “without one smidgen of free will”.
And I will repeat: Insisting that he did not have to acknowledge the gap is not anywhere near the same as demonstrating why and how this is true.
That’s why with the light bulb [for those who don’t know what it is], someone can insist that how they describe how it functions is how it functions; but only when the lightbulb is brought out and the description is in fact shown to be entirely in sync with the functioning lightbulb, is the case closed.
Note to others:
So, what do you think…a cop-out?
More intellectual gibberish from my frame of mind. Only from my frame of mind your frame of mind is not less “stuck” in the only possible reality. Only from my frame of mind, as well, I have no way in which to demonstrate any of this. Let alone being inclined to write a book insisting that anyone who refuses to think exactly like I do about it is “wrong”.
How is anything they discuss not but more components of the only possible reality? How in a world where the internal and the external are necessarily intertwined in the only possible world, does putting a gun to someone’s head or feeling a gun pressed to your head not become but more manifestations of the same “only possible reality”?
That you believe this speaks volumes regarding your motivation. Which, in my view, is to completely disregard or discard anything that does not comport with the author’s conclusions. Meaning it is not what he concludes that matters to you nearly as much as that it is a conclusion you can anchor your Self to. Another run of the mill rendition of the “psychology of objectivism”.
Because it can be seen that from the day we are born to the day we die, we are moving away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. We can only move in one direction. Did you read the excerpt above? You never have any questions.
There will be no moral or immoral. Just what someone’s conscience allows. If Mary feels that she needs to have an abortion, and she doesn’t feel that it’s immoral in her eyes, she will do what she feels is best for her. I did mention that there will be less and less abortions as there are less and less unwanted pregnancies, so this won’t even be an issue.
What are you talking about? He isn’t creating a definition that only he gets to make. He is making an observation and coming up with a more accurate definition. Are you surprised that proving “no free will” true could be that simple after centuries of confusion? Is that what this is about?
Mary will choose whatever she thinks is best in her situation, as I already mentioned. The doctor will choose whatever procedure he thinks is best for her. Where does this cause a problem? There will be no moral code, only what conscience allows. If Mary chooses to abort, does that mean she’s a murderer? If she felt she was, she wouldn’t choose abortion. These are gray areas and have no effect on the discovery and its ability to prevent war, crime, hatred, and poverty.
If my mind prompted me to think of a better option, I may have chosen another option, but this is what my mind prompted me to post in the direction of greater satisfaction. You told me his reasoning is circular. I am showing you that it is not.
They are basically the same except you keep saying the laws of matter are embedded. This gives people the feeling that they are puppets. I am only differentiating what “no free will” actually means. It does not mean the laws of matter are forcing you to do anything AGAINST YOUR WILL. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. As I already stated, nothing has the power to make you do what you make up your mind not to do. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
It doesn’t mean they had the option not to cop-out, but bringing it to their attention may be helpful later on if they are doing something that is preventing a more productive discourse.
If you mean in a determined universe there is no right and wrong, I agree when seen in total perspective.
Christ also received
incursions of thought from this same principle which compelled him
to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the
cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in
the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them
when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what
they were doing and he could not stop them even by turning the other
cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible
for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly
that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.
But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to
forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible
for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in
total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for
understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and
reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep
an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you
how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
[i]Though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just
pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?
“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”
This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.[/i]
Demonstrating why man’s will is not free is exactly what he did.
Proof can be established with this as well. This empirical evidence will be the proof that you believe he doesn’t have.
Where am I copping out? I’m doing my best not to cop out and to address everything you hope to have answered.
None of us have any FREE choice given your definition or mine.
Again, if I refute that one plus one is not two, then anyone who refuses to think otherwise is, in fact, wrong. You of course don’t think this applies to him, but that’s because you think he can’t be right.
It doesn’t. Who is saying otherwise? That doesn’t mean we don’t try to make things better, also as part of the only possible reality.
It’s not another rendition of objectivism. It’s either true or it’s not true. If it is true, and it can change our world for the better (to your complete surprise), why would you object to my sincere effort to share this knowledge?
