More to the point, the part where we think, feel, and intuit [given a truly visceral certainty], that we are doing it because we opted to do so of our own free will.
How can any hard determinist not take pause with that?
On the other hand, here I go back to dreams. Last night I had a truly elaborate “work dream”. Back to the company I worked for for over 25 years. Back to a work context I know like the back of my hand. Back to people I interacted with for years. In the dream I was thinking about what I was doing and exchanging conversations with those who were reacting to what I said and did. People popped up in the dream doing things that were out of the blue. But there I was in the dream thinking about what I was seeing and sharing what I thought about it with others.
Only it was all “just a dream”, right?
But how to explain a world in which from my point of view in the dream I was not dreaming at all. I was “experiencing” instead what I perceived to be the real deal world.
I haven’t read the book - the last big paper or book I read about determinism was a decade ago.
What might be happening is the guy who wrote the book is right (that he is a determinist), but some and/or all of his supporting arguments are confused or nonsensical, I dunno.
I do know however all the main arguments accepted and codified by the leading intellectual determinists now operating on earth, as well as the classical determinists (Hobbes, spinoza, Nietzsche, Hume (kinda)) their theories were drawn from.
I can say rather conclusively that this matter is resolved, and I therefore motion to discontinue.
We don’t have to establish whether someone “wants” to do something or not? That is not our concern right now. All that needs to be established at this juncture is that when someone makes a choice, no one is making the choice but him, regardless of what it is. Remember, nothing (not the laws of matter, God, parents, or anything else) can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do, for over this he has absolute control.
Of course he can. He can think things through very carefully. He can do lots of research and get lots of opinions to help him make the best choice, if that’s what he wants to do. Most of us are careful in our decisions especially when it’s a big one like what state to live in, or what university to go to. You get the gist?
Lessans was showing that this example the guy gave does not prove what he thought it did. He was trying to prove that he could move in the direction of dissatisfaction by eating the red apple which he was allergic to, but this only proved further that he wanted to eat the red apple over the yellow to prove a point, which moved him in the direction of greater satisfaction than what he normally would. The flaw in his thinking is that he believed by picking the red apple, he was proving that he could move in the direction of dissatisfaction which is false. In response to your other concern, there is nothing that says a person can’t change his mind the last second. We do this all the time. Example: I was planning on going one route home and then I suddenly changed my mind the last second, as I approached a shortcut. Does this negate the claim of “greater satisfaction.” No it doesn’t.
He didn’t change the meaning. The person is always choosing what gives him greater satisfaction when contemplating meaningful differences. It does not mean he likes his choice necessarily, or that he even wants to choose that option. He may decide he doesn’t want to choose either one because they are both dissatisfying, which is a choice in itself.
It is true that there are degrees of wanting something, but this doesn’t change the direction we are compelled to go. For example, I have money to buy a new dress but I’m deciding if I should buy a less expensive dress (the one I want least) so I will have money to eat at a nice restaurant later. In that case, I will forgo that more expensive dress (the one I want the most) in favor of the least expensive dress. I am still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.
[i]Chapter One:
Before I show how it is possible to resolve the implications, it is
necessary to repeat that I will proceed in a step by step manner. This
dragon has been guarding an invisible key and door for many years,
and this could never be made visible except for someone who saw these
undeniable relations. If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man
Does Not Stand Alone as Morrison understood from his scientific
observations; that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical
reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage
that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.” We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.” So without any further ado, let us begin.
The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice, consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.
Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good. In this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.
In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
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.
Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we
shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the
humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that
particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative
when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the
threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose
A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of
B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the
latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly
impossible to choose B in this comparison are they not compelled, by
their very nature, to prefer A; and how can they be free when the
favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their
choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction?
To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able
to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he
doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what
he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative
is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man
was free he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that
gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction
of his life, and make him prefer the impossible.[/i]
Why the yawn? It doesn’t sound exciting I realize that, but it is an important observation. Whatever a person selects is away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, which is why will is not free. This is an invariable law which proves that only one option is possible each and every moment of time. This is not the discovery; it is the gateway that leads to the discovery. Also remember this other principle: Nothing can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. When we put these two principles together, we get the two-sided equation (which phrase has nothing to do with math per se). The core of this discovery is in Chapter Two.
He’s saying that men cannot choose anything other than what they want to choose. In order to test this particular claim, it is necessary to know two things: 1) what he means by “want”, and 2) how to establish what any given person “wants”. My guess is that what he means by “want” is “what someone thinks is the best option to choose out of all options that were considered”.
One of his theses is that life always moves in the direction of satisfaction. This seems to be his (rather strange) way of saying that living beings always choose what they perceive to be the most preferrable option of the options that they took into consideration.
From Page 49:
The above quote confirms that “moving toward greater satisfaction” does not mean what it appears to mean, namely, “choosing the option that leads to a level of satisfaction that is greater than the one experienced in the present”; but rather, that it means “choosing the option that is perceived as having better consequences than every other option that was took into consideration”.
And yet again, in order to test his claim – that what men choose to do is always what they think is the best thing to do – we have to know how to determine what any given person thinks is the best thing to do at any given moment.
The claim that I’m addressing is that men always choose to do what they think is the best thing to do.
The claim that men always do what they choose to do (rather than what something or someone else determined they should do) seems like a different claim. (This begs a different question: how do we establish what someone chose to do?)
He did want to eat the red apple but in what sense of the word? That’s the point. He is claiming that 1) he wanted to eat the red apple less than the yellow apple, and 2) he wanted to do something that he doesn’t want to do the most.
Yor refutation merely consists in “He wanted to do it, right? So that means he wanted to do it the most.” How does that follow?
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}