We are all different to a degree only means our heredity and environment are different. It does not mean there is a difference in degrees of having free will.
That can be said of the same person at different moments of time. So there must be variability (degrees of freedom?) factored in. No?
Funny how things change.
Do you know what would be freaking hilarious? A debate surrounding the free will issue as well as the “whether or not anything changes” issue. Which I think may have happened a little bit earlier in the (or another) thread, but anyway. We can definitely do it better.
No matter how I explain the different meanings of “free”, you still are not getting it. Throughout this book he shows how much more freedom we will have when there are no restrictions or laws telling us what to do. The only restriction will be our own conscience, which will go from a approximately a 4 in this world to a 10 in the new world.
Roger that.
I’m going to use this thread. The determinism thread is so interspersed with unrelated comments, it would be hard for anyone to sift through.
The problem that continues to confound philosophers is that of moral responsibility, for it is believed that if people knew will was not free, they could easily use this as an excuse to do whatever they want with no accountability. What they don’t understand is that responsibility goes up tenfold when we extend the basic principle.
All I am asking is for people to stick to the subject matter and not go off on tangents.
It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments which came into existence out of God’s will, as did everything else, and consequently you have come to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these words which judge the actions of others are accurate. How was it possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed in free will? But in reality when murder is committed it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life considered better for himself under circumstances which included the judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too, was neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction. Neither the government or the murderer are to blame for what each judged better under their particular set of circumstances; but whether they will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.
No comment.
He’s already starting with me. I can’t get rid of him.
If there is no free will, I fail to understand where inventing comes from and where being predetermined comes into play in regards to being able to freely will something into reality, with nothing behind it to back it.
How can you will something to exist by the rules of determinism, if there is no information before hand to otherwise force you to do so or anything to influence that future.
What is the influencer and or restraint on making the decision to do so or not? when it is a completely new topic never before thought of. Are you not able to choose it freely? How does wisdom play into determinism and not free will?
Hope you’re well, Art.
imo:
We cannot freely will things into reality.
We want things - prefer that the state of reality matches closer to our ideals.
And we can hope for the above, and make efforts towards what we believe may contribute (as determined) towards this end.
Existence unfolds as determined, we partake in the process, as we are components of existence.
As above, we cannot through force of will, alter the trajectory of reality - or so hard determinists believe.
The composition of all the things that influence[d] the ‘influencer’, which preceded the influencer’s will in all meaningful ways.
Nothing is new under the sun, and all that exists is bound by existence’s grasp - as per definition.
We’re generally able to act in accord with our will -
where we can move towards our preferences,
without being physically coerced or restrained by other conscious entities,
i.e. gun to head, or locked in a cell.
The description of our choices being free, is what determinists push against.
The actions we make, which we describe as choices, are not of our own making.
They are reactions to prior states of reality, tracing before life on this planet existed.
Momentum carries us down the river of time, and meaningful self control is an illusion.
I wont speak to other’s conceptions of free will, but to determinism:
We are part of the process / mechanism by which the momentum / energy of reality is carried through the medium / dimension of time.
We recognize that actions that are illuminated by wisdom, are preferable to actions that aren’t.
Thus, those who value wisdom, seek to nurture it, to increase the possibility that it may illuminate anticipated actions.
[quote=“Artimas”]
If there is no free will, I fail to understand where inventing comes from and where being predetermined comes into play in regards to being able to freely will something into reality, with nothing behind it to back it.
Peacegirl: This question goes back to what is meant by having no free will. Actually, having no free will only means (on a macro level) that we are free to move in any direction we want at the outset. It only restrains us in the sense of not being able to choose that which offers us less satisfaction when comparing different alternatives.
Artimus: How can you will something to exist by the rules of determinism, if there is no information before hand to otherwise force you to do so or anything to influence that future.
Peacegirl: The rules you speak of are artificial because determinism does not mean we are forced to do anything which is implied by the standard definition. This has created unnecessary confusion.
Artimus: What is the influencer and or restraint on making the decision to do so or not? when it is a completely new topic never before thought of. Are you not able to choose it freely? How does wisdom play into determinism and not free will?
Peacegirl: Your questions are very thoughtful. If you keep in mind that the definition of determinism only means making a choice at any moment in time that offers greater preference or satisfaction based on one’s present knowledge, you will see that there is no conflict in making a decision (of one’s own accord) based on the factors influencing that decision, even if part of the decision is based on a new topic, or not being sure where to go next. This does not change the direction of movement we are compelled to go based on our nature.
Has there ever been an instance where one has made the choice of lesser satisfaction?
Doesn’t that go on everyday?
Can there not be free will and determinism simultaneously playing off of each other? Is it not just another paradox?
It’s like a glass half empty, half full situation, but not. If it’s empty of choices, there’s nothing to choose. But if it’s full of choices, determinists are going to say the choices were determined… even though not all were chosen. Especially if it’s full of only one choice. But the other choice is to break the glass.
Another good question. Moving toward lesser satisfaction cannot occur. That does not mean we are always satisfied or that we make choices that others think are bad for us. We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction given the choices at our disposal. Sometimes none of our choices are good, so we choose the lesser of two or more evils, but this does not change the direction life compels us to go. Everyday we are choosing between the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil. The words good and evil are relative. Dog food may be good to a starving person and bad to someone who can have a steak.
Yep, this could be due to prioritising long-term goals over short-term gratification, considering the well-being of others, or making sacrifices for a greater cause. Another example could be when I choose a job that pays less but aligns with my passion or values rather than opting for a higher-paying job that brings less personal fulfilment. Or in relationships, I may make choices that prioritise the happiness of my partner or family, even if it means sacrificing some personal satisfaction.
So really, the concept of choosing lesser satisfaction is subjective and can vary greatly depending on individual values, priorities, and circumstances. We try to navigate complex decisions weighing multiple factors, and if we are lucky, the choice of lesser satisfaction could be aimed at achieving a more significant or meaningful outcome in the long run. It is just that some people have fewer options.
Sometimes. Some philosophers and scientists argue for a form of compatibilism, a sort of soft determinism, suggesting that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive and can coexist in certain ways. For example, even if our actions are determined by prior factors such as biology, environment, or genetics, we can still have a meaningful sense of freedom and responsibility. As long as our choices align with our desires and are not externally coerced, we might consider ourselves to have free will. On the other hand, incompatibilists could argue that if our actions are entirely determined by prior events and conditions, then our ability to make genuine choices is compromised. So, the idea of free will and determinism coexisting is a bit paradoxical, and perhaps our understanding of these concepts needs some refinement.
Sure, first’ Bob’s point about long term goals vs. short term goals. In the name of long term goals one may choose the less satisfying alternative and while one may feel some satisfaction for one’s maturity, for example, 1) one may never achieve the goal and never experience the satisfaction one has sacrificed the short term satisfaction for and 2) the net satisfaction, despite pride in one’s maturity or any similar satisfaction, may still be less than what eating cake and watching football would have brought.
Second, shame and guilt can lead to all sorts of lesser satisfaction choice and even do this for an entire lifetime. On one level it might seem to the person they are avoid some kind of punishment or greater dissatisfaction, by doing this - though it might not - but of course they can be mistaken about this.
Third, there can be other ideals that while offering some kind of satisfaction that the person might think is greater, in fact they lead to less satisfaction. Perfectionism, self-abnegation, toughing it out, being ‘loyal’ to someone who is not and many other adhering to ideals.
It might seem to the person that holding to these ideals leads to a greater satisfaction - related to being a good person or a real man or woman or whatever - or it might not seem that way to the person AND it need not be. For some it might be.
But I see people all around me motivated not by achieving greater satisfaction and also not achieving greater satisfaction out of all sorts of motivations, ideals, confusions and self-hatreds of different kinds.
I think the hedonism model fails:
There is also the health aspect that comes into play in higher management. When I saw that our corporation was undergoing a paradigm shift, I knew I was not the man for their technocracy, so I stepped down into local management despite no longer having the bonus.
I’m not sure I understand the practical side of what you mean here. Could you expand?
My idealism, focusing on holistic medicine and care, also played a role in the first example, whereas my new CEO said my priorities were wrong. However, I get the feeling you mean something else here. I have watched Buddhist monks and wondered how they saw us Westerners in comparison with their frugal life, despite the friendliness with which we were welcomed, but that could apply to any monastic order.
I do, too. The satisfaction is ephemeral, and desire falls on the next object quickly. There is truth in acknowledging that all is okay as it is, although I find that generally works for me, but when I see others whose lot is dukkha of some kind, my heart goes out to them.
You’re missing the point here. We are always making choices, some less satisfying than others, but that does not change the direction life is pushing us. We are constantly moving from moment to moment away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, or we wouldn’t make a move. We are not talking about the reasons why we may desire doing one thing over another. We are just establishing the direction of life. It is impossible to move in the direction of what gives us the least satisfaction when a more satisfying option is available. Does that make sense? I don’t want people in this thread to go off on tangents when I started this thread to share a discovery.
Same thing here. Everyone is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though what gives one person greater satisfaction is not the same as another because of their particular circumstances, values, heredity, predispositions , etc.
It absolutely needs refinement. The problem with the standard definition of determinism implies that we are being coerced by prior events and conditions to do what we do, but this is a fallacy. Nothing has the power to make or coerce us do anything against our will, but this does not make our will free. Free will is a realistic mirage. Just because we are not being coerced by anything external does not grant us free will, as the compatibilists use to try to reconcile the two opposite thought systems.
If the will is un-free nothing can be against it.
The will is not ours at all.
Will is useless…it has no agency.
Cosmetic. It evolved to remind us about how unfree we are.
We have no will, if our will is not free.
We are automatons.
Will is external - god?
Call it god’s will, or fate.
Fatalism.
Absolute order determining everything.
Thou will be done. 
If a choice cannot be different, then it is no choice at all, is it?
There is no choice if only one option can be chosen and is inevitable.
We are no different than a pebble on the ocean’s floor…no deferent than a drop of dew on the wind.
Carry on in your delusions.
Recovering Abrahamics.
Sheesh… 
Therefore, this imagined state of ‘eternal peace’ is not up to us, is it?..we have no will, to will other than what has been determined; no choice other than choose what has been determined …
So, peace on earth is in god’s hands or a matter of fate.
Pleasure is just a way we know we are doing god’s work - or on the correct cosmic path.
Pleasure is how this external will lets us know what we are meant to do, or what it has determined for us to do.
But then, pain is not up to my will either. If I stray from god’s will, or contradict what has been determined, this has also been determined…and I feel this as pain.
Ergo, pain and pleasure are superfluous…since both are a product of what has been determined.
How can I choose what doesn’t give me pleasure if I can only choose one option? - meaning I have no choice at all.
Shall we wait and see what happens?
We can’t do anything about it, other than watch and see what has been determined for us.
Even this post was determined, and I could not have not posted it…I had no choice in the matter. I could not have willed otherwise.
I am the cosmos responding to itself…and you are the same - solipsism.
A cosmic echo chamber.
A farce.