“Fist of all, free will is a dualistic philosophy, in that one’s mind is considered to be separate from one’s body. These two substances are seen as incompatible; not mixing, so not exerting any influence upon one another. Thus if body were to not have a mind, it would behave as causality dictates it to behave, in that for every sensation inputted, a predictable output reaction would ensue. But Free Will states that in the body there does exist a mind, a soul, a consciousness, a ghost in the shell, that dictates what the body does. As such, even though the body is composed of the same substance as everything else, it is still free to will will that is seemingly random thanks to the uninfluencable ghost’s ability to originate will. This ghost inside the machine has the capacity to will from self; will that is original to self; will that does not predate self, because self does not, or rather cannot, predate itself.”
If there were a ghost in the shell, it can never influence the shell, as the ghost would move right through it…
This is also noteworthy:
“Thus a person’s amount of choices in any given situation is one, even though to the self which is ignorant of influences being exerted upon it and also ignorance of self’s composition, the choices will seem as having an outcome possibility as more than one. In other words, if a die were tossed and in midair it gained consciousness it would see the outcome as having the possibility of landing one out of six sides, but to an observer having had information such as the force exerted upon the die, gravity’s pull on the die, the surface it lands on, et cetera, the possibility is clear to be one. Similarly, a person ignorant of the immediate forces acting upon him, as well as ignorant of the forces that created what he considers self, will see the possibilities of any given situation as more than one.”
This reminds me of the self-conscious rock that is discussed in Tom Wolfe’s “I Am Charlotte Simmons”, of which idea I made the following adaptation:
“A human being is really like a conscious stone. The stone is rolling downhill, and can do nothing about it, but it may think, and feel, that it is in control. It is this feeling which is pleasurable. The stone may say, “Yes! I’m rolling downhill! That is precisely what I want to do!”, or it may say, “Oh no! I’m rolling downhill! I don’t want to! Help!” The former is self-affirmation; the latter is self-denial. And there is no free choice between them. But the denier also denies his own denial; whereas the affirmer affirms his own affirmation. A double negative is a positive, but a double positive is not a negative. So all existence is positive, even though it may seem negative from a negative perspective.”
I do want to get you to think about this honestly. If we could stop all wars and killing NOW, without further killing, wouldn’t you want this? It is true that fighting for democracy may eventually bring forth a free country with a new government. But if there is a better way, wouldn’t you want to know about it? Punishment has never worked fully, and in a free will society there are always people who will become mentally ill because of judgment. What if by removing all judgment, and all blame (including threats of punishment) we could achieve the very thing all the punishment in the world could never do? What then? I want to bring this to a personal level because we get immune to all of the horrors we see on t.v… Oh, another 45 soldiers were killed, and we go about our day. But what if it was your child over there? Wouldn’t you rather have him home?
What if conscience could rise to its full capacity to STOP THE VIOLENCE? What if we could prevent all of this destruction just by raising our conscience to a higher level and work at 100% capacity instead of 75%? I would hope this is something you would want to know about instead of thinking that this is just another philosophical debate that will die a slow death. Truth does not die; it just gets put on standby until it is recognized. Any debate can make someone look as if they are incorrect (while the other gets the trophy)! But who really wins? The true losers are all of us (unless this discovery is stamped with the brevet of truth by leading scientists) and no amount of debate will be able to find a flaw where there isn’t one. Yes, we can manufacture a flaw, but this would not be the fault of the discoverer; it would be the lack of objectivity of the reader. Using their intellectual framework it would be easy to say this is just another false lead where everyone misses it and then goes back to the drawing board. After all, it’s fun to argue and be right. If this discovery was true, a lot of the debate going on would have no more meaning. So if you are truly interested in a way to achieve peace on earth, try to listen instead of be right, and put aside all that you have learned so you can read without bias. In the end there is nothing you can say that can prove 2+2=5.
“see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the “martial society.””
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]
It is the top of this pyramid with which I am concerned.
You must put aside your ideas in order to understand this one or you will continue to compare your knowledge with this knowledge and it won’t work. In this world, there is no pyramid shape or edifice or military caste. The tendency to war means we will more likely have war, which we see everyday. There are deaths and there is so much destruction along with the technology to produce weapons of mass destruction the size of which could destroy much of the population that I do not want to get into an intellectual debate about the tendency to war. Our world is on the brink of a catastrophe, and I am not willing to discuss an abstract intellectual debate when I am much more interested in a practical solution that can save many lives.
I am laughing. But seriously, without understanding these principles in full, which does take understanding the economic system, you cannot try to put ideas from previous philosophers and apply it to this knowledge. It won’t work and it’s a waste of time. I like you all but I need people who are not ready to put up their dukes over something they feel is a threat in some way. Believe me, this is not a threat to anyone; it only prevents our desire to strike a first blow (doing something to others that they don’t want done to themselves).
They might not have personal value, but they have intrinsic value. Even if you say this couldn’t work because I don’t think people have value; you would never be able to strike a first blow under these conditions, and this goes for every person. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. No matter how you slice it, when this immutable law is applied on a worldwide scale, it will allow man to prevent what military might and punishment could not. But the discovery MUST BE UNDERSTOOD. Can you explain the two-sided equation off the top of your head? I’m sure you can’t by the questions you are asking.
My “philosophy” is my perspective, my outlook - how can I put this aside? You are demanding the impossible.
Sorry, I thought you meant the modern Western world by “this world” - not your utopia.
But I want them to come into play, I don’t want there to be no more international conflict, as peace leads to mediocrity and nihilism. I am concerned with the joy of the Overman, not with the happiness of mankind!
I don’t need to read the entire book, as I have already found flaws in its foundation (which means that if all people believe in determinism, this will not preclude there from being “first blows”).
I am not talking about shows. I am contending that we only see war on television, in the newspapers, etc.
Your “discovery” is the idea that, if one believes in determinism, one cannot shift responsibility to other people or things, and therefore must bear it oneself. As I have shown, this is a flawed argument, as determinism - the absence of free will - precludes any responsibility whatsoever.
To the contrary: they may have personal value, but they sure as Hell do not have intrinsic value.
Even better: I can quote it for you:
“This is a very unique two-sided equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do, everybody else knows that you are not to blame because you are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction during every moment of your existence.”
There is only one side to this equation, as the other side is flawed: I do not know that I am completely responsible for everything I do, as this is simply not true.
“Now if you know absolutely and positively that not only I, but everyone on earth, will never blame or punish you for hurting me in some way because you know we are compelled to completely excuse what we know is definitely beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus far – the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt when you know beyond a shadow of doubt that no one, including myself who is the one to be hurt, will ever hold you responsible, criticize or question your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control?”
This train of reasoning is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sadism. The sadist does not derive his pleasure from his victim’s blaming him, but from his observation of his victim’s suffering. There will still be suffering even when it is known that nobody is to blame; consequently, there will also still be pleasure at the suffering of others.
That is true in the world in which we live because people are sociopaths and have become sadists. But this is not how we are born. Eventually people who have no conscience, who like to see others suffer, will die out and a new generation will be born. Mental illness will one day be a thing of the past.
No, that is nonsense. My perspective is a function of what I am. You cannot ask a beaver to put his beaverhood aside for a moment and contemplate a question objectively. It is really quite outrageous of you to think that this is possible.
Sheer arrogance: this “proof” turns out to be a flawed argument.
By the way, I am not one of those who want to “solve the various problems of human relation”. I don’t want an utopia.
I don’t believe in God.
That is yet to be seen.
I don’t want to eliminate those things. I want suffering to increase a thousandfold, as only suffering brings man to the pinnacles of his genius.
Pray tell me then, what is the other half of the equation?
That is real nonsense. Every event is determinate - that is what determinism means! There is always only one possible course of events.
But this will is a passion, something passive - something suffered. It is something that arises, that is aroused. I cannot choose whether to will something or no.
Not so much lack of understanding as mental illness: for I do not have such a conscience. I am a sociopath! But whoever said sociopaths can’t be truthful?
Why do you call yourself a sociopath? Maybe you have a mental illness and maybe you have been damaged by society, but this still doesn’t mean you would be able to act out aggression under these conditions. And if you did, you would have to be taken off the streets, just like they do today, except without blame.
But seriously, without understanding these principles in full, which does take understanding the economic system, you cannot try to put ideas from previous philosophers and apply it to this knowledge. It won’t work and it’s a waste of time. I like you all but I need people who are not ready to put up their dukes over something they feel is a threat in some way. Believe me, this is not a threat to anyone; it only prevents our desire to strike a first blow (doing something to others that they don’t want done to themselves).