New Discovery

[bahman]

Obviously, you believe that two options that are equal in value halt the deterministic process. That is incorrect.

It is correct. A deterministic system as I mentioned before takes one state of affair and return another state of affair, what produces a chain of causality. In here, when a decision is involved, we are dealing with two states of affair, two chains of causality, which only one can be chosen. A deterministic system cannot deal with such a situation. You can. Therefore you are not deterministic or are free.

You are defining determinism incorrectly. Nothing from the past (or any antecedent event) necessarily spits out an output like a software program. We don't have free will based on the accurate definition I gave. No wonder you are in opposition. I would be too if I held onto the conventional definition, which turns us into automatons. Just remember that definitions mean nothing unless they reflect what is actually going on in the real world.

What is your definition of determinism?

[Meno_]

This is exactly the issue which makes compatibility objectionable in part, via: questions focusing on defining the underlying gaps which separate the casual links which define constructed ideas with indefinite casual chains of referential meaning.

This is why I stray from a positive defining modus operans toward the reductive ontology of which its base emerges from. Note I did not use 'emerged' for that would treat the casual chain contrary to its intended function.

[peacegirl]

Again to simplify things structurally, to reduce definitive conclusions on basis of meaning, lets go back to the pleasure principle whereby our sequencing of desired compatibility between our willful self chosen acts and the determined choices subscribe toward an equanimity.l

It gets more basic than the pleasure principle. Moreover, willful self-chosen acts ARE Synonymous with determined choices. I'm not sure where equanimity comes into play if self-chosen acts are determined based on greater satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with desiring what is pleasurable, but in the new world willful self-chosen acts of pleasure would never step beyond the boundary of someone else's right to pleasure as well. Until you understand how this natural law and the corollary to it, changes human relation for the better, your questions will be premature.

Sometimes pleasure as from which arise the inxreasing building blocks of civilisation , may actually counter the solidity , utility, and even the coherent functional cohesion of future progress.

And many examples abound in that scenario, but for the sale of brevity will illustrate upon request.

To repeat, pleasure is not synonymous with greater satisfaction. I gave an example where someone may find greater satisfaction in saving someone at his own peril. People throughout history have sacrificed their personal pleasure for something bigger than themselves.

Is a negative outcome of that underlying choice, based on a determined set of variables as well?
That that question has been raised and solved as well, philosophically, psychologically and morally as well, there is no doubt.

Therefore , apart from a dissection of the meaning of 'pleasure' is there any other way for coping with this issue?

Part of the ability to make choices is the ability to change course if an unexpected negative outcome results from said choice. We are constantly reevaluating our options based on new information. This discovery is revolutionary in that we can change the environment where the underlying determined variables that compel us to hurt others in order to survive are no longer necessary. In other words, it would be a much better world if we didn't have to choose between outcomes that are both negative rather than both positive.

-------


Part of the ability to make choices is the ability to change course if an unexpected negative outcome results from said choice. We are constantly reevaluating our options based on new information. This discovery is revolutionary in that we can change the environment where the underlying determined variables that compel us to hurt others in order to survive are no longer necessary. In other words, it would be a much better world if we didn't have to choose between outcomes that are both negative rather than both positive.

-------


Yes, however, such corrective choice in respect to a negative, is still prone to the determined chain of causal derivitives from which the latest negative choice emerges. So would that imply a determined course with occasions of undetermined causal links?

Everything we do is derived from our experiences, our environment, our memories, our genetics, our predispositions, and all the other variables that make us not only who we are, but what we prefer. The communication problem stems from how you are defining determinism. If we aren't determined, then we must be undetermined. But these words are not accurate. I will offer an excerpt I already posted which people probably glossed over. He clarifies the problem with how the term is defined. It's hard to be on the same page because a causal link implies that our choices are fixed beforehand, even if they are against our will. This is an important point because nothing can force us, as in a causal chain, to do anything we don't want to do. This other principle forms the two-sided equation in Chapter Two, which is the core of the discovery.

To my mind , this would connect the noted onto-philosophical and psycho- variable parts of the argument , as more tentatively a posterior then a-priori, while at the same time, reinforcing the hypothetical assertability of its functional utility.

Which is Bahman's (construct of States).

The modal fallacy says that necessarily something must occur a certain way before it occurs. That is the fallacy since no antecedent event can say we must choose a certain option. Our choices are contingent on circumstances that are often known only to us. Its functional utility is yet to be shown.

-------


We don't have free will based on the accurate definition I gave. No wonder you are in opposition. I would be too if I held onto the conventional definition, which turns us into automatons.
---------

Then, if You could , what is Your definition again, of free will, for those of is who missed that point?

Thanks Peace girl

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.

[promethean75]

[bahman]

To my mind , this would connect the noted onto-philosophical and psycho- variable parts of the argument , as more tentatively a posterior then a-priori, while at the same time, reinforcing the hypothetical assertability of its functional utility.

Which is Bahman's (construct of States).

Yes.

[iambiguous]

Folks here just know that what they believe is true. And it has to be true [for them] because [mentally, emotionally and psychologically] they have already invested so much of their own rendition of "I" in it.

I already stated that there is no right or wrong or objective truth when it comes to human behavior except this hurting of others. What is a hurt? you may ask. It is someone doing something to you that you do not want done to yourself.

Why is hurting others not also subsumed in all of the choices that you could never not make in a determined universe?

If someone is doing something to you that do not want them to do, how is them doing it and you not wanting them to do it not also necessarily embedded in the laws of matter unfolding only as they must?

From my frame of mind, once you accept that the universe and all that is in it [including "I"] is matter unfolding in sync with its own laws, how does anyone or anything "escape" what simply is?

On the other hand, I still grasp in turn that "I" may well have some capacity to choose freely. It is just not accomplished in a way that is fully understood by either science or philosophy. Or, for others, by theology.

It is true that some ideas grow and are believed to be big truths. But...you have to separate the chaff from the wheat. Is it possible that this discovery is more than an personal truth? You are skeptical, which is fine, but you believe based on the odds that this can only be what you described in your 7 stages. I ask you to please contain your skepticism and give this knowledge half a chance. Is that asking too much?

But: in separating the chaff from the wheat, is this not too just the illusion of choosing to do so freely?

And you ask me to contain my skepticism as [from my point of view] someone who believes in free will would. As though of my own volition, I can choose to step back, rethink the arguments, and then choose to see things as you do.

Instead, in a determined universe, I am only "choosing" to do these things.

[Artimas]

I believe we are bound to the system of what is but we may choose what may be to the extent of what could or can be as well. This doesn't mean we have a free will, but my definition of free will is to be able to shape oneself completely without restriction, we do have a will to choose even if our choices are limited. It's logical to choose what brings most comfort, but then where does knowledge come in when learning is to train oneself to seek the uncomfortable? Is this a manipulation by us of the system? Or is it supposed to be this way and they are lessons to be sought?

It's only a freedom to do what we want within an already established system which is both "free" but also the opposite due to us being who we are and not changeable outside of the ego.

In simple terms, we may shape the ego to an extent of what we wish, with environment and manifestation of archetypes but are still bound to this system of existing through chaos, order, genetics, etc.

There are layers that go over each other, it's paradoxical.

[iambiguous]

Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

Like you can demonstrate beyond all doubt that you chose freely, autonomously to post this.

Hell, you can have a dream in which you are confronted with the same thing. In the dream you are convinced that you are calling the shots. And then you wake up and realize it was a "reality" created entirely by the brain.

[Artimas]

I believe there is a reason for this system. If everyone had what I define as "free will" of being able to shape self completely then would not everyone be identical to each other due to societies manipulative crafting of egos and seeking comforts instead of wisdom? This would be even worse than what it already is for change and evolution, change would no longer be inevitable for humanity I would think. We need the system of forced diversity, to evolve.

[bahman]

Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

Like you can demonstrate beyond all doubt that you chose freely, autonomously to post this.

Of course we are free. Do you have any problem with my argument?

Hell, you can have a dream in which you are confronted with the same thing. In the dream you are convinced that you are calling the shots. And then you wake up and realize it was a "reality" created entirely by the brain.

I don't think that I am a brain. I am a mind. What I experience is caused by other minds whether if I am awake or asleep.

[iambiguous]

Like you can demonstrate beyond all doubt that you chose freely, autonomously to post this.

Of course we are free. Do you have any problem with my argument?

Or: Of course you must believe this in a determined uniuverse.

And how do I go about demonstrating that my reaction to your argument [like the argument itself] is rooted in human autonomy?

What, you have this "gut feeling" that you freely choose to make it?

Or is simply believing that something is true "in your head" as far as it needs to go?

The problem here revolves around a philosophical/scientific puzzle that has plagued the species now for centuries: do we have free will?

And, sure, some insist that they have the answer. And that [trust them] it is their answer. And that if others don't share it then they are wrong.

And not just in regard to determinism, but to, well, everything. Including moral and political conflicts. Of course they are right.

Hell, you can have a dream in which you are confronted with the same thing. In the dream you are convinced that you are calling the shots. And then you wake up and realize it was a "reality" created entirely by the brain.

I don't think that I am a brain. I am a mind. What I experience is caused by other minds whether if I am awake or asleep.

What's that really have to do with my point about "I" in dreams? What you experience in the dream is not something that you choose freely to experience. Not in the manner in which you are convinced that your "mind" does choose freely to experience while awake.

And the mind/brain conundrum has in turn intrigued science and philosophy now for thousands of years. Where does one stop and the other begin? And, for some, where do both end and the soul begin?

[peacegirl]

Folks here just know that what they believe is true. And it has to be true [for them] because [mentally, emotionally and psychologically] they have already invested so much of their own rendition of "I" in it.

I already stated that there is no right or wrong or objective truth when it comes to human behavior except this hurting of others. What is a hurt? you may ask. It is someone doing something to you that you do not want done to yourself.

Why is hurting others not also subsumed in all of the choices that you could never not make in a determined universe?

All the wars, crimes, accidents, inequalities have been part of man's development but that does not mean these things have to continue once we find better ways.

="iambiguous"If someone is doing something to you that do not want them to do, how is them doing it and you not wanting them to do it not also necessarily embedded in the laws of matter unfolding only as they must?

That is true.

From my frame of mind, once you accept that the universe and all that is in it [including "I"] is matter unfolding in sync with its own laws, how does anyone or anything "escape" what simply is?

It certainly can keep you more relaxed.

On the other hand, I still grasp in turn that "I" may well have some capacity to choose freely. It is just not accomplished in a way that is fully understood by either science or philosophy. Or, for others, by theology.

We can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, therefore free will is an illusion although a persistent one.

It is true that some ideas grow and are believed to be big truths. But...you have to separate the chaff from the wheat. Is it possible that this discovery is more than an personal truth? You are skeptical, which is fine, but you believe based on the odds that this can only be what you described in your 7 stages. I ask you to please contain your skepticism and give this knowledge half a chance. Is that asking too much?

But: in separating the chaff from the wheat, is this not too just the illusion of choosing to do so freely?

I never said any choice was free. You are the one doubting determinism.

And you ask me to contain my skepticism as [from my point of view] someone who believes in free will would. As though of my own volition, I can choose to step back, rethink the arguments, and then choose to see things as you do.Instead, in a determined universe, I am only "choosing" to do these things.

Of your own volition, you can choose to step back, rethink arguments, and possibly see things more clearly but only if you desire to do so. Your choice to rethink arguments does not mean you have free will. Your definition of these terms is different than mine which is why we don't see eye to eye.

To repeat: You are given the ability to choose, but it's not a FREE choice because of the reasons given. The choice you make is the choice that could never not have been made, but that does not mean determinism forced a choice on you like bowling pins being knocked down. IOW, you can't say, "due to my lack of free will my causal chain made me speed up in a school zone. It was already embedded in the laws of matter that I run over a child." That's not how determinism works.

[Artimas]

Folks here just know that what they believe is true. And it has to be true [for them] because [mentally, emotionally and psychologically] they have already invested so much of their own rendition of "I" in it.

I already stated that there is no right or wrong or objective truth when it comes to human behavior except this hurting of others. What is a hurt? you may ask. It is someone doing something to you that you do not want done to yourself.

Why is hurting others not also subsumed in all of the choices that you could never not make in a determined universe?

All the wars, crimes, accidents, inequalities have been part of man's development but that does not mean these things have to continue once we find better ways.

="iambiguous"If someone is doing something to you that do not want them to do, how is them doing it and you not wanting them to do it not also necessarily embedded in the laws of matter unfolding only as they must?

That is true.

From my frame of mind, once you accept that the universe and all that is in it [including "I"] is matter unfolding in sync with its own laws, how does anyone or anything "escape" what simply is?

It certainly can keep you more relaxed.

On the other hand, I still grasp in turn that "I" may well have some capacity to choose freely. It is just not accomplished in a way that is fully understood by either science or philosophy. Or, for others, by theology.

We can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, therefore free will is an illusion although a persistent one.

It is true that some ideas grow and are believed to be big truths. But...you have to separate the chaff from the wheat. Is it possible that this discovery is more than an personal truth? You are skeptical, which is fine, but you believe based on the odds that this can only be what you described in your 7 stages. I ask you to please contain your skepticism and give this knowledge half a chance. Is that asking too much?

But: in separating the chaff from the wheat, is this not too just the illusion of choosing to do so freely?

I never said any choice was free. You are the one doubting determinism.

And you ask me to contain my skepticism as [from my point of view] someone who believes in free will would. As though of my own volition, I can choose to step back, rethink the arguments, and then choose to see things as you do.Instead, in a determined universe, I am only "choosing" to do these things.

Of your own volition, you can choose to step back, rethink arguments, and possibly see things more clearly but only if you desire to do so. Your choice to rethink arguments does not mean you have free will. Your definition of these terms is different than mine which is why we don't see eye to eye.

To repeat: You are given the ability to choose, but it's not a FREE choice because of the reasons given. The choice you make is the choice that could never not have been made, but that does not mean determinism forced a choice on you like bowling pins being knocked down. IOW, you can't say, "due to my lack of free will my causal chain made me speed up in a school zone. It was already embedded in the laws of matter that I run over a child." That's not how determinism works.

Perhaps we are only limited objectively, anything we may conjure up subjectively can be possibly manifested into reality if it meets it's objective terms/laws, perhaps this is why psychedelics and drugs could or already do play a huge role in man's development. The mind with imagination can be or is as if you visit another world not bound to an objective reality, a perception of life that is not met here due to as a collective, being so behind or disorganized. Since good and bad are also subjective we cannot come to terms with their definitions and they can't come to terms with ours because both sides are extremes of what is, everything is balance. Every, thing. The key is to find and execute that balance in debate, life, anything one does, ultimately. So I can see both sides of the argument in a sense.. If we could settle on the terms of, reality is objective and we as physical manifestation are bound to it only in this realm. This is perhaps why people turn transgender, why people cope with drugs, why people paint everything else other than here because that is their attempt at escaping an objective reality to live in their own subjective one. It is our objectivity in being that tortures our subjective minds/diversity, unless you learn to see the whole image of things and appreciate all sides, as does a good philosopher. I'd hope.

I feel this could be a good answer for both sides. I mean they're both true as well, the mind seems to be pretty unlimited if one is not indoctrinated by authority. Bound by a system of objectivity(determined) but mind is limitless if one uses it (free will) (conscious of the unconscious) I feel it is the bulk of men and women who are enslaved, the ones not pondering these questions of ancient, like us here. We all know there is responsibility that must be met for what we choose and this is the issue, the masses not wanting to accept responsibility, children in a sand box with their dicks and tits out from their missing knickers, crying because they see each other.

I may not like a raw onion due to genetics or memory of environment but I can /imagine/ if I did.

[bahman]

Like you can demonstrate beyond all doubt that you chose freely, autonomously to post this.

Of course we are free. Do you have any problem with my argument?

Or: Of course you must believe this in a determined uniuverse.

The point is that we are not matter. Reality seems to be determined (we still don't have a quantum filed theory for reality).

What, you have this "gut feeling" that you freely choose to make it?

I have an argument for this. I experience the point that I make free decision too.

Or is simply believing that something is true "in your head" as far as it needs to go?

What is the reason for existence of experience of free decision if it doesn't affect reality at all? Like an illusion? How illusion can be correlated to what we get to such a great precision?

The problem here revolves around a philosophical/scientific puzzle that has plagued the species now for centuries: do we have free will?

Yes, the free will exists. I have an argument for that.

And, sure, some insist that they have the answer. And that [trust them] it is their answer. And that if others don't share it then they are wrong.

Let me know what is wrong with my argument if you think that is not an answer.

And not just in regard to determinism, but to, well, everything. Including moral and political conflicts. Of course they are right.

We either follow a chain of causality or make free conscious decision when there is a conflict in interests.

[iambiguous]

The point is that we are not matter. Reality seems to be determined (we still don't have a quantum filed theory for reality).

That's your point. My point is that your point may or may not have been expressed by you autonomously. And that your point about us not being matter is merely asserted by you as though in asserting it it becomes true. And [apparently] not just for you "in your head" but for all the rest of us too. Finally, that you are no doubt as unable to encompass reality as I am. Let alone to take it all the way back to an understanding of existence itself.

But what we need here is a particular context. What can or cannot really be known about it?

Same with this part:

What, you have this "gut feeling" that you freely choose to make it?

I have an argument for this. I experience the point that I make free decision too.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Same with this part...

Or is simply believing that something is true "in your head" as far as it needs to go?

What is the reason for existence of experience of free decision if it doesn't affect reality at all? Like an illusion? How illusion can be correlated to what we get to such a great precision?

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Instead, you merely have an "argument" to make. An argument consisting of words such that the manner in which you define and give them meaning is what...the default point of view in any discussion?

Bring your argument down to earth by situating it a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

And not just in regard to determinism, but to, well, everything. Including moral and political conflicts. Of course they are right.

We either follow a chain of causality or make free conscious decision when there is a conflict in interests.

Or: you were either able to point that out of your own free will or you were never able not to point that out in a determined universe.

Ah, but you have an "argument" to make that you express "free conscious decisions" regarding conflicting interest revolving around conflicting goods.

Okay, let's bring that down to earth. Choose a context in which interests might come into conflict and note your own moral assessment regarding the right thing to do.

[bahman]

The point is that we are not matter. Reality seems to be determined (we still don't have a quantum filed theory for reality).

That's your point. My point is that your point may or may not have been expressed by you autonomously. And that your point about us not being matter is merely asserted by you as though in asserting it it becomes true. And [apparently] not just for you "in your head" but for all the rest of us too. Finally, that you are no doubt as unable to encompass reality as I am. Let alone to take it all the way back to an understanding of existence itself.

But what we need here is a particular context. What can or cannot really be known about it?

Same with this part:

What, you have this "gut feeling" that you freely choose to make it?

I have an argument for this. I experience the point that I make free decision too.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Same with this part...

Or is simply believing that something is true "in your head" as far as it needs to go?

What is the reason for existence of experience of free decision if it doesn't affect reality at all? Like an illusion? How illusion can be correlated to what we get to such a great precision?

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Instead, you merely have an "argument" to make. An argument consisting of words such that the manner in which you define and give them meaning is what...the default point of view in any discussion?

Bring your argument down to earth by situating it a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

And not just in regard to determinism, but to, well, everything. Including moral and political conflicts. Of course they are right.

We either follow a chain of causality or make free conscious decision when there is a conflict in interests.

Or: you were either able to point that out of your own free will or you were never able not to point that out in a determined universe.

Ah, but you have an "argument" to make that you express "free conscious decisions" regarding conflicting interest revolving around conflicting goods.

Okay, let's bring that down to earth. Choose a context in which interests might come into conflict and note your own moral assessment regarding the right thing to do.

I think we should first agree on my argument about existence of free will. I can only answer to your above question latter. Here is the argument for your convenience: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

[peacegirl]

The point is that we are not matter. Reality seems to be determined (we still don't have a quantum filed theory for reality).

That's your point. My point is that your point may or may not have been expressed by you autonomously. And that your point about us not being matter is merely asserted by you as though in asserting it it becomes true. And [apparently] not just for you "in your head" but for all the rest of us too. Finally, that you are no doubt as unable to encompass reality as I am. Let alone to take it all the way back to an understanding of existence itself.

But what we need here is a particular context. What can or cannot really be known about it?

Same with this part:

What, you have this "gut feeling" that you freely choose to make it?

I have an argument for this. I experience the point that I make free decision too.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Same with this part...

Or is simply believing that something is true "in your head" as far as it needs to go?

What is the reason for existence of experience of free decision if it doesn't affect reality at all? Like an illusion? How illusion can be correlated to what we get to such a great precision?

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Instead, you merely have an "argument" to make. An argument consisting of words such that the manner in which you define and give them meaning is what...the default point of view in any discussion?

Bring your argument down to earth by situating it a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

And not just in regard to determinism, but to, well, everything. Including moral and political conflicts. Of course they are right.

We either follow a chain of causality or make free conscious decision when there is a conflict in interests.

Or: you were either able to point that out of your own free will or you were never able not to point that out in a determined universe.

Ah, but you have an "argument" to make that you express "free conscious decisions" regarding conflicting interest revolving around conflicting goods.

Okay, let's bring that down to earth. Choose a context in which interests might come into conflict and note your own moral assessment regarding the right thing to do.

I think we should first agree on my argument about existence of free will. I can only answer to your above question latter. Here is the argument for your convenience: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

You keep bringing up two options that you like equally, as if this somehow proves free will. Are you joking? You are no more free than the man in the moon. You are just not sure which direction to go, but the choice that you make is still in the direction of greater satisfaction. You may choose neither, choose both, choose one by closing your eyes, or by saying eenie meenie miney mo, etc. We still are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction based on the options available. You don't know what you're talking about bahman.

[bahman]

You keep bringing up two options that you like equally, as if this somehow proves free will. Are you joking? You are no more free than the man in the moon. You are just not sure which direction to go, but the choice that you make is still in the direction of greater satisfaction. You may choose neither, choose both, choose one by closing your eyes, or by saying eenie meenie miney mo, etc. We still are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction based on the options available. You don't know what you're talking about bahman.

I know what I am talking about. The is no direction of greater satisfaction when options are equality liked. I have been in situation that I like two options equally or in a situation when the fate of options were unclear. You cannot find a deterministic system which can resolve such a situation.

By the way, I am still waiting for a definition of determinism.

[peacegirl]

You keep bringing up two options that you like equally, as if this somehow proves free will. Are you joking? You are no more free than the man in the moon. You are just not sure which direction to go, but the choice that you make is still in the direction of greater satisfaction. You may choose neither, choose both, choose one by closing your eyes, or by saying eenie meenie miney mo, etc. We still are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction based on the options available. You don't know what you're talking about bahman.

]

No you don't.

[quote="bahman wrote: The is no direction of greater satisfaction when options are equality liked. I have been in situation that I like two options equally or in a situation options when the fate of options are unclear. You cannot find a deterministic system which can resolve such a situation.

Of course there is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. I gave you three possible options. The choice that is made when in such a dilemma is also in the direction of greater satisfaction even if you choose neither option. Life itself cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a choice offering "greater" satisfaction is available. This IS an invariable law and it cannot be broken just because there are two choices of equal value. Often we break the tie by finding something in one of the choices that would offer us a greater bang for our buck, so to speak.

By the way, I am still waiting for a definition of determinism.

I just gave it again. It is the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction which can only take us in one direction from moment to moment. Just remember only one possible choice can be made each moment of time, and it has to be the one that offers what one believes to be the best option under his particular set of circumstances. If you want a more detailed explanation you can go to page 45 in the book: Decline and Fall of All Evil. The fact that will is not free is not my opinion. I know how difficult it is for people who want to believe they have free will to learn that they don't, but this does not mean we are forced to do anything against our will by some deterministic system. It also does not mean that this knowledge would give us a perfect excuse to be less responsible. It does just the opposite but I don't think I'll have the chance to explain since I cannot get past this obstacle.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... 3H6CBNX8HI

[bahman]

You keep bringing up two options that you like equally, as if this somehow proves free will. Are you joking? You are no more free than the man in the moon. You are just not sure which direction to go, but the choice that you make is still in the direction of greater satisfaction. You may choose neither, choose both, choose one by closing your eyes, or by saying eenie meenie miney mo, etc. We still are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction based on the options available. You don't know what you're talking about bahman.

No you don't.

[quote="bahman wrote: The is no direction of greater satisfaction when options are equality liked. I have been in situation that I like two options equally or in a situation options when the fate of options are unclear. You cannot find a deterministic system which can resolve such a situation.

Of course there is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. I gave you three possible options. The choice that is made when in such a dilemma is also in the direction of greater satisfaction even if you choose neither option. Life itself cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a choice offering "greater" satisfaction is available. This IS an invariable law and it cannot be broken just because there are two choices of equal value. Often we break the tie by finding something in one of the choices that would offer us a greater bang for our buck, so to speak.

I am talking about options which are equally liked. You are saying that you eventually find a solution for it. The options are not liked equally if you can find a preference in one of them.

By the way, I am still waiting for a definition of determinism.

I just gave it again. It is the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction which can only take us in one direction from moment to moment. Just remember only one possible choice can be made each moment of time, and it has to be the one that offers what one believes to be the best option under his particular set of circumstances. If you want a more detailed explanation you can go to page 45 in the book: Decline and Fall of All Evil. The fact that will is not free is not my opinion. I know how difficult it is for people who want to believe they have free will to learn that they don't, but this does not mean we are forced to do anything against our will by some deterministic system. It also does not mean that this knowledge would give us a perfect excuse to be less responsible. It does just the opposite but I don't think I'll have the chance to explain since I cannot get past this obstacle.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... 3H6CBNX8HI

How a system which can only move in one direction from moment to moment can resolve a situation with two options, two chains of causality, to a situation with one option, one chain of causality?

[peacegirl]

You keep bringing up two options that you like equally, as if this somehow proves free will. Are you joking? You are no more free than the man in the moon. You are just not sure which direction to go, but the choice that you make is still in the direction of greater satisfaction. You may choose neither, choose both, choose one by closing your eyes, or by saying eenie meenie miney mo, etc. We still are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction based on the options available. You don't know what you're talking about bahman.

I know what I am talking about.

No you don't.

The is no direction of greater satisfaction when options are equality liked. I have been in situation that I like two options equally or in a situation options when the fate of options are unclear. You cannot find a deterministic system which can resolve such a situation.

Of course there is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. I gave you three possible options. The choice that is made when in such a dilemma is also in the direction of greater satisfaction even if you choose neither option. Life itself cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a choice offering "greater" satisfaction is available. This IS an invariable law and it cannot be broken just because there are two choices of equal value. Often we break the tie by finding something in one of the choices that would offer us a greater bang for our buck, so to speak.

I am talking about options which are equally liked. You are saying that you eventually find a solution for it. The options are not liked equally if you can find a preference in one of them.

There doesn't have to be a preference. If you can't decide because the options are liked equally, you may desire to throw a die, heads is the option on the left, tails is the option on the right. This desire to break the tie IS ITSELF A CHOICE in a deterministic system.

By the way, I am still waiting for a definition of determinism. /quote]

I just gave it again. It is the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction which can only take us in one direction from moment to moment. Just remember only one possible choice can be made each moment of time, and it has to be the one that offers what one believes to be the best option under his particular set of circumstances. If you want a more detailed explanation you can go to page 45 in the book: Decline and Fall of All Evil. The fact that will is not free is not my opinion. I know how difficult it is for people who want to believe they have free will to learn that they don't, but this does not mean we are forced to do anything against our will by some deterministic system. It also does not mean that this knowledge would give us a perfect excuse to be less responsible. It does just the opposite but I don't think I'll have the chance to explain since I cannot get past this obstacle.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... 3H6CBNX8HI

How a system which can only move in one direction from moment to moment can resolve a situation with two options, two chains of causality, to a situation with one option, one chain of causality?

There cannot be two chains of causality since only one choice can be made at any given moment in time. If I choose milk over juice, I could not have chosen juice over milk at that exact same moment. IOW, the option chosen could not have been otherwise (I think the phrase "chain of causality" is problematic if not qualified) given the available choices at my disposal.

[bahman]

There cannot be two chains of causality since only one choice can be made at any given moment in time.

The point is that two chains of causality cannot turn into one chain of causality in a deterministic system. One chain of causality coincidentally vanishes at the point of decision?

If I choose milk over juice, I could not have chosen juice over milk at that exact same moment. IOW, the option chosen could not have been otherwise (I think the phrase "chain of causality" is problematic if not qualified) given the available choices at my disposal.

What is at your disposal?

[peacegirl]

There cannot be two chains of causality since only one choice can be made at any given moment in time.

The point is that two chains of causality cannot turn into one chain of causality in a deterministic system. One chain of causality coincidentally vanishes at the point of decision?

There is only one chain of causality in a deterministic system because only one of the potential chains was ever a real possibility. If two choices could be made simultaneously then you could say there are two chains of causality but this cannot be done. Choice only gives one possibility. That is why free will is an illusion since you were never free to choose A once B was chosen. IOW, if choice B gives you greater satisfaction under the circumstances, you are not free to choose A. You are not free because whatever choice you make or not make IS the only choice that could ever have been made. Determinism is compelling you to make a choice (even when both choices are of equal value) whether it's to choose one or the other, or neither. To pick one or not to pick one is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with saying you are free to make this choice or that choice (no one has a gun to your head), but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. No movement from here (point A) to there (point B) gives you any free choice whatsoever.

If I choose milk over juice, I could not have chosen juice over milk at that exact same moment. IOW, the option chosen could not have been otherwise (I think the phrase "chain of causality" is problematic if not qualified) given the available choices at my disposal.

What is at your disposal?

The choices that you are considering, however limited or unlimited they may be. If it's an important decision, you may take more time to gather information that will help you to make the best choice possible. If it's a choice that doesn't require much thought, you may use the information you already have without doing further research. You need to bear in mind that every movement from point A to point B is in the direction of greater satisfaction. I gave the example of changing position while you're sleeping. Suddenly you have become uncomfortable so for greater satisfaction you turn on your back, relieving the discomfort. You have gone from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, which is the movement of all life. Animals move in the same way but they don't have the ability to contemplate options like we do.

[bahman]

There cannot be two chains of causality since only one choice can be made at any given moment in time.

The point is that two chains of causality cannot turn into one chain of causality in a deterministic system. One chain of causality coincidentally vanishes at the point of decision?

There is no two chains of causality because one potential chain was never a real possibility.

There is no such a thing as potential chain of causality. Moreover, do you have any reason that why one chain of causality always vanishes at the point that decision is made? Why does what we always want correlated with the actual, no the potential, chain of causality? Can you describe these within determinism?

[promethean75]

why do i keep cringing when i see the title of this thread? because this ain't no 'new discovery' PEACEGIRL. 'determinism' is not new news, dammit! we cannot educate the world with badly produced re-runs. our educational institutions are already over-multifarious. we need homogenized schools of learning. where's guide? he'll tell you all about it.

it's time to work, guide. front and center, buddy. and NO THESAURUS.