New Discovery

I don’t know.

I realize that.

What’s wrong with multifarious? Homogenized sounds scary. I haven’t begun to explain the knowledge that lies locked behind the door of determinism. Determinism is not the discovery, which I’ve said all along. It’s the gateway.

Huh? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I want to actually bring the discussion down to earth. While you seem content only to keep it up in the clouds.

You don’t name the two options. You don’t situate them in any particular context. You don’t demonstrate how “choosing” begets free will.

You simply “argue” that it is so.

Right. There are only options. It’s a potential choice which would then lead to the chain of causality that could never not have been chosen.

The potential chain of causality vanishes once a decision is made because it is no longer a viable choice. It’s illusory. What we want is what we choose. period. The alternative was never an option because it gave less satisfaction than the option actually chosen. Choice always comes from the ability to select, not something forced upon us, which most people think of when it comes to determinism. The problem with the present definition is that we believe that we are caused to do what we do even without our permission. That is false because nothing can force us to do what we ourselves don’t permit. If we don’t straighten this out, nothing will be solved not because it can’t but because the standard definition is misleading.

Bahman actually did give a situation that he believed gave us free will. He stated that two options of equal value would give a person free will because there was no leaning in one particular direction, therefore we are free. I disputed that by giving examples to show that even when two options are equally desired, this in no way grants us free will. I don’t know what he understood.

I don’t want to keep my argument in sky. I want it as simple as possible so everybody can understand it.

Do you want example? Suppose you want to buy chocolate or ice cream.

Now suppose that you want ice cream more that chocolate but you don’t want to get fat so you think that chocolate is somehow is better for you. At the end you fall in a situation that both options have the same weight when you consider all circumstances. So you are trapped because you don’t know what to choose.

You are simply not bounded with what choices and your preferences are when you make free decision. In this argument, I however use a situation when a deterministic system cannot resolve. We however can resolve such a situation. Therefore we are not determined. A thing however is either determined or is free. Therefore we are free.

I hope things is more clear now.

Double post.

This is so hard because everyone is going by a definition of determinism that makes free will, as its opposite, unavoidable. But the problem is not that determinism is false, but the definition is misleading. Determinism does not necessarily force a particular response, like a computer program. If people refuse to try to understand why the conventional definition is not completely accurate, there will be no progress, not because this author was wrong, but because his demonstration is falling on deaf ears. Would you take more time to listen if he was a well-known philosopher? :-k

It is human tendency to not appreciate what they have until it’s gone, then they attempt to delve deeper into understanding them when gone, while trying to add their own twist to truth.

The context must be defined first, semantics, if one is to debate this subject clearly. Must define words and use simile to express them. Whomever first goes back on the definition that is agreed upon in debate is the one who must accept the other as truth, it is a backing into a corner. I am curious as to whether both exist, just in different levels or of different elements. The mind could be an element of itself and the binding is to physical manifestation/objectivity.

Thank you Artimas. That’s what I’m trying so hard to do. This author tried his entire life to explain his findings but to no avail. Sixty years later it’s only gotten worse because people are so arrogant. I’m not saying the people here are, but in general. It’s sad. It may take another 2000 years for this knowledge to come to light. Not one person has taken the time to read the first three chapters. I challenge anyone after carefully reading to ask me one pertinent question, and I think I’ll faint.

Link it once more, the chapters and writings of which where they can be found and read, please?

Ok, we are on the right point in here now. You didn’t explain why the potential chain of causality vanishes at the point of decision when options are equally liked. In another word, what is the deterministic mechanism that terminates one of the chain exactly at the point of decision? You simply skip the problem by saying that a decision is made.

What do you make of this beautifully written aphorism, bahman:

“At the waterfall; When we see a waterfall, we think we see freedom of will and choice in the innumerable turnings, windings, breakings of the waves; but everything is necessary; each movement can be calculated mathematically. Thus it is with human actions; if one were omniscient, one would be able to calculate each individual action in advance, each step in the progress of knowledge, each error, each act of malice. To be sure, the acting man is caught in his illusion of volition; if the wheel of the world were to stand still for a moment and an omniscient, calculating mind were there to take advantage of this interruption, he would be able to tell into the farthest future of each being and describe every rut that wheel will roll upon. The acting man’s delusion about himself, his assumption that free will exists, is also part of the calculable mechanism.” - Nietzsche

Aphorism? I don’t think so. He simply doesn’t explain how and why such an illusion could possibly exist if everything is mechanically calculable?

No, but I have. Without it there would be no evolution, diversity is needed and our paths necessary to expand it, the universal system of what is. It isn’t really an illusion to be honest when you see through it and understand it, it simply is. Perhaps our being aware of such is the beginning to a possible separation of such system but who’s to know for sure if it possible.

I gave a very valid and sound explanation that regardless of the potential choices the one ultimately made is the only choice that could have been made because it offered the greatest satisfaction in comparison, rendering any other choice an impossibility. I did not just say a decision is made. I also gave you page numbers to help clarify what he meant by “greater satisfaction.” You keep bringing up the issue of two equally satisfying choices, as if there has to be some kind of unusual deterministic mechanism to solve the problem. There doesn’t have to be. Haven’t you ever just picked a choice even though you liked both? You’re making much to do over this because of how you’re defining determinism, as if it’s an outside force trying to break a tie.

I think you need to explain why evolution granted such a useless trait to us.

Sorry, non of the chain is potential when related options are equally liked. So I should have written: Ok, we are on the right point in here now. You didn’t explain why one chain of causality vanishes at the point of decision when options are equally liked. In another word, what is the deterministic mechanism that terminates one of the chain exactly at the point of decision? You simply skip the problem by saying that a decision is made.

Logic is the mechanism of which it functions I’d say. Is it not logical thinking and testing of reason that determines what is satisfactory? Of course to a subjective or diverse perception. The pause is the attempt at pondering all possibilities to make sure there is no less or more satisfying idea, method, etc.

I don’t know for sure though, can one not make a dissatisfying decision not for self but in thinking for others? Or is that based on satisfaction too? What if I choose what is best for someone else but I myself am not satisfied with it?

I’m not sure what you mean by “deterministic mechanism” that terminates one of the chain at the point of decision. It doesn’t disappear. It just doesn’t manifest as the choice made, therefore if we wound back the clock the same choice would have been made. We are compelled to move from a feeling of dissatisfaction (from position “here”) to a feeling of greater satisfaction (to position “there”). For example, if I have an itch on my arm and leg at the same time and of equal discomfort, and I choose to scratch my arm first because I only have one arm available, that does not mean the other choice disappears. It just isn’t manifested at that moment. I may subsequently scratch my leg as the preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. None of this is that important in regard to this discovery since it is the meaningful differences that matter when it comes to hurting others. I don’t know if we’ll ever get there.

I accepted your definition of determinism, moving toward greater satisfaction. By mechanism I mean a way of doing something.