New Discovery

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.

This does not change the direction your nature is compelled to go. You may not be satisfied with having to give up some comfort, but you find “greater” satisfaction helping someone else.

Logic unfortunately does not work when options are equally liked and our approach for choosing an option is based on satisfaction.

Of course one can make dissatisfying decision.

There is no hidden deterministic mechanism other than our movement from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. A bird doesn’t say to himself: “Should I fly now or sit on the branch. I like them both.” The bird just does what it does from one moment to the next, according to the laws of its nature. If it stays on the branch, it is satisfied to be there until it has the urge to fly and suddenly it takes off. This is life’s constant motion. Winding back the clock the bird could not have done otherwise because “greater satisfaction” (although the bird wasn’t thinking in these terms) was the only direction it could have gone since flying was its preference after becoming uncomfortable or dissatisfied with its present position.

One can make a dissatisfying decision when the options are all dissatisfying. That is called the lesser of two or more evils. But if there is a choice between a good over an evil, you would have no choice but to choose good. Of course, good and evil are relative terms.

I can choose evil over good. I think everybody can.

Evil and good are relative terms. What others think of as evil, you may think of as good. That is why good and evil are relative terms. You may desire to shoot someone before they shoot you. In this case, shooting them first is good.

I just pinch my self hard now and it was not satisfactory. I knew that it wouldn’t.