New Discovery

[bahman]

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.

You damn chain of causality!

[peacegirl]

why do i keep cringing when i see the title of this thread?

I don't know.

... because this ain't no 'new discovery' PEACEGIRL. 'determinism' is not new news, dammit!

I realize that.

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.

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.

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

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

[iambiguous]

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.

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.

[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 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.

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.

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?

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.

[peacegirl]

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.

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.

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.

[bahman]

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.

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

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

You don't name the two options.

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

You don't situate them in any particular context.

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 don't demonstrate how "choosing" begets free will.

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.

You simply "argue" that it is so.

I hope things is more clear now.

[bahman]

Double post.

[peacegirl]

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.

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

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

You don't name the two options.

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

You don't situate them in any particular context.

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 don't demonstrate how "choosing" begets free will.

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.

You simply "argue" that it is so.

I hope things is more clear now.

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?

[Artimas]

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?

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.

[peacegirl]

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?

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.

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.

[Artimas]

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?

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.

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?

[bahman]

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?

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.

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.

[promethean75]

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

[bahman]

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?

[Artimas]

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.

[peacegirl]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[bahman]

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

[bahman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Artimas]

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?

[peacegirl]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[bahman]

I'm not sure what you mean by "deterministic mechanism" that terminates one of the chain at the point of decision.

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

[peacegirl]

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?

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.

[bahman]

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.

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

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?

Of course one can make dissatisfying decision.

[peacegirl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "deterministic mechanism" that terminates one of the chain at the point of decision.

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

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.

[peacegirl]

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.

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

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?

Of course one can make dissatisfying decision.

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.