New Discovery

Yes, it isolates the variables of 100% determinism and in proof through contradiction, demonstrates that a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos, its self evident that you are sentient, and thus it’s self evident that 100% determinism is false.

It’s also all true by definition.

You see, what I did peacegirl, like every great logitician, is that I used a proof (mine) from one field and applied it to a completely different field.

The two words are not synonymous. So now am I an ingenuous person? :slight_smile:

Who said you’re horrible just because you’re mistaken?

A sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos
You are a sentient being
Therefore, 100% determinism is false.

You call that a great proof? I call that an invalid syllogism. Your very first premise is false so the conclusion is false. Secondly, where does your syllogism prove man’s will is free other than stating an opinion? Just to say a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos is not a factual statement. I think you need to offer your definition of determinism because confusion often arises due to semantics, just like you thought greater satisfaction meant greater pleasure.

Umm… peacegirl… get ahold of yourself.

You left out the precedent meat of the proof.

You fabricated a syllogism as a straw man and really didn’t put the entire proof together.

You know, the part where I described:

If a being knows every reason why they know what they know:

And all of those reasons are external

And/or

All of those reasons are internal,

Then, they know no reason why they can possibly exist.

This causes a state of consciousness called “logical catatonia”, which makes such beings non sentient.

Peacegirl,

I forgot my audience… so here we go!

If a being knows every reason why they know what they know: and!

All of those reasons are external ( ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM!!!)

And/or

All of those reasons are internal (ABSOLUTE CREATIONISM)

Then such a being cannot be a sentient being…

This is more confused logic in my opinion. External/determinism? Internal/creationism? At the risk of looking ignorant, I don’t get what you’re saying, let alone your proof of free will. Logical catatonia? This is just more jumbled logic. Would you please break this down in layman’s terms? And what does “I forgot my audience” mean?

I’ll try, though I have to admit, it took me a while to make it that parsimonious and understandable. Thanks for bearing with me, because, as we all know from the US constitution, all citizens are entitled to bear arms! Even polar bear arms!

So here’s the deal, joking aside:

Think about this…

If you knew every reason why you knew what you knew, and through absolute determinism, all of those reasons were outside of you, example: I thought about dave because an acorn dropped in Libya …

Once this reaches 100%!!!

Everything is acting upon you, and you upon nothing.

Since it you upon nothing, it’s impossible (logically) for there to be a you

Is that better?

That’s only half the proof

I was right. Your definition of determinism is the problem, not the fact that man’s will is not free once the accurate definition is clarified.

You offered no counter argument.

Let’s debate this, you and I

Ecmandu, I have no idea when you came to this thread but for 10 pages all I have done is explain why man’s will is not free. Do you want me to go over it with you?

I don’t know why you’re getting so defensive here.

You said that the TRUE definition of determinism would clear all of this up in a hurry…

What, 100 characters too much of a strain for you??

Also, I think you’re trixie …

I said that if you have a different definition of determinism than I do, it will cause problems in our communication.

Ecmandu: What, 100 characters too much of a strain for you??

Peacegirl: Why are you being so sarcastic?

Ecmandu: Also, I think you’re trixie …

Peacegirl: Nope, I am not trixie.

You stated outright that your definition of determinism is THE accurate one (as a universal qualifier) which means: for all possible beings in existence

Don’t play games with me here, your exact words are only 6 short posts back.

Give me this definition and stop playing games.

Ecmandu, I am not playing games. You have had an aggressive attitude toward me from day one. We’re adults and hopefully we can enter into a calm conversation without verbal attacks. It’s clear that determinism rubs you the wrong way, and I do understand. I would feel the same way if I thought that we had no say in anything we do because the external (what you call determinism) gives a person no say, or makes him a non-entity.

I’m upset with you because I have a perfect definition of determinism, which includes “if you know everything that’s going to happen to you before it happens and yet can change none of it, even though it might be highly undesirable to you, then you’re in a deterministic system”

However, this is just a subset of knowing every reason why you know everything you know.

For another example: this exactvneuron in my brain moved to that spot because Phil farted

Once perfect deterministic knowledge hits 100%, it’s impossible for the being to be sentient, as I demonstrated with logical catatonia.

Since we are aware that we exist, we demonstrate self evidently that we are not completely determined, as a 100% determined system has no choice but to be itself. I put all my cards on the table here and you still haven’t taken the time to define determinism since it was requested that this minimal amount of effort on your part would keep the thread on topic, and provide interest on your part in this thread continuing along these lines.

Instead of leaving it an open question whether you are projecting your fear that you may be wrong onto me, perhaps, you can simply engage like a person who’s interested in getting to the truth.

What my argument and definition does is to take the limit of the only hypothetical state of consciousness that can prove determinism, and show self evidently that it cannot achieve this state of consciousness without not existing.

But, according to Baruch Spinoza, if You could sufficiently detach from the external, and be ruled by mind power rather than stimuli beating down on Our sense organs, then that’s closer to Free Will, to be determined into action by Your own imagination, and all of the infinite places that it can lead.

Rationality is where it’s at. If we rationalize Our passions, a major part of the “effects” (cause and effect, determinism), then We can understand why We choose to do things. It would take an accurate understanding of human potential to the highest nature, and a lot of logic, a lot of thought, but the inner life of the heart gives us the self-fulfillment and determination to see projects through, to do anything that We would will.

You have to believe in God too, above all else, because with God comes the complete destiny for an endless Future. God makes everything free, especially Our Wills. So, it’s actually NOT all determined.

I did not say that. No one can know what’s going to happen before it happens.

Very strange logic if I must say so. I’m having a hard time even understanding your idea of determinism.

Maybe not according to your definition.

Who said you didn’t have a choice?

Stop trying to make me the bad guy. How many posts have you given, and how many have I? You are very impatient.

This is laughable. Projection? Interested in getting at the truth? :-k

Only with your definition which is flawed. Can you entertain the possibility that you are wrong? Maybe then we can have a friendly discussion. Until then, we can’t.

Then you just don’t understand determinism at all.

My limit argument (disproof through self evident definitions) means that there must also be an inferential disproof of determinism that I have yet to discover.

By the way: in the absence of your definition, which you did AGAIN !! (Are you kidding me!?!?), means that we haven’t even begun the discussion that you stated many posts ago you could have with me.

But I do.

Your disproof is not accurate because your definition through self-evident definitions is inaccurate.

No we haven’t but not because I did anything AGAIN. I gave the first three chapters of my book which defined determinism accurately. So don’t tell me I failed to give a definition. You immediately disagreed with greater satisfaction by mistaking it for greater pleasure. You were so sure I was wrong. Really?

Satisfaction is a pleasurable state of being derived from a particular accomplishment … it’s a subset of pleasure, pleasure is the superset.

Besides, the same argument applies, people have vastly mutually exclusive orientations to what satisfaction is for them.

I hate to break it to you, I have been using the kindergarten version of my proof, and this conversation is going nowhere.

How on earth does someone take three pages to define determinism … sounds to me like you don’t want to be understood.

Edit: sorry, three CHAPTERS!!!??, not pages!!

No one is disagreeing that pleasure over pain is something we all want. But the term “greater satisfaction” doesn’t just apply to pleasure. For example, what if we have to choose between going to a job we dislike or getting evicted? In that case we would choose the lesser of two evils (or the least dissatisfying option), neither of which bring us pleasure. Life is always moving away from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of greater satisfaction or we would stay in one place and never make a move.

That is true.

If that’s how you feel you can leave the thread. No one is forcing you to be here.

Three chapters Ecmandu. The first chapter explains why man’s will is not free. The second explains the discovery. The third chapter shows how this discovery works in real life.