New Discovery

[peacegirl]

How on earth can you possibly know what is actually necessary here given that the existence of determinism [as either you or I understand it] seems to be encompassed in only 5% of the universe that science has just barely begun to scratch the surface in understanding?

I already answered this. We are not talking about the entire universe. We are talking about man's will.

Does or does not "man's will" -- free or determined -- exist in the universe? Is there or is there not a definitive explanation for that?

It's irrelevant. I don't have to know if 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that 1+1=2 is true on earth.

And how on earth could this not be profoundly intertwined in the things we are discussing here? It's just plain silly to me to argue that one isn't integral to the other.

It's not silly at all. It actually gets us somewhere. Otherwise you're just staring at your navel and pondering questions that cannot be answered.

Besides, I asked and you answered in accordance with whatever that explanation might be. But: Only if the human brain is even capable of grasping something like that. Given that in some capacity the conscious mind is able to pursue it with some measure of autonomy.

You refuse to consider that determinism does not mean we don't have the kind of autonomy that would necessitate free will, especially the way it's accurately defined.

And then back again to...

1] accusing me of refusing to want to know about this discovery

I'm accusing you of accusing me.

Who cares if any and all accusations made by mere mortals are what they were only ever able to be.

That's your cop-out. You wondered why I was accusing you. I answered that you accused me first by saying things about me that are wrong. All you do is go in circles because you repeat what we already know. All you ever say is how you could not have answered the way you answered. I KNOW THAT IAMBIGUOUS, but it certainly doesn't get us any further.

and

2] acknowledging that I can't help but refuse to

This makes sense to you. It doesn't to me.

Missing your point

I can point something out to you .without accusing you of having a choice.

Who cares if everything we point out is only as we ever could have pointed it out.

Is anyone here getting my points or am I wasting my breath?

See, that's our problem here. What I deem to be a discovery able to be demonstrated, you still confine to the definitions that the author gives to the words used in his "analysis" and "assessment" of these relationships. The part where this "world of words" is connected to actual human interactions able to be approached and understood through experiments, predictions and replicated results is no where to be found. Still.

What he did was just a clarification of determinism. He didn't change the definition to mean something altogether different. The only difference he pointed out is that even though will is not free, nothing can make you do what you don't want to do. Many people think determinism means you have to do what you are forced to do, even if it's against your will. His clarification of determinism is correct. Remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Another "world of words" that swirl around the definition and the meaning given to the words in the "assessment" itself. Connected to no other demonstration that the words are in fact true experientially relating to actual human interactions. The only "reality" here is the intellectual ccontraption. Words he was determined to write, words you were determined to post here, words I am determined to read. But only if my own assessment of determinism is true. And how on earth would I go about actually demonstrating that?!

The reason you don't see a demonstration is because you're not letting me demonstrate. We haven't gotten past Chapter One in the book let alone the first three chapters. And to call this an intellectual contraption is a joke. You have no clue, and yes, you can't help yourself.

And since there is seemingly no way around this for you, you shift gears and turn the argument into a critique of me. I have a one track mind. I am commited to a false narrative. While once again [no doubt] admitting that I was never actually able not to embody these things.

I am not critiquing you.

Well, not of your own free will.

Of course it's not of my own free will. That should be understood by now.

I'm sorry you don't like my wording.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to consider the wording and then, of my own volition, like the wording instead.

Again, you keep going back to your innocence. And by the way, you do have the volition (or autonomy) to change your mind due to contingent events or sudden changes and still be in sync with the laws of matter.

I am only pointing out that you keep using the excuse that you can't help the way you respond. If you wanted to respond differently, you could. Nothing is stopping you but your desire not to change. To repeat: it is true that once you give a response it could not have been otherwise, but my correcting you may alter your response subsequently based on my response. We are constantly evaluating and reevaluating our responses based on input from the external world.

This is the part where I point out that in a determined universe [as I understand it] nothing that I want or desire is not in turn beyond my autonomous control. The external world and the internal world are all necessarily in sync with the laws of matter.

So where's the argument? Determinism does not mean autonomous control (what I call the control to give or deny consent to an action) is out of sync with the laws of matter or what gives greater satisfaction.

From my frame of mind [in an autonomous world] it is because you have invested so much of your own particular "I" [psychologically] in the confort and consolation the the author's argument has provided you. I am a threat to that. The intellectual contraption that the author has created is at risk of tumbling down. And I know of this calamity myself because my own objectivist contraptions are to this day still in heaps of rubble all around me.

You are no threat. I am not depending on you for anything. To be clear, you are making assumptions about knowledge you haven't read, or even cared to read. You don't see yourself. You are coming off as this innocent person who is being accused yet you accusing me of using this knowledge as a defense mechanism, nothing more. This is a serious insult which requires me to be very clear about who is striking the first blow. If someone strikes a first blow, the one being struck is justified to strike back.

Well, autonomously or not, we'll have to just agree to disagree about this. First blow, last blow. And all the blows inbetween. Just don't call them "fated"?

You're confused here. Fate does not dictate in advance how a situation must turn out. After someone gets killed, you can call it fate ordained, but not before.

You have the capacity to understand what I'm saying if you really take the time. This is not rocket science. The problem is your resistance to trying.

Note to others:

All I can do here is to consider your own attempts to explain this better. Do I or do I not have the true capacity to understand her here? Is my resistence something that I have any true capacity to "for all practical purposes" reverse?

Given what you think she is attempting to convey about human will in a determined universe.

You have the capacity but your way of thinking about determinism is so entrenched, I don't think it's possible to reverse.

You should not be reading this book. Please stay in your gruesome "human reality" if you feel this knowledge is just a psychological defense mechanism. It's anything but. I don't think there is any purpose to our continuing the conversation because you will only fight me without really taking the time to understand the principles.

There you go again [in my view] reacting subjunctively in a manner in which I would expect someone who believes in free will might. Becoming aggitated that I am still refusing to grasp the importance of the author's discovery in a world where I am never able to react to it other than as I do. Which is as I must.

I am allowed to be agitated, even if you couldn't react to it other than as you do. It doesn't matter. Our nature doesn't change just because we know will is not free. I am also reacting to you the way I am compelled to react to you. Determinism doesn't turn us into non-thinking, not emotional robots that don't have the ability to answer in a way that we see fit.

What does it mean to speak of behaviors being "allowed" in a determined universe? You acknowledge that I could not have reacted to it other than as I did. As in fact I must. And that you could not have been anything other than agitated as you were at my reaction. As you must have been. But this thinking and feeling of ours is not "robotic"? What we are to the dominoes, nature is not to us?

Iambiguous, you refuse to look at the distinction. I said many times that dominoes have no choice. Humans do have a choice, although not a free one. This means that given a different environment, we can change the trajectory of our world but still in the direction of greater satisfaction. IOW, nature doesn't say that necessarily we must have war, crime, and poverty because a deterministic universe planned it that way and there is no recourse.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

No, I still cannot get it.
Not until nature compels me to get it.

Maybe if you stopped pooh poohing this knowledge and gave it a shot, you would get it. You're not allowing yourself to get it. I know you can't help yourself.

All I can do is to note how peculiar it seems to me to argue that I can't help but do the things that I am determined to do but that I should stop doing them anyway.

You are using determinism to justify victim behavior. That's all you're doing, as if you can't change your ways if YOU WANT TO.

[iambiguous]

Does or does not "man's will" -- free or determined -- exist in the universe? Is there or is there not a definitive explanation for that?

It's irrelevant. I don't have to know if 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that 1+1=2 is true on earth.

It's irrelevant to you. Therefore others are obligated to see it as irrelevant too? Even in an autononmous universe? After all, in a wholly determined universe, the laws of matter decide what we think we know is true or not true.

And how on earth could this not be profoundly intertwined in the things we are discussing here? It's just plain silly to me to argue that one isn't integral to the other.

It's not silly at all. It actually gets us somewhere. Otherwise you're just staring at your navel and pondering questions that cannot be answered.

It gets us somewhere because you simply dismiss all those "unknown unknowns" as irrelevant to that which you seek to convey here: that your own "progressive" future hinges on having enough people "choose" to grasp the author's wholly determined point of view.

You acknowledge there are seemingly questions that cannot be answered but whatever those answers might be have nothing to do with your own answers here and now.

Then [in my view] back to your own rendition of "definitional logic":

Besides, I asked and you answered in accordance with whatever that explanation might be. But: Only if the human brain is even capable of grasping something like that. Given that in some capacity the conscious mind is able to pursue it with some measure of autonomy.

You refuse to consider that determinism does not mean we don't have the kind of autonomy that would necessitate free will, especially the way it's accurately defined.

What compels me to refuse here? Is it "I" or my brain embedded in that which compels nature to compel all of us to think, feel, say and do things that are ever and always wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

And then back again to...

1] accusing me of refusing to want to know about this discovery

I'm accusing you of accusing me.

Who cares if any and all accusations made by mere mortals are what they were only ever able to be.

That's your cop-out. You wondered why I was accusing you. I answered that you accused me first by saying things about me that are wrong. All you do is go in circles because you repeat what we already know. All you ever say is how you could not have answered the way you answered. I KNOW THAT IAMBIGUOUS, but it certainly doesn't get us any further.

Like whatever gets us further is not in turn just another inherent, necessary manifestion of nature.

You ask...

Is anyone here getting my points or am I wasting my breath?

As though any of us can actually choose of our own free will to get them. From my frame of mind the more you embrace the idea of "choosing" to get things, the more you sound just like the libertarians who argue that they actully do choose to get things.

Another "world of words" that swirl around the definition and the meaning given to the words in the "assessment" itself. Connected to no other demonstration that the words are in fact true experientially relating to actual human interactions. The only "reality" here is the intellectual ccontraption. Words he was determined to write, words you were determined to post here, words I am determined to read. But only if my own assessment of determinism is true. And how on earth would I go about actually demonstrating that?!

The reason you don't see a demonstration is because you're not letting me demonstrate.

And the reason I'm not letting you...? Then around and around we go. Only I am more than willing to concede that my frame of mind here is beyond my own capacity to demonstrate as either free or determined. How on earth could I possibly know that given all that I am still unable to grasp about the objective relationship between "I" and "all there is". If it is even objective at all.

On the Science Channel last night they speculated about yet another component embedded in the mystery of our existing universe:
https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows ... a-hologram

"I" in the hologram?

Note to others:

All I can do here is to consider your own attempts to explain this better. Do I or do I not have the true capacity to understand her here? Is my resistence something that I have any true capacity to "for all practical purposes" reverse?

Given what you think she is attempting to convey about human will in a determined universe.

You have the capacity but your way of thinking about determinism is so entrenched, I don't think it's possible to reverse.

Entrenched? Exactly!!

Or maybe others here may well succeed in helping me to understand the different ways in which being entrenched might be understood in a determined universe.

What does it mean to speak of behaviors being "allowed" in a determined universe? You acknowledge that I could not have reacted to it other than as I did. As in fact I must. And that you could not have been anything other than agitated as you were at my reaction. As you must have been. But this thinking and feeling of ours is not "robotic"? What we are to the dominoes, nature is not to us?

Iambiguous, you refuse to look at the distinction. I said many times that dominoes have no choice. Humans do have a choice, although not a free one. This means that given a different environment, we can change the trajectory of our world but still in the direction of greater satisfaction. IOW, nature doesn't say that necessarily we must have war, crime, and poverty because a deterministic universe planned it that way and there is no recourse.

Like this "different environment" is within our actual capacity to make more "progressive". Like if enough of us "choose" to read and concur with the author's own determined assumptions above, nature at least stands a chance of being more in sync with your own moral and political prejudices regarding that which constitutes "peace and prosperity".

And this [of course] has nothing to do with my own assumption that [either freely or not] you and the author have concocted this frame of mind in order to sustain the psychological "comfort and consolation" that it brings you.

All I can do is to note how peculiar it seems to me to argue that I can't help but do the things that I am determined to do but that I should stop doing them anyway.

You are using determinism to justify victim behavior. That's all you're doing, as if you can't change your ways if YOU WANT TO.

No, I am pointing out that one very important consequence of embracing a wholly determined universe is that being a victim is just an illusion. You become only that which you were never able not to become. Wanting to or not wanting to is no less embodied in the laws of matter unfolding necessarily in accordance to...to what exactly?

To the physics behind the hologram above? To God's will?

But here you are able to sustain what may or may not be the illusion that you know best how to grasp these extraordinary relationships.

[peacegirl]

Does or does not "man's will" -- free or determined -- exist in the universe? Is there or is there not a definitive explanation for that?

It's irrelevant. I don't have to know if 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that 1+1=2 is true on earth.

It's irrelevant to you. Therefore others are obligated to see it as irrelevant too? Even in an autononmous universe? After all, in a wholly determined universe, the laws of matter decide what we think we know is true or not true.

No one is obligated to see anything they don't want to see. I am not out of line though to say that it's irrelevant to know whether 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that it is true here on earth and is the basic building block of many physical structures.

And how on earth could this not be profoundly intertwined in the things we are discussing here? It's just plain silly to me to argue that one isn't integral to the other.

It's not silly at all. It actually gets us somewhere. Otherwise you're just staring at your navel and pondering questions that cannot be answered.

It gets us somewhere because you simply dismiss all those "unknown unknowns" as irrelevant to that which you seek to convey here: that your own "progressive" future hinges on having enough people "choose" to grasp the author's wholly determined point of view.

This new world is not dependent on your understanding specifically.

You acknowledge there are seemingly questions that cannot be answered but whatever those answers might be have nothing to do with your own answers here and now.

They don't. They are irrelevant because they don't apply.

Then [in my view] back to your own rendition of "definitional logic":

It is not definitional logic to give an accurate definition of what is actually taking place in the real world.

The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years.

Besides, I asked and you answered in accordance with whatever that explanation might be. But: Only if the human brain is even capable of grasping something like that. Given that in some capacity the conscious mind is able to pursue it with some measure of autonomy.

You refuse to consider that determinism does not mean we don't have the kind of autonomy that would necessitate free will, especially the way it's accurately defined.

What compels me to refuse here? Is it "I" or my brain embedded in that which compels nature to compel all of us to think, feel, say and do things that are ever and always wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

I have never denied this, but you refuse to consider that nature cannot make you do anything against your will. This entire 10 pages has only been a repeat of two sound principles 1) WE ARE COMPELLED TO MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION and 2) NOTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, CAN MAKE OR FORCE US TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST OUR WILL IF WE DON'T PERMIT IT. Why can't you be a good investigator to see where this leads rather than waste lots of bandwidth?

And then back again to...

1] accusing me of refusing to want to know about this discovery

I told you I'm not accusing you of refusing to want to know about this discovery if you're not interested. I know your lack of interest is beyond your control.

I'm accusing you of accusing me.

Who cares if any and all accusations made by mere mortals are what they were only ever able to be.

Because accusations are a form of attack, which lead to counterattacks. This can be on an individual or a collective scale, which warrants attention if we want to prevent conflicts that often lead to war, crime, and other forms of hurt.

That's your cop-out. You wondered why I was accusing you. I answered that you accused me first by saying things about me that are wrong. All you do is go in circles because you repeat what we already know. All you ever say is how you could not have answered the way you answered. I KNOW THAT IAMBIGUOUS, but it certainly doesn't get us any further.

Like whatever gets us further is not in turn just another inherent, necessary manifestion of nature.

Who is saying it's not? But again, being that every action is in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean you can't change your Modus operandi if you want to. Your signature answers are keeping you stuck.

You ask...

Is anyone here getting my points or am I wasting my breath?

As though any of us can actually choose of our own free will?

This needs qualification again. If "of your own free will" means "of your own desire", yes you can actually choose a different way of responding IF you find that your present way of responding isn't helpful.

From my frame of mind the more you embrace the idea of "choosing" to get things, the more you sound just like the libertarians who argue that they actully do choose to get things.

I've clarified this many times. You actually DO choose to get things. That is where part of the confusion lies. Although choice is not free the second you choose, of meaningful differences, what you prefer, you could have not chosen otherwise. But this doesn't mean you didn't have a choice beforehand.

It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’

<snip>

Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible
for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly
that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.
But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to
forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible
for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in
total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for
understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and
reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep
an open mind and proceed with the investigation.

Another "world of words" that swirl around the definition and the meaning given to the words in the "assessment" itself. Connected to no other demonstration that the words are in fact true experientially relating to actual human interactions. The only "reality" here is the intellectual ccontraption. Words he was determined to write, words you were determined to post here, words I am determined to read. But only if my own assessment of determinism is true. And how on earth would I go about actually demonstrating that?!

The reason you don't see a demonstration is because you're not letting me demonstrate.

And the reason I'm not letting you...? Then around and around we go. Only I am more than willing to concede that my frame of mind here is beyond my own capacity to demonstrate as either free or determined. How on earth could I possibly know that given all that I am still unable to grasp about the objective relationship between "I" and "all there is". If it is even objective at all.

The objective relationship between you and all there is, is irrelevant to the knowledge that life on earth moves in one direction only, rendering FREE choice an illusion, but a persistent one. How in the world can our choices be free when we are under a compulsion to choose what gives us greater satisfaction from one moment to another? This is an invariable law that cannot be broken.

On the Science Channel last night they speculated about yet another component embedded in the mystery of our existing universe:
https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows ... a-hologram

"I" in the hologram?

I am only interested in demonstrating how we can eliminate the hurt in human relations right here on earth. There are so many theories out there.
Holograms may be interesting to think about but they do not negate the authenticity of this discovery.

Note to others:

All I can do here is to consider your own attempts to explain this better. Do I or do I not have the true capacity to understand her here? Is my resistence something that I have any true capacity to "for all practical purposes" reverse?

Given what you think she is attempting to convey about human will in a determined universe.

You have the capacity but your way of thinking about determinism is so entrenched, I don't think it's possible to reverse.

Entrenched? Exactly!!

Or maybe others here may well succeed in helping me to understand the different ways in which being entrenched might be understood in a determined universe.

When you say "determined universe" you are implying that you are just a peg in a wheel. If we are to communicate you need to stop thinking that you have no choice before you do something. We were given the attribute of contemplation which is comprised of options.

What does it mean to speak of behaviors being "allowed" in a determined universe? You acknowledge that I could not have reacted to it other than as I did. As in fact I must. And that you could not have been anything other than agitated as you were at my reaction. As you must have been. But this thinking and feeling of ours is not "robotic"? What we are to the dominoes, nature is not to us?

Iambiguous, you refuse to look at the distinction. I said many times that dominoes have no choice. Humans do have a choice, although not a free one. This means that given a different environment, we can change the trajectory of our world but still in the direction of greater satisfaction. IOW, nature doesn't say that necessarily we must have war, crime, and poverty because a deterministic universe planned it that way and there is no recourse.

Like this "different environment" is within our actual capacity to make more "progressive". Like if enough of us "choose" to read and concur with the author's own determined assumptions above, nature at least stands a chance of being more in sync with your own moral and political prejudices regarding that which constitutes "peace and prosperity".

Not only are you assuming that the author made assumptions (which he didn't), but now you are assuming I have moral and political prejudices.

And this [of course] has nothing to do with my own assumption that [either freely or not] you and the author have concocted this frame of mind in order to sustain the psychological "comfort and consolation" that it brings you

Another accusation, eh? If this wasn't such an important discovery, this conversation would be humorous!

All I can do is to note how peculiar it seems to me to argue that I can't help but do the things that I am determined to do but that I should stop doing them anyway.

You are using determinism to justify victim behavior. That's all you're doing, as if you can't change your ways if YOU WANT TO.

No, I am pointing out that one very important consequence of embracing a wholly determined universe is that being a victim is just an illusion. You become only that which you were never able not to become. Wanting to or not wanting to is no less embodied in the laws of matter unfolding necessarily in accordance to...to what exactly?

Just because everything had to be does not mean we can't prevent people from becoming victims (those that have been hurt by others) and it certainly doesn't mean we can't define the word.

vic·tim
/ˈviktəm/
noun

1.
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

To the physics behind the hologram above? To God's will?

But here you are able to sustain what may or may not be the illusion that you know best how to grasp these extraordinary relationships.

Hologram or no hologram, the purpose of this discovery is to show how we can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary... but when this knowledge will be brought to light is anyone's guess. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.

[iambiguous]

It's irrelevant to you. Therefore others are obligated to see it as irrelevant too? Even in an autononmous universe? After all, in a wholly determined universe, the laws of matter decide what we think we know is true or not true.

No one is obligated to see anything they don't want to see. I am not out of line though to say that it's irrelevant to know whether 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that it is true here on earth and is the basic building block of many physical structures.

Unless of course nature obligates you to want to. And you are not out of line only because you were never really able to want to be anything here other than what you must be. Your own obligatory embodiment of nature. Then it's back to the assumptions that nature obligates us both to make here.

It gets us somewhere because you simply dismiss all those "unknown unknowns" as irrelevant to that which you seek to convey here: that your own "progressive" future hinges on having enough people "choose" to grasp the author's wholly determined point of view.

This new world is not dependent on your understanding specifically.

As though pointing this out has anything at all to do with actually responding to my point that you simply ignore all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what you think you know and all that can be known about these relationships.

My own "lack of interest" in correcting my understanding of them is, as you note, "beyond my control", but: but that's not an excuse for still refusing to.

Not to get too technical here but: Huh?

And the reason I'm not letting you...? Then around and around we go. Only I am more than willing to concede that my frame of mind here is beyond my own capacity to demonstrate as either free or determined. How on earth could I possibly know that given all that I am still unable to grasp about the objective relationship between "I" and "all there is". If it is even objective at all.

The objective relationship between you and all there is, is irrelevant to the knowledge that life on earth moves in one direction only, rendering FREE choice an illusion, but a persistent one.

Asserting this as you do here is no less preposterous to me now than it was before. You reduce everything that can be known in and about the universe down to how you have come to understand things here and now on earth.

And then expect me and others to just go along with it while acknowledging that our reactions here are in fact beyond our control.

How in the world can our choices be free when we are under a compulsion to choose what gives us greater satisfaction from one moment to another? This is an invariable law that cannot be broken.

Yeah, that's my argument too. But how you are able to make it your own argument in turn basically encompasses the gap between us.

You have the capacity but your way of thinking about determinism is so entrenched, I don't think it's possible to reverse.

Entrenched? Exactly!!

Or maybe others here may well succeed in helping me to understand the different ways in which being entrenched might be understood in a determined universe.

When you say "determined universe" you are implying that you are just a peg in a wheel. If we are to communicate you need to stop thinking that you have no choice before you do something. We were given the attribute of contemplation which is comprised of options.

No, when I say "determined universe" I am acknowledging right from the start that my own understanding of that can only reflect the gap between what I think it means and all that can be known about the universe that I am simply not privy to here and now. Anymore than you are. Only I am willing to own up to the "for all practical purposes" implication of that because unlike you I have not imagined some "progressive" future that seems to be predicated on others understanding these things as I do.

You are using determinism to justify victim behavior. That's all you're doing, as if you can't change your ways if YOU WANT TO.

No, I am pointing out that one very important consequence of embracing a wholly determined universe is that being a victim is just an illusion. You become only that which you were never able not to become. Wanting to or not wanting to is no less embodied in the laws of matter unfolding necessarily in accordance to...to what exactly?

Just because everything had to be does not mean we can't prevent people from becoming victims (those that have been hurt by others) and it certainly doesn't mean we can't define the word.

vic·tim
/ˈviktəm/
noun

1.
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

Okay, but what on earth does this have to do with the point that I make?

Note to others:

My polemical bent aside, what am I missing here?

[Ecmandu]

In a wholly determined cosmos, I'll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god ...

If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.

If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an "other".

The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.

The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined ...

That's proof through contradiction.

And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me

That's right iambiguous ... I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?

[Ecmandu]

So here's the deal iambiguous:

I gave you the why existence exists instead of not existing proof

I gave you the abortion proof

I gave you political proof

And I gave you the freewill proof

...

Debate me.

I fulfilled all of your impossible tasks.

[peacegirl]

So here's the deal iambiguous:

I gave you the why existence exists instead of not existing proof

I gave you the abortion proof

I gave you political proof

And I gave you the freewill proof

...

Debate me.

I fulfilled all of your impossible tasks.

You're in the wrong thread Ecmandu. Debate iambiguous elsewhere.

[Ecmandu]

So here's the deal iambiguous:

I gave you the why existence exists instead of not existing proof

I gave you the abortion proof

I gave you political proof

And I gave you the freewill proof

...

Debate me.

I fulfilled all of your impossible tasks.

You're in the wrong thread Ecmandu. Debate iambiguous elsewhere.

Actually, aside from the iambiguous mutterings...

I just proved that freewill has to exist, in your thread.

It is absolutely on topic.

[peacegirl]

So here's the deal iambiguous:

I gave you the why existence exists instead of not existing proof

I gave you the abortion proof

I gave you political proof

And I gave you the freewill proof

...

Debate me.

I fulfilled all of your impossible tasks.

You're in the wrong thread Ecmandu. Debate iambiguous elsewhere.

Actually, aside from the iambiguous mutterings...

I just proved that freewill has to exist, in your thread.

It is absolutely on topic.

If you think for one second that you proved free will true, this shows how utterly wrong your reasoning is. Prove to me that you could do otherwise, which is the only proof of free will that would hold weight. But it's impossible to do, so you have no proof. You're here because you have a beef with iambiguous.

[Ecmandu]

Peacegirl,

Well, aren't you quite the disingenuous person.

I addressedyou directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble ...
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word "pleasure"

Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION...

Oh, how horrible I am.

Here's is proof:

viewtopic.php?p=2726853#p2726853

Reply to that!

[peacegirl]

It's irrelevant to you. Therefore others are obligated to see it as irrelevant too? Even in an autononmous universe? After all, in a wholly determined universe, the laws of matter decide what we think we know is true or not true.

No no no iambiguous. Stop using "a wholly determined universe" as your "get off the hook" card that exempts you from answering directly.

No one is obligated to see anything they don't want to see. I am not out of line to say that it's irrelevant to know whether 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that it is true here on earth and is the basic building block of many physical structures.

Unless of course nature obligates you to want to.

That's not how the word "obligated" is normally used. Obviously we have no control over what we desire or don't desire. There you go again saying the same old thing as if it's a new revelation.

And you are not out of line only because you were never really able to want to be anything here other than what you must be. Your own obligatory embodiment of nature. Then it's back to the assumptions that nature obligates us both to make here.

You're not obligated to say anything you don't want to. Stop using the term in an unconventional way, which can only cause confusion.

It gets us somewhere because you simply dismiss all those "unknown unknowns" as irrelevant to that which you seek to convey here: that your own "progressive" future hinges on having enough people "choose" to grasp the author's wholly determined point of view.

This new world is not dependent on your understanding specifically.

As though pointing this out has anything at all to do with actually responding to my point that you simply ignore all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what you think you know and all that can be known about these relationships.

I gave two undeniable principles that lead to the two-sided equation (which you have no knowledge about.) There are no unknowns that stand between the soundness of these principles. You do not know what you're talking about iambiguous.

My own "lack of interest" in correcting my understanding of them is, as you note, "beyond my control", but: but that's not an excuse for still refusing to.

Not to get too technical here but: Huh?

You are constantly using the excuse that you can't help yourself in order to justify your responses, which is exactly what libertarians worry about, for all anyone would need to say is: I couldn't help killing that person, nature made me do it and they would be excused. Do you see the problem here?

And the reason I'm not letting you...? Then around and around we go. Only I am more than willing to concede that my frame of mind here is beyond my own capacity to demonstrate as either free or determined. How on earth could I possibly know that given all that I am still unable to grasp about the objective relationship between "I" and "all there is". If it is even objective at all.

The objective relationship between you and all there is, is irrelevant to the knowledge that life on earth moves in one direction only, rendering FREE choice an illusion, but a persistent one.

Asserting this as you do here is no less preposterous to me now than it was before. You reduce everything that can be known in and about the universe down to how you have come to understand things here and now on earth.

And then expect me and others to just go along with it while acknowledging that our reactions here are in fact beyond our control.

You may not understand many things that I do, and I may not understand many things that you do. So what? This has no relation to the undeniable nature of this discovery.

How in the world can our choices be free when we are under a compulsion to choose what gives us greater satisfaction from one moment to another? This is an invariable law that cannot be broken.

Yeah, that's my argument too. But how you are able to make it your own argument in turn basically encompasses the gap between us.

If there is a gap between us, there is NO need to close it. Your lack of understanding (the gap) will not stop this discovery from coming to light when the time is right. Do you think a lack of understanding of Edison's discovery on your part would have prevented the lightbulb from being discovered?

You have the capacity but your way of thinking about determinism is so entrenched, I don't think it's possible to reverse.

Entrenched? Exactly!!

Or maybe others here may well succeed in helping me to understand the different ways in which being entrenched might be understood in a determined universe.

When you say "determined universe" you are implying that you are just a peg in a wheel. If we are to communicate you need to stop thinking that you have no choice before you do something. We were given the attribute of contemplation which is comprised of options.

No, when I say "determined universe" I am acknowledging right from the start that my own understanding of that can only reflect the gap between what I think it means and all that can be known about the universe that I am simply not privy to here and now. Anymore than you are. Only I am willing to own up to the "for all practical purposes" implication of that because unlike you I have not imagined some "progressive" future that seems to be predicated on others understanding these things as I do.

You're off the beaten track. You sound like a nihilist very determined to prove that a progressive future is not something we can achieve.

You are using determinism to justify victim behavior. That's all you're doing, as if you can't change your ways if YOU WANT TO.

No, I am pointing out that one very important consequence of embracing a wholly determined universe is that being a victim is just an illusion. You become only that which you were never able not to become. Wanting to or not wanting to is no less embodied in the laws of matter unfolding necessarily in accordance to...to what exactly?

Just because everything had to be does not mean we can't prevent people from becoming victims (those that have been hurt by others) and it certainly doesn't mean we can't define the word.

vic·tim
/ˈviktəm/
noun

1.
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

Okay, but what on earth does this have to do with the point that I make?

You said in a determined world there are no victims. I said yes there are. I get what you're saying when looked at in total perspective, but who in the world can see it this way when they have been attacked and left for dead?

Note to others:

My polemical bent aside, what am I missing here?

Everything!

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl,

Well, aren't you quite the disingenuous person.

I addressedyou directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble ...
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word "pleasure"

Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION...

The two words are not synonymous.

Oh, how horrible I am.

Who said you're horrible because you're mistaken?

Here's is proof:

viewtopic.php?p=2726853#p2726853

Reply to that!

In a wholly determined cosmos, I'll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god ...

If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.

If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an "other".

The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.

The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined ...

That's proof through contradiction.

And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me

That's right iambiguous ... I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?

Is this the post that you think proves free will?

[Ecmandu]

Peacegirl,

Well, aren't you quite the disingenuous person.

I addressedyou directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble ...
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word "pleasure"

Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION...

The two words are not synonymous.

Oh, how horrible I am.

Who said you're horrible because you're mistaken?

Here's is proof:

viewtopic.php?p=2726853#p2726853

Reply to that!

In a wholly determined cosmos, I'll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god ...

If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.

If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an "other".

The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.

The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined ...

That's proof through contradiction.

And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me

That's right iambiguous ... I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?

Is this the post that you think proves free will?

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.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl,

Well, aren't you quite the disingenuous person.

I addressed you directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble ...
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word "pleasure"

Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION...

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

Oh, how horrible I am.

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

Here's is proof:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 3#p2726853

Reply to that!

In a wholly determined cosmos, I'll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god ...

If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.

If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an "other".

The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.

The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined ...

That's proof through contradiction.

And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me

That's right iambiguous ... I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?

Is this the post that you think proves free will?

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.

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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...

[peacegirl]

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.

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?

[Ecmandu]

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.

This is more confused logic in my opinion. External/determinism? Internal/creationism? At the cost of looking stupid, 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

[peacegirl]

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.

This is more confused logic in my opinion. External/determinism? Internal/creationism? At the cost of looking stupid, 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.

[Ecmandu]

You offered no counter argument.

Let's debate this, you and I

[peacegirl]

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?

[Ecmandu]

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 ...

[peacegirl]

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...

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

[peacegirl]

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.