New Discovery

Well, in a “wholly determined universe” as I have [necessarily] come to understand it, the only answer that I am able to give comes directly from nature.

Right?

How anything is used is normal. Why? Because it can only have ever been used as it in fact was used.

Right?

Thus…

Unless of course I am not able to want anything other than that which nature compels me to. And then [again] around and around and around we go.

So what? “In your head” that makes the unknown unknowns go away. As though that need be as far as it goes. As though that actually does make them go away!

And you know what you are talking about because the psychological comfort and consolation that you cling to with the author and his “progressive future” has become the center of the universe for you now. Everything that grounds your own particular “I” in this particular assessment of these particular principles is what is now at stake here. I can’t know what I am talking about because if I do all of this might come crashing down all around you.

Again, as though merely insisting that this is true need be as far as you and the author go. You demonstrate nothing substantial. You can’t take someone through their day and explore the choices that they make other than by way of fitting them all into the intellectual assumptions you make about having or not having a free will. Nothing can be pinned down either experientially or experimentally.

As though the things that we think we need to do are not in turn only the things that nature compels us to think that we need to do. You want to make our “choices” the exception to the rule somehow. But I’m simply unable to understand why and how you think you accomplish this – can accomplish this – in a determined unviverse.

I’m off the beaten path only because nature put me there. I call myself a nihilist only because at this point in time nature compels me to. Instead, my assessment of moral nihilism in ILP revolves around the assumption that I am in fact [up to a point] autonomous. I am able of my own volition to conclude that moral and political values are rooted existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

And that the behaviors you deem to be a prerequisite for “peace and prosperity” are precisely the behaviors that others hold in contempt.

My point is that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now those who are left for dead and those who leave them for dead are like the characters and the guests in West World.The characters are wholly programmed to think and feel and say and do only what they must. While the guests presume that they are free to do these things autonomously. The show then explores what happens when the two worlds begin to intertwine.

But: in a determined universe [again, as I understand it] there is no distinction between the characters and the guests. They are all compelled to think and feel and say and do things as nature commands given the immutable laws of matter.

Well, you blew over the limit proof, as if i had never made it.

When I pointed out that mutually exclusive satisfactions exist, and thus made your argument internally inconsistent. You blew that over with a massive quote that didn’t address something that simple.

And now you’re saying people not only always make the best possible decision by universal law (implying that this is the best possible universe regardless of what we think because you “proved it”)

You’re also arguing that people can actually make very basic choices about what they want: one word for you: undesired addictions, otherwise known as diseases, considered incurable currently.

Let’s look at other stuff that goes on in the world!

A man loves his family, never wants to hurt them, then he gets a brain tumor and murders his whole family. These kinds of things really do occur.

I don’t think you have much experience with the sheer breadth of life, however, you certainly have no trouble making sweeping statements about it, that for basically anyone besides you (now granted my limit proof requires abstraction, so I’ll let it drop) knows is false self evidently: that we all have a choice of the better of two options.

I want to clarify this post more concretely…

There are hundreds of puzzles like the prisoners dilemma or the let’s make a deal dilemma, where the best option is counter intuitive, where only geniuses and people who rotely remembered the solution can make the best decision.

The rest of us are totally fucked.

Since the solutions are counter intuitive, even if someone proves it (like I did to you) they’ll still pick the worst of two options (in your case: contradiction)

How does it fit into your “proof” that most people will pick the worst of two options?

Of course it comes from nature, even your sly way of answering.

That’s your escape hatch every time we talk. I can’t carry on a normal conversation because you keep reverting back to the fact that everything is only what it could ever be. WE KNOW THAT, but the way a word is used is either considered normal language or not and there is nothing wrong with me pointing that out, even though it is only what it could ever be.

You are obligated by nature to choose only that which you are compelled to choose, which is why will is not free. But that’s not the kind of obligation I was referring to. When someone says they were obligated to do something, the word “obligated” often means doing something that they really didn’t want to but felt they had to. We know that the feeling of obligation was also all it could ever be.

There are many unknowns in the universe. This is not a prerequisite to understanding what can be known. It’s not that in my head it makes the unknowns go away. It’s just not something I need to know about in order to explain this discovery.

There you go again, making accusations that this is all about my comfort zone and my clinging to a progressive future that you don’t believe is possible.

I was hoping there would be more interest. I’m not expecting anything from you because if you don’t find this interesting that’s also beyond your control. I’m trying to whet your appetite but I think it’s a lost cause.

Because I haven’t been given a chance. Anyway, if you know so much about the book offering nothing substantial, you must have studied it. So what is the two-sided equation? I gave the first three chapters to everyone. You know you didn’t read it.

I never said there is an exception to the rule that man’s will is not free. I have said over and over that it’s an invariable law.

You can be autonomous, but you cannot separate yourself from the laws of nature that created you. Just because nature causes you to choose certain things based on your desires does not mean you can’t think for yourself, do for yourself and be independent…yet still be working within the framework of determinism.

I don’t know of anyone who would rather be poor than rich, have war rather than peace, or hold these values in contempt. What they hold in contempt is exploitation.

I agree that the guest and the characters are both doing what they are compelled to do. The only thing I have an issue with is your using the term “programmed” which indicates that you can’t make a choice because it’s already made. This is where there is a lot of confusion as I’ve already expressed.

I want to explain what I stumbled upon to enhance this point:

Please don’t ask me for this proof in this thread, and please don’t make it a topic in this thread… it’s just an example that I’m offering at face value …

I discovered that every instance of male and female sexual relations have been sexual assault or rape: I proved it.

It’s totally counter intuitive!

Men and women are like, “this is the love of my life, impossible! You’re crazy, misguided or deranged”

But! The thing is, in spite of it being counter intuitive, it’s a fact.

So here’s the deal!

Every man and woman, given a better option, in all of human history have all, and still continue to use, the worst of the two options.

Not your “proof” about satisfactory determinism, but my proof about rape is actually the number one cause of strife on earth.

But nobody gives a shit.

Yet here you are saying that we always pick the best of two options, when it’s easy to demonstrate that people generally pick the worst of two options.

I’m not sure where I did that. Can you give me an example of mutually exclusive satisfactions?

It is a fact (based on careful observation) that man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of life from making decisions to scratching an itch. Animals who don’t make choices like we do are also moving in this direction, which is the movement of all life. The best possible decision may not be the best choice for you but better for the person who is making the choice. Moving toward greater satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied. It just means we make the least dissatisfying choice if that’s what is available to us at a particular moment in time.

We can only choose the best option based on our limited knowledge of a situation. It is true that the more you know about a situation, the more informative your choice will be. That being said, regardless of how little or how much you understand before making a choice does not take away from the fact that we are compelled to pick the best possible option (based on our particular circumstances) of available alternatives. Good question.

Peacegirl,

Based on what we know (most people) about complex game theory solutions that are counter intuitive.

They assume even odds where it’s not even odds.

From their perspective, it doesn’t matter what they choose, as in their ignorance, they assume all the odds to be even. (Meaningless to choose)

Now, you state that a person always makes the best decision from their knowledge.

If their ignorance makes 4 choices all even odds, even though a non ignorant person knows that one of those 4 decisions is the best odds…

You have a situation with the ignorant people where the best decision is any of the 4 equally or no decision.

They have 5 equally probable “best” decisions to make.

But let’s that rest for a moment.

We’re literally talking about someone giving a proof of what the best decision is, and like you, they simply don’t understand it, so they make the worst decision because the best decision triggers their denial system or is counter intuitive.

Even given proofs, they still make, not the better decision, but the worst decision.

That is counterfactual to your argument.

An example of mutually exclusive satisfaction is a sadist doing sadist things, and an anti sadist doing anti sadist things.

It is not counterfactual to my argument because there is no way a person could desire to hurt another given 4 choices. This knowledge cannot prevent someone from not making the best decision — when his denial system kicks in — as long as either of the choices are benign (regarding how it will affect others), but it can prevent the desire to strike the very first blow of hurt. How can a sadist do sadist things as the only option when there is always the option not to do sadist things, IF that is the desirable choice. At this time in our history nothing has been powerful enough to prevent people from doing bad things because, once again, the satisfaction of doing bad things overrides the desire to do good things. But this discovery changes all that.

Peacegirl,

Here’s the problem with your commandment, and a not rigorous proof:

You’re telling sadists to do, for the rest of their lives, that which gives them the least satisfaction so that you can have the most satisfaction. You’re doing the same thing to the sadist that they do to others!! You’re just another sadist!! Telling sadists not to be themselves!!! Sadists truly are people who ONLY gain satisfaction if they’re violating the consent of others. They may not be smart enough consciously to see that you’re just another sadist, but their subconscious mind will know that, and they’ll just ignore you.

This is different than people ignoring proofs because they don’t understand them, and then make the worst decision – which everyone in earth is doing!!

You’re not looking at the situation realistically – I do think you’ve not had much experience with the breadth of life… when you explain things to people, even if they agree it’s the best decision, most people don’t have the strength to make that decision. That’s the way the world is, that’s the way that people are, and because they don’t have the strength, they’ll just form a denial system of claiming ignorance or some other type of denial system (“I guess we just agree to disagree”) to shelter themselves from the cognitive discord of just being a weak person.

How can that be when this discovery tells no one what to do? Do you see what you’re doing? You’re trying to find loopholes when you haven’t understood how this principle works in the real world.

That’s not what I’m doing. I am only showing a way, through this discovery (which is not mine) where no one can be hurt because the desire to hurt (whether it’s for enjoyment due to a build up of hatred for everyone, or for revenge) has been permanently removed, without taking anything away from anyone.

I understand that there are people who love hurting others. Hurting people hurt people. This desire to get enjoyment out of hurting for the sake of it (which is not very common) probably stems from a predisposition to rage as well as the conditions that lead one to express that rage in horrendous ways. But this sadist tendency will not have a chance to develop when this new world becomes a reality. Those sociopaths who are beyond help and cannot be controlled by this law (which will be a relatively small number) may need to be institutionalized just as a mad dog would need to be, but with compassion.

How can someone make the worst decision when this is not what they want? You are assuming that under changed conditions a person would want to hurt others (especially when the world knows what constitutes a hurt) when not to would not make them a loser.

What strength is involved to put all guns away because they’re no longer needed or wanted, whether it’s to rob, to kill, or to create war?

But this knowledge doesn’t involve weakness or strength. It involves conscience which will not permit one to cause harm when there is no justification.

So, here’s another glaring contradiction to this “proof” you’re espousing.

We all have choice.

But!

On the ULIMATE level, we all have zero choice !

Well if it’s ultimate! Then how can the subset have choice? Or even more… how can the subset ever find itself in something against its will?

That’s just the point, it can’t. This is the second principle that leads to the two-sided equation.

[i]The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.
[/i]

Choice in this context only means we have the ability to compare options. Ultimately, the choice is never free because we cannot choose the alternative that gives us less satisfaction when a more satisfying option is available. Again, this does not mean that we are completely satisfied with our choices all the time.
That is not how the word is being used.

[i]The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s
nature, but to reiterate this important point…he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration,
does not change the direction of life which moves always towards
greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must
bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that
a juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that
affect choice.

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.”
[/i]

I just proved that this entire post was false just a few posts back when I talked about game theory …

like the Monty hall problem, there is a proof of the best choice. Even when given this proof, some of the smartest people on earth said all the odds were even.

If all the odds are even, it’s impossible for someone to make the best choice from their perspective …

Let’s look at another disease:

Gambling.

Every gambler on earth knows they can’t win, they know it for a fact. The evidence never contradicts this. But they knowingly always choose the worst of two options and continue to gamble. Destroying their life and their families life.

Just so as to understand all that went on since my last contribution, let me add a thing about sets and subsets.

The major set being is the one dealing with action . There really is no problem with the cognizant aspect of either zecisong to act or not, since a thoughtless decision revolves around a simply decisive choice between actup and non action, whatever option s there are, measuring by whatever criteria, pleasure, or any other.

Once the action is started, it can have either variable or fixed criteria for that action , its either automatic , autonomous, supported , or a derelictio out of duty. These are not exclusive exclusive, but have relative validity based on other considerations, which effect was other, so the pin pointed casual chain is never clear, consciously, unconsciously, subconsciously, or whatever.

In fact , freedom and determination can not even be said to be cut off from responsibility.

So to my mind to solve this problem by the use of am artificial conceptive process of either/or , shows a reduction where solution is sought from premises which do not justify such.

I think that consideration is poignant as well, to consider, in coinjunction to the overall understanding of it in situ

Responsibility increases with the truth of determinism, not decreases, which many philosophers have mistakenly believed. If you were following this thread it was stated that nothing external can cause us to do anything against our will as in a causal chain. That is why this demonstration is so important because it brings together the ability to “choose of one’s own accord” with “determinism”.

[i]The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

[/i]

How could they be the smartest people on earth if they didn’t understand the proof?

From their perspective, they believed they were correct. Maybe they didn’t agree with the proof and needed to be shown objectively why it was correct. You didn’t disprove anything. This isn’t about making the right choice always. It’s about making the choice you believe is best given the knowledge you have at the moment of choice. Certainly you can delay making a choice if you’re not sure and you need more info. Obviously if they had understood the proof, their choice, in the direction of greater satisfaction, would have been in line with the proof given.

This is like any addiction, but that doesn’t mean they have no choice. It’s just that the choice to gamble is very strong when compared to stopping. But if someone threatened that if they didn’t stop gambling their child would be collateral damage, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have the strength to stop because now the tables have turned and gambling provides less satisfaction than keeping their child safe.

Their child safe?

Did you not read the little passage that they destroy their whole family with gambling?

They know that this is what they’re doing, but do it anyways

If these principles were not reconciled until now, which I do not think is necessarily factual , then the language games would not be pre eminent in certain demonstrations.

Sets and subsets represent various stages of the development of ideas. and most people not being philosophers can not differentiate between levels of thought. therefore they can not predicate different forms of logical consistency.

For most people it is still the belief of the show me type argument, necessating the syntactic literal value as adopted to the differing forms of language which constitute their understanding.

Therefore, even though I have been following this thread, all one has to do is to examine the thesis, albeit Yours, and compare it to the last few narratives, and the rest can be filled in.

The major set does not require to examine interviening variables, because it is structurally nominal, one idea bringing in another quite arbitrarily(inductively) , whereas the conclusion is definitively structured about the connection between freedom and determinancy, deductively.

These are philosophically grounded ideas, which do not depend on various sub-sets, and if this is a philosophical thesis, then, it would be recognized, as such.

One can not argue in favor of a thesis by inductive generalities, which is what literal interpretations arguably intend to do, by pulling in psychologisms and opiniated hypothesis of what men really want, or what level of reality they pull out various quantified pleasure values, on the supposition that what they always want, is what is more pleasurable.

This is why philosophy as a formal , abstract supppositionary structural manifest. It can not mix formal and informal elements, it is done , but it always becomes ineffective.

It would not serve You, Peace Girl, not to point this out to , because, if the argument was a paper on the psychology or sociology on how the pleasure principal effects the ideas of determinacy and human freedom of choice, it may work on that level.

I mean not to overly nihilize what You intend to mean, but it has not been made clear, in terms of structural, ontological , or socio-psychological terms, what and how You arrive at any defined resolution.

Perhaps if You were to connect the mode of Your thinking in terms of their own ground, and lead us toward such reconciliation, and not place us in a forest of ideas in which one can get lost , it would work.

You may have it well constructed in Your mind, but that does not coincide with the mirror of interpretation, at least on my part.

I would be grateful from now on to immerse into this topic, because it does have many important ramifications.

Obviously it wasn’t enough to overcome the strong desire to get high. Maybe an addict is under the belief that his family will stick with him. That immediate gratification is hard to deal with. No one is denying that. And they may be remorseful after rehab, but sadly it still could be too late. In the new world, the desire to take drugs in order to escape will not be an issue like it is today.

Yes, I get that. They do it anyway because the desire is very strong especially when the addiction is physical as well as emotional. That is how powerful addiction is, but there comes a time when the fear of losing someone (in the hypothetical example I gave you) is greater than the addiction. What I’m trying to share with you is that in spite of the pull toward addiction, it’s still a choice, and even though one knows his life can be ruined, an addict has a hard time stopping unless there is a more pressing fear that is sobering. It’s not like a causal chain (such as an avalanche) where one has no choice. I hope you can accept that man does not have free will (even if you accept it with some reservation) so we can move forward.

Peacegirl,

You argue that some people have more freewill than others, yet argue that none of us have freewill.

When making universal statements like this about people, you are negating the universal, by assenting to gradations.

You are contradicting yourself.