New Discovery

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.

Meno, if this discovery can bring about peace on earth (which it can) I would say the ramifications are significant. I am doing my earnest to connect the mode of my thinking and not to place you in a forest of ideas in which to get lost in.

[i]The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.[/i]

What? I never said that some people have more free will than others. No one has freedom of the will so how can people have more free will than others when there is no such thing? Makes no sense. :confused:

sounds good. always given benefit to challenging themes. , especially one such challenges so much of what we would like to hope for in the survival of our earth, and life, that has nestled us for so many, many years.

I hope you stick around. :slight_smile:

I’ve always been a man who stuck around for better or for worse. Of that You shall not have any doubt, I assure You.

You’ve admitted openly that people have freewill, words you quoted, but that they are confused about that this means.

You also openly stated that more educated people can make better educated decisions. That is overtly stating that gradations occur

Ecmandu: Peacegirl, you argue that some people have more freewill than others, yet argue that none of us have freewill.

Peacegirl: I was very clear that to say “I did something of my own free will” is fine if it means “I did something of my own desire”. But this is just a colloquial expression. He says throughout the book, “he was compelled, of his own free will”. Again, this means he was compelled of his own desire.

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

Peacegirl: There are no gradations. You misunderstood.

Ecmandu: You are contradicting yourself.

Peacegirl: No I’m not. I never said that some people have more free will than others. No one has freedom of the will so how can people have more free will than others when there is no such thing? Makes no sense. :confused:

Ecmandu: You’ve admitted openly that people have freewill, words you quoted, but that they are confused about that this means.

Peacegirl: I hope I straightened that out for you!

Ecmandu: You also openly stated that more educated people can make better educated decisions. That is overtly stating that gradations occur.

Peacegirl: This comment has nothing to do with gradations of free will, which I never said we had.

Peacegirl,

We can only possibly abstract determinism by the observation of restrictions. So, to show what’re or not existence is 100% restrictive (absolute determinism) is to use the limit of knowing every reason why you know everything that you know, and all of those reasons are external (restrictive) to you.

If it’s 100%, we know through the thought experiment that this allows 0% capability to abstract a self.

By definitions, through proof through contradiction, st the limit, we can prove that 100% determinism is false, in a self evident way.

You keep stating that it’s just MY definition of determinism, and not the correct one.

Actually, it’s the only definition of determinism.

You are being disingenuous to this regard.

Determinism means a person could not have done otherwise. You are contradicting yourself when you say we can have free will (we could have done otherwise given the same exact time and place) and no free will (we could not have done otherwise given the same exact time and place). To rectify the situation you resort to compatibilism. All they have done is created a convenient definition of free will which does nothing to change the fact that we can only go in one direction, thus no free will. Be happy we don’t have free will!

If everyone knows every reason why they know everything that they know, and any of those causes are external to them, than determinism exists, as they had no internal decision on that matter. It had to be that way and no other way.

If all of those causes are external, then we’re talking about absolute determinism (nobody ultimately has a choice). I d monstrated absolute determinism as false through a perfect irrefutable limit argument using your own definition (and the definition everyonevelse uses)

No, you are most certainly the one contradicting themselves here.

My summation of those who argue in favour of Free Will is that they conflate possibility with actuality.

“Could” have done otherwise, to the Free Will advocate, means the choice not taken seemed perfectly possible to choose and it felt like it could just as easily have been chosen in actuality, and the fact that it wasn’t doesn’t affect that.
“Could” have done otherwise, to the Determinist means sure the choice not chosen felt perfectly possible, but there was a reason why it turned out not to be the actual choice, and that reason also had a prior reason, and so on.

The conversation between the two is an infinite loop of the following:
FW: yeah but I could have.
Det: yeah but you didn’t.

It’s no wonder how some people, e.g. Karpel Tunnel blackbox the whole issue, to avoid debates of this type. It’s almost the case that you can tell something fundamentally psychological about someone who takes one side over the other. The Free Will advocate likes the aesthetics of things feeling free and open ended, perhaps revelling in the idea that they are therefore free and the Determinist is a slave: as I have come across at least one un-intellectual obsessing over on a different thread. The airy fairy type who lives in their own head. The Determinist is simply saying, sure that’s all nice, but reality.

Free Will only seems possible to a Dualist, avoiding the “mind-body problem”. The Determinist can be either. The respective causal chains seem to advance as follows:

FW
Material influences(external experience/genetics)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ======> Choice
Mental component (internal disposition/identity). /

Det
External experience/genetics/disposition/identity => decision mechanism => Choice

The former’s “mental component” is the “decision mechanism” from the latter, but ex nihilo: in and of itself, it exists independent of the information to consider in making a choice - somehow being influenced by it without being influenced by it. If it were being influenced by it, it would be slave to the master of its influences, but not being slave to the master of influence would make the decision essentially random: a paradox.

My argument is that either you make a decision for a reason, in which case there is will but it is not free, or you make a decision for no reason, in which case it is free but not by your will. Free or will, not both.

That’s why I’m a compatibalist.

Besides it being the correct answer.