New Discovery

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.

Sorry silluoutte,

My bad, I only read up to the arrowy stuff.

You don’t believe compatibalism.

“Sly” however is the sort of thing you would expect from the free will folks. They would accuse someone of trying to be sly because they are convinced that this choice was something they did have control over. They chose to be sly when they could have chosen not to be. Whereas in a determined universe I “chose” to be sly only because nature compelled me to.

You want it both ways. But in a manner I am still unable to grasp. You want to make a distinction between a domino not choosing to topple over and John choosing to set it up to topple over. While at the same time acknowledging that both the dominio and John do only that which nature compells them to do.

No, that’s the hatch that nature compels me to “choose” to escape down. Just as nature compels us to “choose” to post these words in our exchange only as they ever could have been posted. What you want is to escape down the hatch that revolves around the meaning that you were of necessity compelled to give to “choose”.

It really comes down to how you connect the dots between the things you want to do and the things that nature compels you to want to do. As though there actually is a distinction to be made in a world where all matter [including the human brain] is inherently connected to all of the dots that comprise nature itself.

This is simply preposterous to me. You admit that what you think you know is necessarily embedded in all that you do not know…and then simply shrug that off. Why? Becasue you need to do this in order to sustain the belief that what you think you do know is somehow in sync with what the author thinks that he knows in discovering this wholly subjective progressive future.

It’s all neatly contained in the internal logic that revolves entirely around what you think you do know about that 5% of the universe that physicists themselves admit is applicable only to the matter that they are grappling to understand given all the unknown unknowns contained in the other 95%.

What you can’t ever own up to [in my view] is how crucial the authors “discovery” is to sustaining the psychological comfort and consolation that believing in all his assumptions provides you. It’s your own equivalent of God and religion from my frame of mind.

On the other hand, given the manner in which I construe a determined universe, my own speculations here about your “comfort zone” are no less compelled by nature. As though what either of us believe “is possible” is taken into consideration by nature as she makes her way inexorably into a future that can only be given the laws of matter that comprises nature.

See, you acknowledge that my interest in this is entirely embedded in that which nature compels me to be interested in, but that somehow nature, in compelling you to “choose” to whet my appetite here, might somehow herself be compelled to be more in sync with you.

Then someone else is going to have to be more successful in reconfiguring your words here into something that makes sense to me. There are no exceptions to nature’s rules. But the manner in which you “choose” to point this out here sure seems like an exception to me.

Again, I am not arguing that you are wrong here, only that, given my own understanding of determinism, your argument seems entirely bizarre to me. Over and again you seem to agree with me about things that, from my point of view, refute your point of view.

This part:

Then I cannot be autonomous as those who champion some measure of free will describe it. Instead you concoct your own description of it. A description that seems to admit that nature compelled you to describe only as you must but that somehow your “choosing” to describe it as you do makes it all different.

This is a flat out contradiction in terms given my own understanding of determinism. To be compelled to think for myself such that I think only that which is wholly in sync with the laws of matter makes “thinking for myself” basically an illusion that matter has somehow evolved into when becoming a human mind.

But I know any number of folks right here at ILP who argue the road to prosperity for all revolves either around capitalism or socialism. Which one then is more in sync with the author’s “progressive” future?

And what of those nihilists who own and operate the military industrial complex who crave the sort of wars that keep them grinning all the way to the banks?

Somehow they will all be compelled to come into contact with the author’s “discovery” and usher in this “progressive future”. Right?

Okay, nature compels both the automatons and the guests to do only as they were ever able to “choose” to do. But that’s not the same as nature “programming” them?

And, yes, I agree in the sense that nature is differentiated from God. The laws of nature are [until we know otherwise] just the reflection of the brute facticity that is existence itself. No teleological component at all.

In reality, time is a factor. Liking two options equally, assuming mutual exclusivity as your thought experiment does, and your decision making system halting in such a situation will result in inaction: a choice made for you by Determinism. This third choice is forced through by reality and ever-elapsing time. Your argument’s fallacy is the “False Dilemma”. But even if the two options are exhaustive in the general dilemma of “either action or inaction” and you like both equally, your deterministic decision making system isn’t the only one at play, and your own indecision will simply not play a part in the Determinism that exists beyond your own decision making, and reality will continue to unfold deterministically over time regardless.
Further, over time your two equally liked options will realistically not remain equally liked with perfect consistency - at the very least minor fluctuations will occur - and even if they didn’t, the Determinism that continues regardless will influence the factors you are taking into account to have come to equally like two options (Determinism beyond of your own decision making continuing regardless), changing the equation, thus making it an inequality, thus allowing you to prefer one option over the other and choosing it.

Your argument compelled me enough to look into it, and it turns out the solution is the same as the one to Zeno’s Paradox: simply apply it to reality. The paradox exists only within ideal constraints.

That is correct, I do not.

Compatibilism seems to require an overly generous perspective on “Free Will” in order to allow the words to fit in with Determinism. It’s basically “Soft Determinism”, still Determinism but worded neutrally: the politician’s answer to the problem. It’s correct insofar as it is politically correct and appeals to the “feeling” of Free Will, but ultimately incorrect in that it avoids the hard problem(s):

  1. Possibility is not actuality: the feeling that you could have chosen differently doesn’t make it an actual choice. Only actually choosing makes something actually possible.
  2. The mind-body problem. Not a problem in the sense that it could have a solution, but a problem in the sense that it’s an unavoidable obstacle to any degree of Free Will at all.
  3. How can you be influenced by circumstance, in order to have something to make a decision about, without being influenced by circumstance, in order for your decision to be free from said influence? Free or Will? Not both.

There’s probably more, but these three are enough of a barrier to any degree of Free Will, even Compatibilism.

Everyone does not have to know every reason why they know everything that they know to have no free will. It had to be that way and no other way because they had no choice since they can only move in one direction: away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. Determinism in human affairs does not mean people have no internal decision on the matter. That is absolutely wrong.

No you didn’t demonstrate anything, nor did you prove anything, because you’re premise is faulty as well as your definition.

No way am I contradicting myself. I am not saying we have free will and no free will. That is a huge contradiction that cannot be ignored just because you want to be right.

Peacegirl and sillouette,

Peacegirl defined determinism as, “you couldn’t have chosen any differently”

For me the wave function collapses at the decision point, but before that, it is not determined.

My limit argument is the only reason that I’m a compatibilist.

I’m using the definition “you could not have chosen any differently” in terms of self evident observations we make about outside forces acting upon is in ways that we do not choose.

From this: I push to the limit of this self evident observation to see what happens at that limit.

I’ve shown that at the limit, that it’s impossible for any being to be a sentient being. The limit (absolute determinism) proves itself incorrect as an argument an intelligent being can coincide with, therefor, intelligent beings can prove that, any form of possible intelligence is a necessary disproof of absolute determinism.
This has no other option than to force compatibalism.

I’m not arguing from a “feeling” here. It’s a fact.

All choices are possible (as long as they are realistic choices) before we make one, but after a choice is made it could never have been otherwise because it would have given us less satisfaction than the alternative chosen, which is an impossibility.

This is another misunderstanding of determinism. How are we slaves? That makes it sound like we are being forced to act in ways that are counter to what we ourselves choose. These terms “slave”, “robot”, “automaton” really put determinism in a bad light. No wonder people are turned off. It sounds like determinism is taking people’s choices away, which is false.

We don’t always have to have a reason for doing something. We may just have a feeling of dissatisfaction with the present position so to remove the dissatisfaction we make a move. If we are satisfied with the position we’re in, we are not dissatisfied. It’s only when we are dissatisfied (it doesn’t have to be on a conscious level) that we change positions. For example, I lay down and begin to feel uncomfortable. I now desire to find a more satisfying position. We do this every moment of our lives but it’s so automatic that we don’t think about it.

Will cannot be free because we never have a free choice. Our choices are bound by previous causes that push us in a certain direction that could not have been otherwise when looking back in hindsight. But the word “cause” is problematic because it implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our choices. THIS IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. This debate would not be significant if it didn’t deal with the issue of responsibility, for if will is not free, how can we hold anyone responsible? This is why libertarians believe we have a choice and we are deserving of punishment if we choose wrongly, since we could have chosen otherwise. Compatibilists want to create a way out so they try to make determinism compatible with free will without appearing contradictory. But they are being contradictory when they use an arbitrary definition of free will that hold people responsible for certain things while exempting people from other things. They want their cake and eat it too, so to speak. You can’t have it both ways unless you create a big faux pas.

Peacegirl,

It is not irrational to define two opposing terms as overlapping. Take, say:

Liberalism and consevativism.

In order for liberals to survive they cannot be liberal about everything. In order for comsevatives to survive, they cannot be conservative about everything.

This is a fact!

This is also true of freewill and determinism, except this is not a matter of future survival, but a matter of existing presently; in order for these concepts to exist, neither can be 100%.

You are using an example that is relative to how the words are being used, which can change. The word “death” has one definition only. It is the opposite of life. It is not relative. Freedom of the will is the opposite of no freedom of the will, but the way determinism has been defined is causing serious confusion that once cleared up can bring about amazing changes for the better.

We are always limited by our environment, our culture, our predispositions, but there is no outside force acting upon us where we are not able to make
choices. Our environment, our knowledge base, our heredity,etc. limits our range of choices, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make choices. Of course we can. You are making a choice to post on this thread. The environment isn’t forcing this choice on you. You, as a sentient being, are making the choice, therefore the definition of determinism that says “outside forces acting upon you” is completely fallacious.

How can you do that when there are no forces acting upon us in way that we cannot choose, even if the choices at our disposal are extremely limited. I am not talking about external forces such as weather where we have very little control. Even here, we can make choices based on advancements in weather detection that can help keep us safe. I am talking about choices we do have control over in spite of our vulnerability to outside forces. You cannot tell me we don’t have the ability to choose even if our choices are based on limited information.

You are completely off course, all because of the flawed way you have defined determinism as your major premise.

Oh I agree with this. This is one of the many reasons why I refer to said person who has been espousing such nonsense as an un-intellectual.

Yes, I believe this is the core of the usual objection to Determinism.

My explanation of the Libertarian devotion to the concept of Free Will that it is simple, and therefore much more easy to apply to the real world.
With Free Will, one person either makes a decision or not, and if they make a bad decision they are guilty. Each person is an island solely responsible for everything they choose: easy, simple, sorted.

Determinism gets exponentially more complex the larger the system in which it is operating.

This enables it to be hugely more true to reality at the cost of being even more hugely difficult to grasp. This isn’t so much of a problem when dealing with things like astral bodies in space viewed from large amounts of light years away, but it’s a lot more of a problem when it comes to detailed neuroscience. For example, whilst action potentials along a neuron are nicely discrete, since they either fire or they don’t, the connections they have with other neurons are too vast for humans to model without the aid of complex computation. The Determinism is there, it just requires a lot from someone to be able to grasp it. And this expands even further when you consider the limbic system’s hormonal responses to external stimuli, which follow nothing more than the same chemical reactions that you can recreate in a lab. Everything quickly becomes intertwined in a vast web of causation beyond “the self” that predicts reality orders of magnitude better than Free Will does, whether one understands it or not.

The issue here is that responsibility likewise branches out throughout this vast web, spreading blame to the point where it becomes unclear if any guilt applies to anyone or anything in particular at all.

How then do you apply specific rules that are teachable to all the ages and intelligence levels that you find in a typical society of humans?
I would argue that you do have to simplify it for purposes such as these, just not to the point of Free Will Libertarianism.
Even if that’s all someone is capable of understanding, and the ability to control just oneself seems so much easier than controlling things beyond that level, it simply doesn’t apply to reality anywhere near as well as Determinism does. Problems have wider contexts, and “delivering justice” would have a more effective impact beyond application to individuals only. A very human objection to this reality is that they are now much less safe from blame, which they can no longer neatly and crudely assign to any one individual scapegoat who was simply closest in proximity to the critical decision. To deal with this reality requires a great deal of humility and a secure ego that can deal with not being 100% good.

In short, Free Will only has any traction whatsoever due to human weaknesses, and its appeal does indeed appear to correlate with the weaknesses of the human who holds to the concept. Unfortunately, it also scales with the amount of “projection” that the Free Will adovate engages in: the more fervent a Libertarian they are, the more they invert this to the Determinist being the one showing human weakness due to their refusal of 100% responsibility. It becomes something of a pissing match to accept as much responsibility for something as possibility - good or bad alike. Acquiring vast riches is entirely down to you alone and your personal convictions and abilities, regardless of any help you took for granted, and accepting sole blame for the downfall of an entire institution is the most heroic and virtuous act of martyrdom. This Individualism is all peacocking and not at all to do with reality and how it works.

One of the other attractions to Free Will, than simplicity in utility, is to the machismo of peacocking.

In the case that we have a dissatisfaction and it moves us towards a position where we are not dissatisfied, that dissatisfaction is “the reason”.
I don’t just mean having a reason that we have fully and rationally parsed into conscious clarity, just that there is some reason or cause for any given movement or change.

I think we agree here that there are different degrees of consciousness of reasons why things happen. Much, probably most by a long way, of human behaviour is not fully conscious. But lack of consciousness doesn’t mean there is no reason/cause.

Would you say that it could have been otherwise before a choice is made? This leaves (realistic) choices open until the point of choosing.

If a choice could have been otherwise before it is made, this leaves open at least some degree of free will. This is one of the differences between hard and soft Determinism: soft Determinism allows free will up until the point of choice, after which it is Determined and could not have been otherwise. Hard Determinism would follow the causal chain back from the point of choice to trace the exact chain of events that resulted in the choice that could not have been otherwise after it is made - and in doing so it would establish exactly why each step before that choice could likewise not have been otherwise.

However, hard Determinism thereby establishes a much more linear progression of events, rather than the sort of convergent progression of possible timelines into one that soft Determinism implies. An image I think of for the latter is like a filmed explosion played in reverse, with all the shrapnel crystalising into one completed object at the point of explosion - symbolising the point of choice, that all of a sudden could never have been otherwise despite seeming like it could have gone any which way before it all came together into the configuration it happened to form. The fact that this conception seems to violate entropy outright ought to be a warning sign, I think.

The problem with the former is that in effect (even though not by the same means) it becomes no different to Fatalism. Both posit a point that can be pinpointed in future, at which a certain set of events will occur, even though the means by which you get there are different. Fatalism says that the future point will be reached regardless of how you get there, where hard Determinism says that the future point will be reached exactly because of a very specific set of events that are going to occur. An important distinction, I think.

Fatalism would imply that, even if you knew your fate and tried to escape it, you would still meet your fate. Hard Determinism might appear to pose much more of a problem, which might put one off the idea, that knowing the chain of events exactly would allow one to choose to not follow them. The problem with this objection is that knowing the chain of events would change the chain of events to incorporate your knowing of them, initialising an infinite chain of regression into new chains of events that incorporate knowledge of them etc. etc. until you no longer seek knowledge of them and they settle to a chain of events that you do not know, or even if you do you no longer seek to defy them. The Hard Determinism underlying such a thought experiment therefore remains unchallenged.

You’re saying pretty much exactly the same thing as what peacegirl said in her response to me - and maybe before, I’ve not properly read the thread before the point I started contributing.

So it surprises me that upon a quick skim, you seem to be disagreeing.

If I’m getting the right impression of peacegirl’s argument, she’s a soft Determinist, which is basically another word for Compatibilism, which is your stance. I might be misinterpreting her though.

Perhaps I am not among one of these intelligent beings that disprove “absolute determinism”, because I can see plenty of ways in which intelligence is not “in fact” incompatible with hard Determinism. Most obviously, why can’t you be determined to be intelligent? All superior quality and quantity of decisions that occur to you are therefore determined to occur to you due to your intelligence, and your better choices are thereby determined from this fact. And isn’t a lot of intelligence to do with understanding why you chose the way you chose, as an aside from what it was that you chose?

that’s correct, but what you mean, which is ‘it is not caused’, is incorrect. remember that in quantum physics, probability does not denote ‘uncaused’, but only an inability to know in advance what event will happen. this is a problem of observation, not causality. people make this mistake all the time… especially this new age philosophy that believes the uncertainty principle proves freewill. and right along side of this error is the metaphysical misuse of the concept of chaos. this word ‘chaos’ does not describe natural systems… but, again, an observational problem with being unable to predict a future state due to complex initial conditions. this has nothing to do with ‘order’ or ‘causality’. or rather it doesn’t mean the two are absent.

so quantum physics will not save your freewill argument… and i can’t believe you folks are still going at it after all this time. i’ve tried to explain the problem in very simple terms. maybe you missed it… or maybe you saw it and didn’t get it. the problem with freewill is that is would require an ontologically different substance from that substance which constitutes the things that can exist. if you can imagine everything existing in space/time as being under the seamless influence of a single set of natural laws, then you’d have to ask why, and how, could something else exist that wasn’t also under such influence. so for example, when you ‘choose’ to stand up, there would have to be a spontaneous suspension of the natural laws and an immediate initiation of a different set of laws to direct the course of events that followed.

natural laws are working > ecmandu decides to stand up > natural laws suddenly halt and agent causality kicks in > ecmandu stands up > natural laws kick in again and continue operating until ecmandu makes another decision > repeat, etc.

so at that point when the decision is made, you can’t say that the same laws are still working… since if you did, you’d be saying those laws caused the choice. you don’t want to say that, so you have to demonstrate how another causality can not only neutralize natural causality (stop it), but also interact with everything else that is operating under natural causality. i.e., how can your choice ‘affect’ your brain? how does it touch it? descartes claimed this contact was made in the pituitary gland.

that there is no freewill… not even ‘kinda’ or ‘a little bit’… is the last bitter drop you must swallow (N), ecman. there isn’t a metaphysical or logical argument under the sun that supports it, and there never will be. the thrust of the argument for freewill has always been moral, although philosophers like to believe they’ve devised some rational or empirical proof for it and that it merely has moral ‘implications’ after the fact. no sir; the entire thing is grounded in a particular kind of moral attitude toward the world. one is either wanting of pride or for placing blame… one is either searching for praise (look what i did, everybody!, etc.) or looking to blame someone/something (that sonofabitch!, etc.).

now you’ll note that the stoa, for instance - who had this thing figured out - couldn’t actually live as fatalists… because that’s literally impossible. one would never get out of bed in the morning. rather what they had was a different moral attitude toward the world… were far more patient, tolerating and understanding. i’d put peacegirl as a stoic, in fact. these are the good stoa… the one’s who’s understanding that there is no freewill gives them greater tolerance.

i, on the other hand, am an evil stoic. and what this means is that while i no longer blame the individual, i blame the whole fucking thing instead… all the way back to the first cause (if there be), or the oscillating model (if it be). and i pass the judgement ‘this is dumb’. or maybe that’s unfair. i should say ‘clumsy’, instead. i’m absolutely convinced that the element of stupidity at least triples the quantity of carbon in the universe.

but the big difference between the good and evil stoa is that we couldn’t give a shit less that you’re not to blame. that doesn’t make you any less of an idiot. not you you. i mean whoever in general. in fact, that makes everything far worse; if i can’t blame you, i’ve got to blame everything inexplicably bound up in the chain of causality itself… which means, it’s the whole universe’s fault when you fuck up.

now the evil stoa still attack, mind you, but we don’t resent, see. our conscience is clean… no bad feelings… no hatred. maybe a little contempt or disgust, but never hatred. and we’re all about some consent violation. we’re some of the most consent violating fucks you’ll ever find. find me some consent, and i’ll sure as shit violate it.

Promethean,

That was a compelling read.

My limit argument disproves it.

Pointing out someone’s way of responding has nothing to do with the belief that they answered that way of their own free will.

The only difference iambiguous is that a domino is being pushed by an external force. There is no external force pushing you, for example, to be here in this thread. You are here because it gives you greater satisfaction over the option not to be here.

Again, this pointing out is not faulting you. It is just pointing out why we can’t move forward.

Ultimately, we are part of nature and we are inherently connected to the dots that comprise nature itself, but you seem to be stuck with the idea that you are a walking robot. This is the confusion surrounding this discussion due to the fact that having choice is not inconsistent with the truth of determinism IF it is defined correctly.

Stop making insinuations about the author that this discovery cannot be true because he only thinks that he knows. He knows, trust me. He didn’t have to discover this wholly progressive future. How can anyone know everything that is going to occur before it occurs. It isn’t necessary. All he needed to know is how we can prevent the desire to hurt one another when given a better option. You are creating an argument that has no place.

Once again, I don’t have to know everything about the universe in order to understand that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. What gives him greater satisfaction is not something anyone can know ahead of time (which is not necessary to bring about the Golden Age of man) except how to prevent this desire to hurt to others by making it less satisfying than not to hurt others, and it can be done.

Stop with the analysis please. You are way off.

The word God is used throughout the book but it is qualified to mean “the laws of nature that govern us”.

You can speculate all you want and I can also come back at you with justified anger because you are telling me what I’m doing when this is not what I’m doing. When someone strikes a first blow (which you are doing), it is a normal reaction to strike back, which is what I’m doing.

You’re not making sense now. We are both in sync with our nature and our way of responding, which could not have been otherwise. I’m trying to get through to you that when you use the term “nature”, you seem to distancing yourself from the fact that nature is YOU. Nature as a distinct entity cannot make you choose anything if YOU don’t desire it. Please stop using the excuse that nature made you do something. You did something because you simply wanted to do it. You answered me a certain way simply because you wanted to answer me that way. Nature did nothing you yourself didn’t want.

If life itself is a movement away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction, which can only be in one direction, how can there be any exceptions to nature’s law? :-k

Well maybe you need to reconfigure your definition of determinism, and then it won’t be so bizarre to you. :slight_smile: Nothing I said refutes my own point of view if you follow me carefully.

Having autonomy is not equivalent with free will OF ANY KIND. Yes, we have volition. Volition = being able to make choices that comes from within, not from without. Being able to make choices is part of human nature that we have been given. Making choices does not mean they are FREE choices, for we can only move in one direction when comparing meaningful differences. If we could choose what is less preferable when a more preferable option is available, you could say we have free will, but this is impossible.

I’m just trying to help you see that the schism you have created by how these words are defined are not in sync with reality. The problem here is not with my description; it’s with the way determinism has been defined down through the ages. I think you are having a hard time trying to understand that having a choice does not automatically grant us the free will that libertarians and compatibilists have taken for granted we have.

You are using two different definitions here. Thinking for ourselves in a world where everything we do is in sync with the laws of matter could not be any different, therefore the independence in this sense is illusory…but we can say using definition 2 that we were able to think through a problem without any immediate outside interference. It’s the same thing as saying evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, but we can use the term evil when we are identifying someone who has caused a heinous crime.

No, it won’t happen necessarily like that, but let me try to get you to think more expansively here. What if government itself is no longer needed? What if conflict can be avoided and everyone benefits in the process? What then?

The word “program” is problematic because, once again, the wording implies that it’s the program causing you to do what you do, which is false. Please try to get this because it is the key to what follows. Nothing, not nature, not a program, not your heredity or environment can CAUSE you to do what you do unless you want to do it. This keeps the responsibility on YOU, where it belongs, not in a blameworthy way but just to assign whose responsibility it is for making a choice.

That being said, the fact that will is not free and we are progressing toward a world where there will be no more war, hatred, crime, or poverty indicates that there is some kind of design, not in a personal God way, but in a way that points to order out of chaos.

Funny that you say that, I was going to accuse you of being a theist about three pages back.

You are defining EVERYTHING as good and consensual (AT LEAST we ALWAYS CHOOSE the BETTER of our CHOICES no matter what we choose!) Because god only creates perfection, and we are creations of a perfect god.

Theists have been arguing this for thousands of years to people while abusing them mercilessly as they preach this to them.

Like I stated earlier in the thread, your conclusion about everyone consenting to everything is very disturbing (that they should consent to everything no matter what, because it’s ultimately ALL POSITIVE, and that, that is the GOOD NEWS!!