How in the world did you conclude that this is a religious argument. Who is violating your consent here?
Again, where does anything I have said expect people to consent to something they don’t want to consent to? You have come up with the idea that people will have to consent for the greater good which would be a consent violation. You’re so off track I don’t know if it’s possible for this train to get back on. 
And that’s fine. People can do whatever they want. No one is stopping them. This law frees us, it doesn’t bind us to some rule that must be followed, or else. You have no conception of what this book is actually about. And you don’t seem interested because you are convinced you’re right and I’m wrong.
You coined a new word: anti-satisfactionists. 
You are missing the most important point. Once you become a citizen of this new world which will involve a transition period, you will not be bound by the laws of your country, you will not be bound by anyone’s rule. You will be free!!! There won’t be a law trying to prevent you from hurting others; it will be your very own conscience that will prevent you when no one is telling you what to do or what not to do. The reason that you won’t be able to hurt others with a first blow (do you even know what that is?) is that you won’t have the necessary justification which is required by conscience, or it won’t permit the act. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. You are debating a book you haven’t read, yet you seem to know everything about it. Do you realize what you’re doing? 
I don’t need to give consent to do what’s not a hurt to another person. This is not a contract that I must consent to.
[i]There is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire
hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those
schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope
with a hostile environment that will no longer be. In fact, since
anyone who tells others how to live or what is wrong with their
conduct blames them in advance for doing otherwise — which is a
judgment of what is right for someone else — all sermonizing and the
giving of unasked for advice are displaced. You see, this discovery
draws a mathematical line of demarcation between hurt that is real
and hurt that exists only in the imagination. The hurt of ridicule and
criticism is real, but in the world of free will there existed many forms
of hurt that justified ridicule and criticism. When the hurt that
motivated this behavior is removed, then there can be no justification
which means that any ridicule and criticism that exists thereafter
strikes a first blow, but this is controlled by the realization that it will
never be blamed or punished.
[/i]
What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive
What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive
I am not suggesting a connection between will and power to be a basis of motive, in order to dissect meaning, and neither a factual understanding of what a will represents, vis. It’s non existence, but merely stating the underlying themes historically speaking.
This theme has been analyzed for at least 2000 years, but existentially been treated most thoroughly , and modernly, by those who understood the problem dynamically-by method, and not the kind that’s described by Descartes.
Which confirms the onus brought on toward the existentialists.
The will may not ‘exist’, but it is dependent on power to decide, not merely one way or another, but on differing ways of effect and affect.
I am using ’ affect’, the way You are suggesting, in choosing more acceptable alternatives which may be pretty much determined as again You point out.
However, does this necessarily lead to the conjecture, that , such progression in I take it, evolutionary terms will ultimately lead toward more and better understood situations, whereby choices, although determined, may set course for an optimistic view of how intelligence may land us into more certainty, regarding how overall determined choices play out in the larger scheme of things? For that is what I induce from the thesis.
I have no desire to debate, or argue, and truly seek only clarification to an admirable assessment.
Peacegirl,
This is not a proof of determinism that you are offering …
By your own terms in this “proof”, all that has to be demonstrated, is that one person, for one single choice, in the entire cosmos, knew for a fact, for themselves, that they weren’t making the best possible decision that they knew was the best decision.
But that’s not really what this is about.
This is about a commandment from you to stop hurting people.
“Everyone obey me and the world will be a great place for us all!” “No! Seriously! Just obey me!” “Now” “obey me now!” “Now!” “Just do what I say”. “Now” “just do it!”
Billions of people have tried that in human history, you’re not the first.
There’s a problem with saying it is proven. If you are determined, then you cannot know if your reasoning is correct, since you are claiming you must believe it is correct. For all you know you simply believe because you are compelled by a ‘this argument is right’ quale reaction. And so you think determinism must applies to all, but perhaps it only applies to you. Yes, I realize that sounds impossible, but for you know it sounds that way because you are compelled to believe that. Perhaps only some people are determined.
Determinism is a law that applies to all mankind, which is why it’s a law, but believe whatever you want! lol
If you need clarification of my post, let me know. If you decide to actually interact with it, let me know. I am not sure why people think that restating their opinions is an actual response.
If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption. I see problems with belief in either determinism or free will. But further saying ‘believe whatever you want’ is an odd thing for a determinist to say’ and it is a bit ironic for you, as a specific kind of determinist you are, to add the lol.
I don’t know if have been following this thread but I have shown why will is not free many times. Not only that I have given the first three chapters of the book which explains determinism in more detail. Have you read it? Just wondering.
Do you understand why man’s will is not free, according to this author (which is not a hypothesis, BTW), or are you just giving your opinion?
Regardless of whether the world is determined or indetermined, I am only discussing man’s nature. I don’t need to discuss quantum physics or the universe’s attributes to prove that man can only go in one direction, which means he could not have done otherwise once a choice is made. Let me repeat: It is not necessary to know whether indeterminism actually exists because that would not change man’s nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (or the least dissatisfaction) when given a choice between the greater of two or more goods, the lesser of two or more evils, or a good over an evil, rendering only one possible choice at any given moment in time.
Because it’s not an opinion,number one. And number two, it’s tiring to explain why man’s will is not free (which is a fact not an opinion) just because you felt like interjecting your opinion. If I am ever going to move forward you will need to accept the premise that man’s will is not free, even temporarily.
You said science isn’t sure if there is some free will. That means you don’t think these observations are scientific. It seems like you are then interjecting your opinion because my explanation in your eyes is not scientific, just another opinion. I am not sure what you consider science versus theory.
I am tired of having to defend what I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, is true and I don’t feel like debating. If you don’t see the proof that’s okay. I don’t understand what you meant that it’s ironic of me to say “believe whatever you want.” I am not, as a determinist, forced to say anything in particular. Your idea of determinism is obviously not mine.
Artimas,
I wonder if there could be a far better word for what you are describing as freedom above albeit I realize that that is one definition.
Those in the concentration camps were far beyond restricted and restrained yet they had the freedom of will, they exercised their right to be self-determined and to go on surviving in their own way. The world may be going crazy all around you but I think that despite that, despite the influences and the circumstances which hem us in, it is a “conscious” choice which we make to either see that we have the power within us to create free will, to create other options and act on them.
But do we have to experience that since of internal imprisonment?
I wonder what it is within us which causes us to feel that our fates have already been determined and that we are not strong enough or self-determined enough to “see” something different or to create something different?
Perhaps free will is like beauty - in the eyes of the beholder. If we change our lenses and attempt to see with other eyes, perhaps we would then experience a world which is more within our own power of will and we would be capable of imagining and creating MORE available choices.
We have to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You know that we will never get to the bottom of this. Nothing is absolute despite our needs to believe that it is.
I know this was to Artimas but I will respond. Maybe your post was meant for another thread since there are a few discussing this topic. People have different circumstances, some have more choices than others. That is a fact. When you say that these people had the freedom of will, and that they exercised their right to be self-determined and to go on surviving in their own way, you are using this term incorrectly. They had the will to go on surviving in their own way, but the sheer determination that it took to stay alive had nothing to do with a FREE will. They were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though their choices were extremely restricted . They were choosing the best survival strategies they could in order to stay alive in the hope that they soon would be rescued.
No we don’t because determinism does not mean we are internally imprisoned.
Sometimes it’s hard to rise above one’s circumstances. Many people find it difficult getting ahead from no fault of their own. They were not given a fair shot and are worn out trying to fight a system that keeps them down at every turn.
You’re incorrect. There is no free will, although the word determinism, by the way it has been interpreted, has been misunderstood due to how the words “cause and compel” are being used.
[i]The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
[/i]
dupe
On the other hand, those who necessarily refuse to accept your own definition of determinism argue that you were never able not to point this out. And, my being so confused about how you necessarily came to your own definition of it myself, I’m convinced that you’re one of them!
The entanglements here are in my view more about the use of language than the manner in which the language that we use is able to be demonstrated as in sync with our actual behaviors. Stuff, that, among others, Wittgenstein was pointing to.
I just take it back to the gap between the language that we use here in this exchange and the language that would be needed in order to explain how human interactions on this infinitesimally tiny speck of existence that English speaking folks call Earth are intertwined.
Which nature then conplels you to dismiss as, what, incidental?
If the immutable laws of nature are behind every single interaction between matter – that which I understand a determined universe to be – the domino not “choosing” to topple and the human brain “choosing” to topple it are necessarily intertwined in the only reality able to unfold in sync with those laws.
The true mystery [for me] is how matter evolves into human brains actually able to confront human interactions self-consciously. As “I”. “I” amidst the antinomy that is built right into dualism. We simply can’t explain that yet. Or, rather, no one has successfully explained it to me.
You keep wanting to make this distinction between “being able to make choices that comes from within, not from without” as though that which does come from within the human brain is somehow connected to realty in a way that is different from how all other matter is connected to it. For most this means God. But for you it means an understanding of nature that in my view you just make up in your head. Your own rendition of nature as God.
But, in my view, only because you were never able not to – given my own understanding of determinism. Which I have no way of demonstrating is true either.
It has been fascinating philosophers for centuries now. But some [like you and the author] are, in my view, able to concoct “discoveries” that not only explain it all but project into a future finally brimming with “peace and properity”.
But this is still part of the mystery of minds actually able to create psychological defense mechanisms that sustain some measure of comfort and consolation. Some are able to concoct these intellectual contraptions in their heads that fit all the pieces together into a foundation solid enogh in their heads to anchor “I” to. For most of course this all revolves around religion and God. But not for everyone…
I am stuck where nature sticks me. And that precious “definitional logic” you cling to is apparently where nature has stuck you. At least until nature itself gets around to being in sync with the author’s discovery. As though that’s the way it actually works! The author has necessarily given nature a route to peace and properity here on planet Earth. But will nature finally get it? Not unless enough folks come around to his own understanding of all this. Even though they too are all stuck where nature puts them. If only from the cradle to the grave.
Here we go again. You seem to acknowledge that my insinuations about the author, like the author’s discoveries themselves, are all at one with nature unfolding only as nature must given the universal laws that propel/compel it.
Yet you demand that I stop doing this with precisely the same inflection one would expect from someone convinced that I do have the autonomous capacity to stop.
Now, maybe others on this thread can explain this to me as you would like me to understand it. Indeed, maybe nature itself will at last compel to me to understand it next week or next month.
But, here and now, freely or not, I don’t understand it at all. In fact, your arguments often seem completely unintelligble to me.
Stuff like this:
All of this is entirely based on the assumptions that you make about the definitions that you give to the words here. You have not given me any substantive evidence that all rational men and women are in fact obligated to believe it.
You simply need to believe it yourself in order to sustain both the equillibrium and the equanimity that propels you into this progressive future.
But my own words here are in the same boat. I am no less unable to demonstrate my points. All I can do is to follow the folks who do grapple with these issues/relationships utilizing such things as the scientific method to explore the actual functioning of the human brain in the act of choosing.
No, once again you merely assert this to be the case while offering no substantive arguments/evidence to back it up. What you won’t do in my opinion…if, autonomously, I even have one…is to consider why it is so important that you believe this. The reasons that I suggest above.
Thus…
And around and around and around we go. Or, rather, around and around and around we must go.
Culminating [necessarily] in this:
See, nothing gets through. Maybe nature [per her laws] will one day compel me to reconfigure my definition. Or maybe any of the defintions that any of us give to it are only and always the ones that nature compels us to give it.
But what comes through clearly to me is this deeply engrained psychological need on your part for others to accept that how you deconstruct and then reconstruct determinism re the author’s “discovery” is actually more a manifestation of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Only I have no way of knowing if this is not too just another inherent manifestation of what can only ever be.
It’s the part where I reconfigure “I” into an existential contraption here that most perturbs the objectivists of your ilk. Or so the nihilists of my ilk take our own profoundly problematic leap to.
No, as I understand determinism, I am using whatever defintions nature compels me to use. Here and now.
Indeed, in my view, that is what is most important to you here. By your definition of determinism, we can still call particular behaviors “heinous crimes”. By your definition of determinism those crimes become a thing of the past in our “progressive future”.
It’s how you are able to actually think yourself into believing this that continues to escape me. As promethean75 noted elsewhere, that’s what the discussion of free will really revolves around: morality. In other words…
Being able or not able to hold others responsible for the things they do.
Somehow in your head you want and you get it both ways. No free will…but evil is still around.
But when I try to bring this all down to earth…
…you take it elsewhere.
What if, what if what if. How does any of this actually address the point that I am making? Different folks along the political spectrum have different [very, very different] narratives and political agendas regarding government and conflict.
What then?
How is nature itself with its immutable laws of matter not the program behind both? How is the program and the causal function of nature not one and the same here?
Over and over again you insist [from my frame of mind] that we take what we want to do out of the loop. As though the laws of nature do not compel some to think that what they want to do they want to do of their own volition. While others are compelled to believe that they “choose” to want what they do.
If everything gets done only as it ever can get done then everything is wholly in sync with nature itself.
Again, this speaks volumes regarding that which I construe to be behind the author’s “discovery” here. The psychological impetus. Everything gets invested in this “future” where human beings interact as they were always meant to interact when they are finally in sync with God as nature.
That’s the part “in your head” that you can nestle down in while the real world continues to clobber all the rest of us in all manner of insufferable contexts.
Hey, but if that works for you, isn’t that all that really matters? Indeed, maybe my own sour reaction here is just a manifestation of my own yearning to think myself into something just like it.
:-"
Of course here I’m thinking more of his discussions with me elsewhere.
No, I like hard copy books and get them from libraries. Perhaps I am missing a book I really would love, but generally, I haven’t been so happy with books I’ve come to via posters in discussion forums online. I come to this forum to discuss in the format online discussion forums are most suited for. Others may read your book, so I understand you put it up here. As far as your explanations of determinism, I doubt you have met the argument I presented.
I was talking about the use of language. I don’t think ‘law’ is the right term for it. I did not mention ‘hypothesis’, I did say theory, which is a much stronger term, in the sense of something that is considered to fit a large amount of the evidence. ‘are you just giving your opinion?’ was an odd thing to ask. Yes, I gave my opinion that calling determinism a law is confused. Laws of nature tend to be specific patterns of cause and effect or relations, often ones that can be represented mathematically. Determinism is more like an ontological theory. I presented an argument in favor of my suggestion around terminology. Not just an opinion. If you interacted with my post, in the manner of a respectful poster, you might have noticed that.
Once a choice is made he could not have done otherwise, simply means there is one timeline. But if the wording here was ambigious and you meant that in any given moment X, the next moment Y will inevitably follow from X and no other moment could have happened, that does not seem to be supported by QM. And yes, I am aware that indeterminism does not make for free will, but it does cause problems for determinism.
If it is not determined, and random or statistical factors take place - which qm seems to indicate with incredible amounts of evidence and research - then several futures are possible and were possible before that choice was made, and, in some cosmologies, ones held by a large percentage of physicists, several futures will all happen.
Well, it is to a lot of scientists.
Like most people you seem to be assuming that one either believes in free will or determinism, and further that there not being free will means that someone can know that determinism is the case or trust what they are calling a proof.
But I didn’t just
interject an opinion. I presented an argument. One you still haven’t responded to.
Your ability to move forward is dependent on my accepting that my will isn’t free? LOL
And again, let me state…regardless of any problems one has justifying the existence of free will, there still can be epistemological problems with being sure one can demonstrate determinism is the case and universal.
I did not say that. I said there was controversy around determinism and indeterminism.
There are a number of things in this paragraph that make me think you don’t know much about scientific epistemology. Your use of ‘observations’ for one. But the last part about ‘science vs. theory’ really shows a lack of understanding of what theory is in science, what the word means. My sense is you have less understanding of science, scientific terminology, current scientific positions, than I do. Again, I did not interject an opinion. I interjected an argument. One you still keep avoiding even looking at. You just keep telling me you are right and showing you don’t know much about the philosophy of science.
Well, you picked a very odd place to communicate your ideas.
Well, if you’d actually interact with my argument, we might find out. And I understand that you are not forced by external forces to say anything in particular.
But anyway. You’re a rude person and a rather naive one, coming to a philosophy forum and expecting people to be swayed by restatements of your position, while you make no effort to understand the points I was making. And not wanting to debate. And then telling me that you will not be able to move forward unless I accept your ideas.
What a long post you made with not the slightest bit of an actual response to what I wrote, with no new substance on the issue…
No wonder you are tired. So much effort you made in not addressing my post and in reasserting that you are right and are so sure of it - which really distinguishes your position from other people’s. So few people are sure of their philosophical positions you must be correct if you are 100 percent sure. All this effort in this last post with no substance at all. The work that must go into posts where there is substance must be incredible.
While I will never read another thing you write again, I wish you good luck with your book. If your writing and attitude here is any indication of your skills, interpersonally and philosophically, finding a publisher for that book or even a solid online distribution, is going to be very hard.
In case I haven’t made myself clear, I won’t read any response you make to this post, so you can skip the tiring not responding you engage in and just move on to other posts. Save that energy.
But Ecmandu, he assured me he is 100 per cent sure and there can’t have been other people who could say that. He was so sure, he knew he didn’t even need to read my post or interact with my ideas. This kind of sureness is new and must indicate a proof.