New Discovery

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]

Interesting article:

backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/0 … ry-it.html

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.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

2. I think it makes much more sense to call determinism and idea or theory. Laws follow specific predictable and measurable patterns.

Peacegirl: That is what determinism does.

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?

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Peacegirl: Determinism (i.e. or man’s will not being free) is not a theory, ontologically or epistemologically.

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.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Peacegirl: Not in regard to the law of man’s nature. If I show you that one and one is two, you could just as well tell me somewhere in the universe it might not be. Empirical proof is obviously the ultimate test.

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.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Peacegirl: You are appealing to authority which is a no no. If a timeline can only go in one direction, it could not go in another direction. Total contradiction. It is true that before a choice is made there is nothing external that says you must choose X, but once you decide to choose X because you find that choice the most preferable when comparing X and Y, by choosing X you could never have chosen Y. This is where there is confusion because people think determinism means you must choose X (it has been preordained) even if you prefer Y.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Peacegirl: It’s not an opinion that we are compelled to choose among meaningful differences what we find to be the most preferable based on our individual circumstances.

Karpel Tunnel: Well, it is to a lot of scientists.

Peacegirl: And number two, it’s tiring to explain why man’s will is not free.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Karpel Tunnel: It’s not about trusting, it’s about understanding the proof.

Peacegirl: (which is a fact not an opinion) just because you felt like interjecting your opinion.

Karpel Tunnel: But I didn’t just interject an opinion. I presented an argument. One you still haven’t responded to.

Peacegirl: QM does not prove that man’s will is free or undetermined.

Peacegirl: If I am ever going to move forward you will need to accept the premise that man’s will is not free, even temporarily.

Karpel Tunnel: Your ability to move forward is dependent on my accepting that my will isn’t free? LOL

Peacegirl: Yes, you need to temporarily accept the premise that will is not free even if you’re not sure or I can’t move forward as to why this knowledge is significant.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Peacegirl: The law of greater satisfaction is why man’s will is not free. There are no exceptions because all life (at least on Earth) moves in this direction.

Peacegirl: but believe whatever you want! lol

Karpel Tunnel: If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption.

Peacegirl: You obviously don’t believe in determinism solely so you’re probably a compatibilist which is just a play on the word free. In the end they are creating a definition of what constitutes free will which is not free will at all. This is done so they can hold people blameworthy and punishable by law. Nothing changes.

Peacegirl: You said science isn’t sure if there is some free will.

Karpel Tunnel: I did not say that. I said there was controversy around determinism and indeterminism.

Peacegirl: That’s all well and good but when it comes to man’s will, it’s 100 percent not free.

Peacegirl: 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.

Karpel Tunnel: 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. 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 was just frustrated. Didn’t mean anything by it.

I am tired of having to defend what I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, is true and I don’t feel like debating.

Karpel Tunnel: Well, you picked a very odd place to communicate your ideas.

Peacegirl: I have found out the hard way that philosophy forums aren’t the right venue to introduce a genuine discovery. It’s hard for philosophers especially to be able to decipher between so many opposing theories. But this is not a theory yet it’s being treated with disregard.

Peacegirl: 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.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Peacegirl: Well maybe that’s a starting point.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Peacegirl: I don’t expect you to accept my ideas unless you see why they are undeniable.

Karpel Tunnel: 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.

Peacegirl: Sorry that you feel that way. There have been a lot of misunderstandings! Good luck in all your endeavors!

Meno: 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.

Peacegirl: Absolutely Meno. Although will is not free and never has been, the understanding as to why it’s not free and what this means for our benefit, doesn’t change our nature, but veers us in a new direction that could not take place without the understanding.

Meno: I have no desire to debate, or argue, and truly seek only clarification to an admirable assessment.

Peacegirl: Thanks for your interest! This knowledge, as we extend the principles, is revolutionary in that it prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.

Ecmandu: 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.

Peacegirl: The best decision for someone may be the worst decision in hindsight, which will then change his future decision if a similar situation presents itself. It is also possible that someone knows he is not making the best decision but for reasons that are unclear to an onlooker, he gets greater satisfaction making a choice that offers him more in terms of immediate gratification or some other payoff.

Ecmandu: 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.

Peacegirl: Who is making any commands? Who is saying obey me? Is that what you’ve gotten from my presentation? The author urged people not to jump to conclusions 50 years ago and that’s all you’ve been doing. I was hoping the internet would bring open minds together, but it looks like history is repeating itself.

Oh sure, some guy writes a book, even though he’s proven that not writing the book has the same exact outcome ?? That’s called a proof through behavior against intellectual contradiction, in other words, he’s a hypocrite: do as I say, not as I do

Whoaaaa, you’re making all kinds of false accusations about this author. Your logic is warped and filled with fallacy! Is this the calibre of individual I’m dealing with in here? If it is, I will have to move on.

The language gap can cause a problem as was shown by this author regarding how determinism is interpreted. Language caused a gap in understanding and it’s the same language that is clearing the misunderstanding up so that we can apply this knowledge effectively.

The topic that interests you is not a prerequisite to understanding that man’s will is not free and what this means for the benefit of all mankind.

It makes a difference since making choices from within indicate that external factors such as how you describe nature, or God himself, cannot force you like a domino to fall if you yourself (the “I” you call the self) don’t want to make that choice. The word “cause” is misleading. I’ll post this again and maybe you’ll get it this time.

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic
revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled
to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at
Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic
bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is
mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come
to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here
lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and
confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO
DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT
TO DO — but that does not make his will free.
In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.

Just because you can’t demonstrate the fact that man’s will is not free given your background and experience does not mean that author hasn’t demonstrated that man’s will is not free. Please stop putting this author in the same basket as you. The author is not confused.

That is very true. All this author has shown is how to prevent the desire to strike a first blow by removing the causes that lead to it. Other than that, he could not predict what will bring you or anyone else greater satisfaction. He couldn’t know this, and it’s not necessary to demonstrate how this progressive future of “peace and prosperity” can become a reality.

Intellectual contraptions to anchor an “I” to? I think you are projecting onto me your own intellectual contraption. But you don’t see it.

I’m not stuck. I know that man’s will is not free and your idea of autonomy does nothing to prove it is free.

Tom Clark writes: Hey, get a load of this: over at WEIT Jerry Coyne says in response to my comment (#9) that I’m a compatibilist just because I say that we’re causally effective agents that are sometimes rational, self-controlled and autonomous. But of course I’m not a compatibilist, rather a pragmatic determinist who thinks that seeing that we don’t have contra-causal free will has significant implications for attitudes and social policy (which compatibilists generally don’t). He says I think determinism is demoralizing, which it isn’t if we see that we retain effective agency and make real choices in a deterministic (non-libertarian) universe. We are not puppets or mere meat robots. Too bad Jerry doesn’t get this since he’s setting back the cause of determinism acceptance by drawing false conclusions concerning it. Can I get a witness?

You do have the autonomy to stop if you want to, which only means you have the ability to stop if you want to. I’ve said this many times; autonomy does not mean free will. Additionally, determinism does not mean I can’t express myself when I know that what you’re saying about this discovery being an intellectual contraption of the author’s making is an intellectual contraption of your own.

Many philosophers believe that determinism means we have to be able to predict everything that is going to happen, which is false.

You aren’t obligated to believe anything if you don’t believe it, but your disbelief won’t stop this new world from coming about because others will understand these principles and want to help bring this knowledge to light.

That’s not true either. A discovery cannot be understood by a few people and have a major effect on the entire world.

Remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark…the hour is getting late.

What you’re insinuating is that this can’t be a discovery because your idea of proof has to come from something other than what this author has proven. Wrong again.

First of all, it has been proved that man does not have free will for the reasons given. There is no reason to keep talking about autonomy as if this freedom to think and speak (of your own desire or volition) means that you have free will. You’re very confused here.

Believe what you want iambiguous if that’s what you must based on your preferences. Your responses are in sync with your beliefs that compel you to answer in this way…in the direction of greater satisfaction.

That’s because you are not understanding the simple nuance regarding the word “cause” that is misleading. Some people just won’t get it or want to get .
it. People are often invested in their own worldview and if something conflicts they will fight tooth and nail to try to find loopholes in order to retain their beliefs.

The only objective standard that is of extreme import is this hurting of others which only means doing something to someone that they don’t want done to themselves.

We are compelled by the laws of nature to think in the only way we can think. Choosing, based on those thoughts, are not free yet in everyday parlance, we can think for ourselves if it’s qualified to mean “we are free of any external force or pressure.”

In total perspective evil is not evil, but in everyday experience, we can use the term to mean a vicious crime; vicious meaning with great rage.

Evil (hurt to others) is still around. If you want to omit the word evil, then do so, but I’m referring to a hurt. We still have hurt in this world even though everything had to be, but that doesn’t mean that hurt and pain of this world has to continue.

What behaviors do people hold in contempt?

I get that iambiguous, but when this knowledge is brought to light, and everyone in the world can only benefit, government (controlling the masses by a few) will no longer be necessary. Most things will be privatized. Do you see how you’re jumping ahead which is a problem for this author.

Because volition still exists. Our agency is part of the causal process, which means we are not robots that are following a program like a domino. We, as agents, do get to choose but it’s not of our own free will. You can call it “free will” in a colloquial sense if it means there is nothing obstructing our ability to make a decision (which compatibilists and libertarians have defined as free will, which it is not). No, nature didn’t make you choose anything because nature (as separate from you) can’t push you in a direction you don’t want to go, which is what opponents of determinism believe is being proposed. And they are right, nothing can make a person injure or kill another if he doesn’t want t;, nothing can make a person hurt anyone if he doesn’t want to, for over this he has absolute (or mathematical) control. A person chooses to hurt because he wants to, since nothing can make him hurt another if he doesn’t want to. If you can’t wrap your head around this, hopefully you will eventually.

Obviously, what we do of our own volition is not of our own volition if everything is part of a deterministic process, but even here the meaning of “I did something of my own volition” can still mean “of my own desire,” even if at it’s root one’s choices are completely determined. It’s the same thing as saying “evil is not really evil if seen in total perspective”, but we can use the term “evil” to mean “hurt.” This is very problematic because saying that nothing is your choice, but nature’s choice, is shifting your responsibility to nature. You, as an agent, are still responsible for making the choice you made. Most choices are benign but many are not. These are the choices that this entire discussion revolves around because it deals with who is actually responsible in a no free will world? And if we aren’t free, how can our civilization function if we cannot blame those who couldn’t help themselves? That is the issue at hand.

No, not at all. We always have been in sync with God as nature. It’s just that now we have more knowledge and when it is applied to the environment, it allows us to remove the hurt in human relations by veering in a new direction but still in sync with the laws of our nature.

Maybe the nihilists will become optimists. Miracles do happen.

Don’t talk yourself into it. Just follow the principles and you will be able to see for yourself (providing you understand the two-sided equation) that this is not a figment of anyone’s imagination but a real true discovery.

But what makes you want to want or not want to make choice x? Is there one ‘you’ deciding what the other ‘you’ is going to want or not want? If so, what makes that ‘you’ decide what the second to last ‘you’ will decide what the last ‘you’ is going to want?

You claim to understand what compatibalism is and to have avoided it… butcha haven’t. You’re still in the Cartesian theater, I’m afraid.

Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It’s a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don’t submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, “wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they’ll all see me as a hero, so, that’s the best possible choice!”

Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he’d have seen the disproof and never would have published.

But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: It makes a difference since making choices from within indicate that external factors such as how you describe nature, or God himself, cannot force you like a domino to fall if you yourself (the “I” you call the self) don’t want to make that choice.

Promethean75: But what makes you want to want or not want to make choice x? Is there one ‘you’ deciding what the other ‘you’ is going to want or not want? If so, what makes that ‘you’ decide what the second to last ‘you’ will decide what the last ‘you’ is going to want?

Peacegirl: That sounds schizophrenic! I don’t think that would hold up in a court of law. “It wasn’t this me that told the other me to pull the trigger.” lol

Promethean75: You claim to understand what compatibalism is and to have avoided it… butcha haven’t. You’re still in the Cartesian theater, I’m afraid.

Peacegirl: I am not defining choices that are not OCD, addictions, or being forced at gunpoint as having a free choice. You’re wrong!

Ecmandu: Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It’s a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don’t submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

Peacegirl: His astute observations and his reasoning based on those observations was accurate.

Ecmandu: For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, “wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they’ll all see me as a hero, so, that’s the best possible choice!”

Peacegirl: No one can pick the worst possible choice. He would be picking the worst choice as his best choice in this situation to try to prove what he can’t.

Ecmandu: Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he’d have seen the disproof and never would have published.

Peacegirl: What a joke! He spent his whole adult life refining his discovery so that others could understand it. He knew what he was saying!

Ecmandu: But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: A book you never read! Wow!

Peacegirl,

People don’t read books on message forums to engage in discussion or debate, they expect you to condense and defend it.

They might watch videos or read studies that are linked, but not whole books.

That’s basic forum etiquette …

As I pointed out, you’re argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

You can’t wiggle out of that.

It never occurred to you or the author, that the ONLY thing that matters to a large majority of people is the existence of freewill.

The argument was never analyzing its own set upon itself.

This was an oversight of the author .

Ecmandu: Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It’s a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don’t submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

Peacegirl: He looked very carefully at his observations and inferences thereof.

Ecmandu: For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, “wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they’ll all see me as a hero, so, that’s the best possible choice!”

Peacegirl: How can people pick the worst possible choice when that is impossible to do? What you don’t understand is that people will be able to connive, cheat, and do any number of things to take advantage of others IF THEY WANT TO. But they won’t want to under the changes conditions of a no blame world. Eliminating all first blows is what this discovery accomplishes. That should make you overjoyed but instead I sense resentment.

Ecmandu: Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he’d have seen the disproof and never would have published.

Peacegirl: He spent his whole adult life refining his discovery so that others could understand it. He knew what he was talking about!

Ecmandu: But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: A book you never read! Wow!

Peacegirl,

People don’t read books on message forums to engage in discussion or debate, they expect you to condense and defend it.

Peacegirl: I have and I am, but it can’t be condensed to the point where it loses its cohesiveness.

Ecmandu: They might watch videos or read studies that are linked, but not whole books.

Peacegirl: I wonder what the famous philosophers would have felt about people skimming their work or reading cliff notes.

Ecmandu: That’s basic forum etiquette …

As I pointed out, you’re argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

Peacegirl: How can that be when I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.

Ecmandu: You can’t wiggle out of that.

Peacegirl: I just did.

Ecmandu: It never occurred to you or the author, that the ONLY thing that matters to a large majority of people is the existence of freewill.

Peacegirl: That’s because they think something is being taken away from them and they also want to take pride in their accomplishments which is not a bad thing as long as they know they didn’t accomplish anything of their own free will. Determinism is a threat for that reason but it need not be especially when the knowledge that man’s will is not free is the gateway that opens the door to world peace.

Ecmandu: The argument was never analyzing its own set upon itself.

This was an oversight of the author .

Peacegirl: There were no oversights.

Ecmandu: As I pointed out, you’re argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

Peacegirl: How can that be when I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.

Actually, you are telling people what to do. You’re telling them that the only thing that means anything to them (freewill) can ONLY be demonstrated by making the worst possible decision every time! You are telling people that!!

Because the only thing they gain satisfaction from, is that freewill exists, and the only way they can prove freewill by your argument is to do what they know is the worst possible decision for themselves and others, they will hurt self and others to give themselves the greatest satisfaction.

HONESTLY!! Your guru did not run the set of his own argument upon itself to make his argument!

Your protestations are not arguments, they are merely protestations. They are far from proofs.

You know what else these people can do besides making the worst possible decision for themselves and others to prove freewill exists, they can laugh and call bullshit on all of this nonsense that you are spouting. And through their own freewill, can help construct a more peaceful species.