Fair enough. I just hope you understand why a person could never do otherwise, or at the very least accept this fact so we can move on.
If the argument is based on the author’s particular definition of determinism, then it’s all a word game and it won’t produce results. As Ecmandu suggests, if it’s a law, then it ought to be working already - independently of any verbal gymnastics.
That is absolutely false. The FACT that man’s will is not free has never changed, but we needed the development of our species to recognize the importance of this knowledge to use it to our advantage.
[i]Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?
To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that
controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we
are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well
as the solar system, just follow this: Here is versatile man — writer,
composer,artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and
lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to
blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of
necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to
why will is not free and what this means for the entire world which
perception was utterly impossible without the development and
absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of
history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?
In reality we are all the result of forces completely beyond our
control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are
able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to
prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into
existence.
[/i]
phyllo wrote:
Some people are putting a lot of thought into their actions but many are not.
That is very true, and it’s a good question but this law does not necessitate a person put a lot of thought into what he knows he could never do in this new environment such as rob, steal, connive, burglarize, or murder.
Well his argument requires gaining some sort of intellectual understanding of freewill and determinism which changes behavior. Somebody who is not putting thought into their decisions is not going to act any differently.
This has more so to do with conscience than thoughts. Even children will not desire to take advantage of others when this principle is put into practice and they learn from an early age what it means that man’s will is not free (which can be simplified depending on their age obviously)
phyllo wrote:
Some people are completely indifferent to the pain and suffering of others.
You are again basing your thoughts on the vantage point of a free will environment, which you cannot do if you want to understand this discovery.
I don’t think that I’m doing that. Especially in this quote which really has nothing to do with freewill.
It has everything to do with free will. You disagree because people in our present environment are often indifferent to the pain and suffering of others. But this can only occur in a free will environment. You have not carefully read this chapter or you would have had more questions regarding the two-sided equation. Do you even know what it is?
Not in the environment that created them to be that way. You’re right, but we are talking about a different environment that would not create the same kind of individual.
I think that you are assigning too much value to the environment.
We can’t escape our interaction with the environment which has an enormous impact on how our feelings are expressed.
Let’s consider a lion.
I don’t blame it for wanting to eat me. It doesn’t know or care whether I blame it or not. It’s still going to try to eat me. I’m food.
A lion kills for self-preservation. We also will kill for self-preservation if there is no other way to survive. When we are secure in our ability to sustain our standard of living, we humans will not have to hurt others in order that we may live.
There are a lot of human predators which are thinking and acting exactly as a lion. I and others are their prey. I need to defend myself by discouraging the predator from attacking. It’s a practical necessity.
It is true that some people have certain predispositions based on a mixture of their genetics and environment. This sometimes compels them to lash out at innocent people when their rage explodes just like a pressure cooker. It is a practical necessity to defend oneself by any means possible. But we are talking about a new world where the causes that lead to a person who has this predisposition from ever being given the opportunity to express itself.