Determinism

Neither the person whose life was in the toilet, or the person whose life was better, had any control over how their life turned out. It’s very true that when times are good, people want to take all the credit. You aren’t getting my point because I haven’t made one yet, other than agreeing that we have no free will. But there’s more to it than just stating that we must do what we must because we cannot not do it.

Progress to me implies something in the way of a teleological component “behind” the universe. The universe is evolving into something that can be described or defined as better than it was before.

And, sans God, how can nature really be understood in that manner?

Imagine hypothetcally human beings are the only conscious entities in the universe. Imagine a gigantic asteroid smashing into earth and wiping us all out.

The universe continues to unfold as before. But can that be described as progress?

Applied globally so as to reflect the fact that man’s will is not free. Thus it would seem that war, crime, and poverty are but inherent components of that.

Note to others: what point do I keep missing here? How is knowledge applied here [by anyone] other than as it must be given a determined universe?

“Free.” Exactly. The very nature of matter itself wholly restrains us from choosing anything other than what we must.

Unless, of course, that is not true at all.

Compelled. John is compelled to set up the dominoes just as the dominoes are compelled to topple over. But somehow with us it’s different. We’re not compelled mindlessly.

If there is more to it, then I will either be compelled to grasp it or not.

Not all events are progressive hypothetically. When I speak of progress I am speaking only of how we can improve the human condition.

They are inherent components of that, but when we apply the knowledge that man’s will is not free (along with the corollary that follows), we veer in a different direction but still within the “inherent components of that”.

Who is saying otherwise iambiguous?

What’s your point?

John is not compelled to set up the dominoes unless he wants (or chooses) to set up the dominoes. The dominoes don’t have an option.

Very true.

I have no idea. What’s a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?

And that force is not the same force that is making your decisions? If not, then how are the forces distinct? If they are distinct, then how do they interact?

Just give me your definition instead of why other definitions are wrong. It would be easier and clearer.

Probabilism is determinism, but determined by random outcomes rather than certain ones.

So it would seem.

Like the Rush song

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.

I’m not sure what you mean by determinism.

lib·er·tar·i·an
/ˌlibərˈterēən/Submit
noun
1.
an adherent of libertarianism.
“libertarian philosophy”
2.
a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Serendipper, there is no duality here. I am only trying to get across that nothing external can force us to do anything we CHOOSE not to do. The force I am referring to is the invariable law of “greater satisfaction.”

I’m trying to explain that the word cause is misleading.

[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.
Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.
Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what
they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils?

Therefore,
when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a
compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed.
All I am
doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make
sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding
further.”[/i]

Probabalism means we are making a prediction based on probability. The ability to predict an outcome in terms of probability just means we don’t have all the information to make an accurate prediction. It does not negate determinism. Whether there is true ontic randomness in the universe is an open question but either way, it does nothing to grant us free will.

breakingthefreewillillusion.com … snt-exist/

Nice. :icon-wink:

Many people think the two are synonymous. Fatalism implies you can do nothing about a situation so you might as well not even try. Determinism doesn’t remove choice in any given situation. If something bad happens after you have done all that you can do to prevent it, then you can call it fate.

I’m trying to show you that the present definition of determinism is misleading for it assumes that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events, but this is inaccurate since nothing can make us do something if we don’t want to do it, or do something against our will. The conventional definition makes it appear as if we are not responsible for our choices.

[i]Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not
cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which
his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not
responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a
minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I
hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will
but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and
wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty
when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some
sort for his desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb
part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his
conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases
with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do
what he really didn’t want to do.[/i]

I don’t know the doctrine of freewill, but probably not.

Since no external force can force us to do anything that we don’t want, then rape doesn’t exist.

I don’t know why you can say “determinism is defined as ____________”.

I don’t have any problem with the notion that we always get our way, so long as “we” are defined as the whole universe. If I get hit by a train, then it’s because “I” (me as the universe) wanted to, but it’s against my ego’s will.

Probabilism allows for the illusion of freewill since nothing is written in stone. Probabilism refers to the fact that there is a chance that you could disappear and reappear on mars.

I guess, but if we’re fated, then there is no us. If there is an us, then we are not fated.

I agree, but not for the reason you cite:

We do not need freewill to make the case that we are not caused by antecedent events since every event is fundamentally random (ie has no cause).

The maximum number of entities in the universe is one. There is no serendipper who is responsible because I can always pass the buck down the line. Adam blamed the woman for eating the fruit and the woman blamed the devil and the devil didn’t say anything because he knew it’s all god’s fault.

Fine, there is nothing causing someone to do what they don’t want to do, but there is something causing them to do what they want.

Determinism (as defined accurately) does not mean actions are not voluntary. We volunteer what our choice will be every time we make a decision. But does that make our will free? Libertarians define free will as having choices to pick from. Having choices in and of themselves does not mean you are free to choose A or B equally. That is what free will implies: "you didn’t have to choose A (to steal); you could have chosen B just the same (not to steal), therefore we can punish you for making the wrong choice. But how can both choices be equal when you must choose the option that offers the greatest satisfaction (i.e., the choice that you believe to be the better alternative given your particular circumstances?)

How can you speak on free will if you don’t have a definition of what that means? This just shows the confusion surrounding this longstanding debate.

How does “no external force can force us to anything we don’t want to” equate with “rape doesn’t exist?” Huh???

I told you. The immutable law of “greater satisfaction.” This is explained in great detail in the book.

The law of greater satisfaction. You cannot choose an alternative that offers you the least satisfaction of the options available at any given moment in time. Test it for yourself. The reason it’s an invariable law is because there are no exceptions.

If you get hit by a train because you didn’t see it coming, it’s because certain things lined up to make this happen. In most cases you didn’t want this to happen but (tell me if I’m wrong) the universe conspired (so to speak) to make this happen. I agree that what happens to us is often out of our control, especially when we didn’t ask for it.

Nothing IS written in stone, agreed. Only after a choice is made can someone say, “I could not have done otherwise”. There is no domino effect forcing you to make a particular choice if it’s not a choice you prefer.

And so could Santa Claus appear and reappear according to this theory. Where is there one iota of evidence that could make this a probability let alone a possibility? :confused:

I agree with you on this: fate (the way life unfolds) is often due to life circumstances we did not ask for. But fate does not mean that we do nothing to change our circumstances because we believe fate has already made the choice for us. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Randomness, either epistemologically speaking or ontologically speaking, are two different animals. The verdict is not even close to which one of these ideas is correct. I subscribe to the belief that randomness only means we don’t know all the variables that lead to a particular outcome (epistemological), which is different from the belief that embedded in the universe are random happenings with no cause whatsoever (ontological).

You would appreciate my book immensely based on what you just wrote. Let me know if you would like the first three chapters. I’ll post them for you but I won’t do this unless you request it. :smiley:

You are 100% correct. This is not an unimportant observation as you will see.

Again, you are saying something here that makes no sense to me in a wholly determined universe. If one’s goal is to improve the human condition and one is compelled to think, feel, say and do only that which is inherently entailed/compelled by the laws of matter then both the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be.

And that’s before we get to the part that most interest me: How, assuming some level of autonomy instead, progress is basically an existential contraption embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Let’s bring this down to earth. In a determined universe what would constitute progress in regard to, say, the role of government in our lives? And how would we go about improving the human condition in regard to government when we can only go about doing what we must?

All I can do is to ask others here who share your point of view to reconfigure it into an assessment I might be able to better grasp. How is an individual “applying knowledge” not in turn entirely subsumed in a deterministic universe?

It all becomes somewhat surreal. We grasp that man’s will is not free. But we grasp that only because we could never not grasp it. And however we apply that to the human condition it is the only way that we ever could apply it.

And around and around we go. Making points that the other does not fully grasp in a wholly determined universe in which there was never any possibility of it being otherwise.

I am either incredibly dense in not grasping this or you are incredibly dense to argue it. John chooses only that which he is compelled to choose. The autonomous aliens note that unlike the dominoes John “chooses” to set them up. But John’s choice was never not going to be anything otherwise.

How is John here not just one of nature’s very own dominoes?

Thus:

A little help here!!

Admitting that perhaps I really am the one who needs it. Your point is solid and I keep missing it.

But: could he have ever chosen not to want to? If not then “wants” and the “subconscious/unconscious” mind would seem to be no less determined.

If one can only be confused in any particular context, how can he then be held responsible for being so? It’s like someone is compelled to blame him for being only what he was compelled to be.

Yes, but Rush’s Alex Lifeson was a proponent of Ayn Rand. And Rand was a proponent of free will: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html

The irony here of course is that while she championed the individual’s “volitional consciousness”, every single one of the fanatics who embraced her were free only to share her own choices.

Objectivism with [literally] a capital O.

So what if the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be. Wouldn’t that make you want to listen to a new understanding, which would also be subsumed in what can only be?

You are presupposing there has to be conflict in these things that you mentioned.

Doing what we must is simply saying that we are moving in the direction that we think is best for us. Improving the human condition, once this knowledge is recognized and confirmed, government as we know it will no longer be necessary.

As long as you use the phrase “subsumed in a deterministic universe” you are reducing us to automatons that can’t make choices. Although the word choice is misleading because it implies we can choose A or B equally (which is false) does not mean that our choices are less meaningful as part of our continued development.

And… are you saying that my words mean nothing because I couldn’t not be in this forum and type what I’m typing? #-o

True, from the birth of the universe to today had to occur exactly the way it did. Once again, a wholly determined universe does not remove our part in that determined universe by the “unfree” choices we make which will deterministically influence where our world is headed.

You’re missing the point because there’s no real point yet other than the reason man’s will is not free (i.e., that he is constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction). What is important to recognize (which leads to the two-sided equation) is that although we have no control over which choice gives us greater satisfaction at any given moment in time…nothing has the power to make or force us to do anything against our will (which the conventional definition of determinism ignores). So when someone says “he made me pull the trigger”, he is not being truthful. This is important in regard to this discovery which you will understand if you find this interesting. If you don’t find this interesting, then you could not not have moved on. I get that iambiguous. You don’t have to keep repeating it.

Until you give me a definition, I can only fall back on my definition of determinism which is the antithesis of the voluntary.

In the purest sense of the words, freewill is a will that is free from bound. Either a will is free or it is not (assuming a will exists as a thing in the first place).

You inquired about the “doctrine of freewill” and not about my definition of freewill. I have no clue regarding any doctrines that may exist. When confronted with a problem, I usually just sit and ponder instead of seeking the opinions of doctrines, which sometimes results in my reinventing the wheel, but saves me from being tangled in someone else’s mistakes.

Because rape is an external force imposing itself on another will, against its will. The woman isn’t making the best of a bad situation by choosing the best choice she has, but she’s frantically and futilely trying to escape, but to no avail. So if you assert that no external force can compel someone to do something against their will, then rape doesn’t exist.

Maybe you meant that no external force can cause another will to will something that it doesn’t want to will? Sure, I’ll agree with that. But you said “do” and not “will”.

So everyone is selfish? Yes, I agree. Everyone will always do what is best for them. Even god himself could not be immune. Any being could only do what’s in its best interest.

My pet died the other day. I didn’t want it to die and it didn’t want to die, but none of that mattered. I didn’t choose the lesser of two evils; I didn’t get an opportunity to choose anything, except to hold him until his heart stopped. So either that was a random event by an uncaring universe or the universe wanted it, the sadistic prick as it often chooses to present itself.

I started a thread about that viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193940

Michio Kaku gives his phd students the problem of calculating the probability that they will vanish and wind-up on the planet Mars.

There is also this video: youtube.com/watch?v=YM-uykVfq_E

Which shows how it’s possible (but not probable) for heat to flow from the cold object to the hot object.

Yes, any sort of firm, fated determinism would be refuted by probabilism. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there is anything you can do to prevent an outcome because there is still the possibility that you don’t exist.

That was Einstein’s idea, that there must be hidden variables determining outcomes that we haven’t become aware of yet. John Bell proved that wrong. There are no hidden variables determining outcomes. It’s not that we aren’t technologically savvy enough yet to find them, but it’s been proven that the hidden variables do not exist. That means at the fundamental level, events have no causes. Besides, if events did have causes, it wouldn’t be the fundamental level; we can’t have a first cause with prior causes. It makes no sense, but QM is THE most substantiated theory in all of science (specifically because it’s so crazy).

I wish I could find the motivation to write a book, but it seems I can only answer questions. I do for others more than I could do for myself. But I don’t know how to answer this question. How do I request a gift? I could only do so if the request itself were a gift to you, and if that be the case, then I’d be honored if you’d post them :slight_smile:

Since you’ve given me so much to read, I’ll ask you to listen to 1 min of video that sums my view of this philosophical problem:

Start at 41:47 until 42:32

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMROXyxpSE[/youtube]

It determines you and you determine it. Like the positive determines the negative and the negative determines the positive. Self determines other and other determines self; they’re two poles of the same magnet.

The debate will rage onward because people want to be different, distinct from everything else and that illusion (or delusion) is what makes life, life.

Yes because nothing is written in stone. Rewind the tape and play it again and he may choose something different, even though the choice was determined, but the determination was an outcome of random events.

It is. But surely you can see that if you were merely a cog in a machine that you’d have no consciousness of it. If every outcome were certain, then that’s a dumb mechanism. Intelligence is order, which is the opposite of disorder, so we can’t have order without disorder, and intelligence is manifested by randomness (disorder).

There is no “him”. There is only the one big event. He is a dimensionless line separating (joining) the ordered and disordered.

Yep, but I just posted that to illustrate the choice of choosing not to decide. As if we could sit there and refuse to make decisions and therefore resign from the game, but the decision not to decide was a choice. And it was a determined choice, but not pre-determined or a certain choice, but a probable choice. You’re either not seeing the difference in “certainty” and “probability” or else you’re equating them for reasons that I can’t get my head around. Anyway, we need to resolve this or else we’re destined (probably) to waste lots of time lol

Axiom: Anything can happen because there is nothing saying it can’t. Laws do not exist.

You could say logic dictates that ridiculous things cannot happen, but on whose authority is logic itself predicated? Who decreed that logic is the end-all objective authority determining what can and cannot happen? But if logic isn’t wielded by authority, then how could reason underpin it because how could logic underpin logic? If I know nothing of logic, could I come to a logical decision to seek logic? I’d already have to understand the thing that I’m seeking to learn, which isn’t logical.

And you continually seek refuge in empiricism but can’t empirically justify empiricism itself. Empiricism, like logic, is just another tool in the bag of contraptions, and the virtue of a tool is its specific use, which implies limitations. There is no tool that fits all screws and bolts.

Until you either internalize these points or bring your objection down to earth (in plain joe talk without being rooted in, stemming from, embedded in, and tangled up in all these obscure words you choose) such that I can get my head around it, we’re going to be like kids in the schoolyard saying 'tis, 'tisn’t, 'tis, 'tisn’t, 'tis, 'tisn’t," Which is fine too because if we ever agree, then what? :sad-bored:

We already know that everything we do is determined by laws over which we have no control, whether it’s conscious or subconscious. I am trying to explain what people do to excuse themselves, not that it could have been any different.

That is absolutely true! I am trying to show you what happens when we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, under changed conditions.

And this kind of free will doesn’t exist because we ARE bound by our biology and environment which drive our choices.

I am not talking about doctrines either, I’m offering a definition that reflects what is true (according to reality), nothing more, nothing less.

I wasn’t referring to an external force such as putting a gun to someone’s head. I am only using the term “external” (my fault for the confusion) to mean that NOTHING can compel a person to do what they don’t want to do. Because of the limitation of language it can be difficult to get across what is being conveyed. I hope you can see what I mean by “external” because there is really nothing to disagree with, when understood in context.

That is true, even if what someone believes is in his best interest is not what others believe is in his best interest. But let me clarify, this does not make anyone selfish in a cold sense. Selfishness (or the desire to do what is best for oneself) does not have to conflict with caring for others. This term has confused everyone.

Life IS what it is. You can rail against the laws of the universe all you want, but sadly people and animals die. I am only discussing the choices we do have that appear free, but are anything but.

Thank you for the link (I will check it out when I have time), but for the purposes of this thread what I am hoping to demonstrate is not only the proof that man’s will is not free, but when extended how this knowledge can prevent what none of us want (i.e., the conflict that leads to war, crime, and poverty). Please try to keep your eye on the ball.

There is also a probability that I’m a worm believing I’m a person. We have to start out with the belief (or idea) that we exist, and that we, as agents, make choices, otherwise, there is no way we can even begin to have a productive dialog. It’s up to you whether you want to scrap anything I’m saying because you can always come back with the retort “I don’t exist so no proof about anything can be certain.”

This is where my explanation is more accurate than the conventional definition. There is nothing in life that “causes” a particular response. Therefore, the idea of a first cause that goes back to prior causes is flawed in that we only have the present. Two plus two does not cause four. It is that already. How can the past “cause” anything in the present if there is no such thing as the past? Let me repeat: Nothing from the past (even if it’s a second ago) can “cause” me to act a certain way. My consent is required which involves my present state of mind and my available options as to what I consider the better choice. This is not trivial. Please hold off your judgment before you jump to another false conclusion.

Serendipper, it is wonderful that you contribute the way you do. Writing a book is not the end all unless you desire to put into words something you care about. I didn’t write this book, BTW. I compiled it. I will post the first three chapters. If you find anything compelling, I could offer you this as a gift (through Amazon) or you could pay $10, which is a drop in the bucket for a 600 page book that shows us another way, the only way to prevent the “evil” that has prevailed since time immemorial.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-1-13-2019-First-3-chapters.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0UeOCHD9XtMSZt1KZ870tYoLSg9Go37LfYt4Blmv3u1CKu_tQkenlw6ek

Faulty beliefs are not what makes life, life. It is true that all of our choices, whether positive or negative, have an influence on how we respond to life’s challenges. But the delusion that we have free will does not have to continue once we know for a fact that it is false. This new understanding will change many things for the better.

Serendipper : A will can be both free and unfree in the sense that some choices can be made while others cannot [ for whatever reason ]
It is therefore wrong to present the free will question in binary form between zero free will or absolute free will with nothing in between

peacegirl : if free will doesnt exist then how are we able to make any choices ?


I think that free will exists but with legal / moral / psychological / physical limitations so I am free to do anything that I can do and would want to do
I am also free to do anything that I can do but would not want to do but still do anyway [ usually because my moral / psychological resistance to do so
has been sufficiently compromised ] Also things can be done / not done that were later regretted [ for whatever reason ] and suggests that it matters
more than at the actual time the things in question were done / not done

Even if it could be objectively demonstrated that free will doesnt exist it would not affect me psychologically
as I have absolutely no problem in accepting any limitation that reality imposes upon me [ I am a pragmatist ]

Also once I am dead I will no longer be restricted by zero free will assuming it exists and so all of my current limitations will eventually pass
In the meantime I simply accept as much as possible all impositions with a neutral or detached mindset so that they do not really bother me

I can see that you didn’t read the first three chapters carefully, or at all. You are using the word “free” in a different context than what is meant by freedom of the will. Obviously, we are free to choose one thing over another, but we are not free to choose the option that gives us the least satisfaction, which renders the least satisfying choice at that moment in time (among the available options that are being considered) an impossibility.

[i]The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’
This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative.

[/i]______________________________________

This hindsight recognition only shows that we are constantly re-evaluating our choices and trying to make better ones the next time a similar situation presents itself. This does not take away from the FACT that man’s will is not free to choose what gives him less satisfaction under the present conditions.

Well that’s a good thing. What I am showing is all about pragmatism, for the conditions that make it practical to fight, cause wars, create poverty, become very unpractical when we are shown a better way.

A big assumption on your part (which gets into fantasy thinking), number one; and number two, having free will would not free you from your limitations, whether physical, psychological, or any other way.

That’s good that you are neutral so as to create less stress on yourself. That being said, there is truth to be told. All of our limitations and freedoms (please don’t misinterpret how I’m using the word “freedoms”) will eventually pass because we we all will die, but what we leave behind will be part of the causal chain (please don’t misinterpret "causal chain to mean we have no choice because we are being forced to do what we may not want to do) of the next generation. Nothing we do or say therefore is unimportant in the scheme of life.

I agree but I would also say that one may consider choosing different options at different times before finally deciding upon one
I try to avoid being dogmatic where any choices are concerned and so prefer any decision arrived at to be as organic as possible
Unfortunately I am human and so have to operate from within a very restricted limitation but I am old and that helps very much

We are all restricted by the choices available to us. I can’t fly to Paris today because it’s not a choice that is possible. But deciding how I want to structure my day, I can choose to either go food shopping first and then visit a friend in the hospital, or visit a friend in the hospital and then go food shopping. Does that make sense? Obviously, some choices are more difficult to make while others don’t need that much consideration and can be more organic.

As a loner I do not give any time to those I leave behind because in my case there is no one
I have no idea what will happen after I die but what I do know is that I have no fear of death