That’s libertarianism. Are you a libertarian?
I have no idea. What’s a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?
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.
Of course I don’t beat my heart, but I do make choices.
If you don’t beat your heart, then who does?
Whatever force brought me into this world.
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?
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.”
Your reasoning is based on a definition of determinism that I am not using. We have to be on the same page for there to be effective communication.
Yes I agree. What is your definition?
I will give you the first three chapters of this book, If you request it, but I will give you the specific page that explains why the present definition is inadequate.
Just give me your definition instead of why other definitions are wrong. It would be easier and clearer.
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]
It is true that if we rewound the universe it would come out the same way, if it is true that man’s will is not free, but you are conflating different definitions which cause confusion. Determinism does not mean we have no say in our choices. It does not mean we are helpless robots. It does not mean we are not responsible for our actions. In fact, with a greater understanding we can see that it increases responsibility, the opposite of what many philosophers believe.
We can be determined by predetermined causes or we can be determined by probabilistic random causes. To me, either one qualifies as determinism, but usually the former is qualified as being “hard determinism” because there is no possible deviation from the path of unfolding events. If we type 1+1 into a calculator, we always get an output of 2 because it’s just a sequence of switches that always give the same result. But whether a photon travels through the left slit or right slit cannot be known until it happens. John Bell proved that there are no variables somehow hidden in the universe that determines which slit the photon will go through and it is actually a causeless event, so hard determinism is out. If the universe were rewound, it would almost certainly unfold differently.
Quantum mechanics (regardless of which theory; there are many) does not negate determinism on a macro human level. But remember, you are using, by definition, that which can never be reconciled, the way the definition is constructed.
Probabilism is determinism, but determined by random outcomes rather than certain ones.
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/
The problem is that the definition of determinism, as it is presently defined, is not accurate because it assumes that something is forcing us (like the domino effect) to do what we do, even if it’s against our will. That is where the “I” enters into the equation, for without the agent’s consent, we ARE puppets on a string, but this is not the definition I am bringing to the table.
Me neither, but although I’m free to choose chocolate or vanilla, I can’t choose whether I like chocolate or vanilla. The way I was fashioned determines which flavor I will freely choose. Since I didn’t make myself, I can’t control which I prefer.
We are not in disagreement here. You cannot control what you prefer any more than you can control what you don’t prefer. The problem is that philosophers actually think this ability to “freely” choose (without constraint of external force) grants us free will. It does not.
So it would seem.
So are you saying that we can’t allude to a cause for anything?
Cause influences effect because they are the same event. The cause side of it is just an arbitrary abstraction. If the big bang is the way it happened, then we are still the big bang coming on.
They ARE the same event if you want to look at it in that light, but that does mean that we should just sit back and not make choices.
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
Nice.
That’s called fatalism.
Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.
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.
Every moment the choice (the effect of the cause) is constantly at play. But the word “cause” is misleading for it assumes something external is making us do what we do, against our will, as if we play no part in decision making at all. That is not the determinism I am trying to communicate.
I’m not sure what you mean by determinism.
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]