Thank you for your response, but I’m not sure where this fits in to my previous post, other than to say that the doomsday clock is ticking, and that our intuition is trying to warn us of this impending doom. That’s why the knowledge I am presenting is so )timely.[/quote
And Thank You, for Your response, and again point to it as possibly the expected response to object, on some basis, and the disclaimer as to its essential utility within Your intent for this forum.
I did make room for this possibility, which in fact, appears unacknowledged.
In addition, the parting shot conveyed was the alternate to this possibility, that apart from this, would be greatful to hear the proposal out forward by the double invitation to new participation, one: by literally getting on board, and two: by getting informed as to the methodology by which certainty could be attained, esp. by careful reading of the first 2 pages.
For the above two reasons, it appears, even though Your response was adequate, it conveys a sense of limiting temporal space, of which Bergson speaks in relation to the authoritarian paternalism of panoptical reactive social psychology.
Again , this may be interpreted as some restraint on compatibility , or not, but for my part it does serve little to advance an illusory emergence based on pure imagination.
Therefore, I see no need to either dispense with it , or, embrace it as a qualification to expanding consciousness in other terms.
At any rate, I look forward to an actual beginning to the proposed way to deal with the nuclear management in ways You describe as a newer proposal.
I really was surprised to hear the interpretation of my query, as basically merely fixative recurring glance at the nuclear ‘doomsday’ clock, which fits in to the general discussion, , and how compatibility issues , can or need at all be factored in, especially in light of the disclaimer, into it.
This is especially of interest , because of the increasing and urgent need to correlate all formal factions within a more and more spectral and multi leveled expanding problem, not to mention those that substantially can have bearing on them from without .
I didn’t mean to say that your concerns don’t have merit, but that the knowledge I’m presenting solves these multi-level problems. No one seems that interested because they are skeptical, which is understandable. But skepticism shouldn’t prevent them from wanting to learn more.
…but I , we are very much interested, our veritable life may depend on it, Yours, mine, our kids, our communities and ways of life, forget my views which source from imagination, not mine, but from those archaic communes whose ethos develops from what Levi Strauss coins as based on a participation mystique, in addition to the facts people glean from serpent tongued institutions and political misadventurors and ego laden sceptical extremists! (To say the very least)
I am no such typical sceptic, assuredly.
At any rate, looking forward toward the spectral plan of development of Your thoughts, from imagination through symbol to actualization of outcome.
Hoping for no reoccurance to the 50’s ’ This is a test, only a test, in the event of a real nuclear emergency, please stay follow the directions…
Resume to tune in to Your regularly scheduled programming…
I posted the first three chapters but people seem reluctant to read what may be an investment of time without proof of benefit. I hope you take the time to read these chapters because they are the foundation for the rest of the book. If you feel it’s too long-winded, you can skip the introduction and go right to Chapter One. I have been explaining in this thread that although man’s will is not free, nothing can make him do anything against his will. These two principles (which are summarized at the end of Chapter One) are important to understand before moving to Chapter Two.
[i]Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled by his
nature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.
The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying.
For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another.
Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to.
Think about this
once again. 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? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.
This knowledge was not available before now and what is revealed
as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something
fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no
accident but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt
that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT
MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or
principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his
will because over this his nature allows absolute control, and that his
will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of
available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will
reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has
been made.[/i]
How, in a wholly determined universe, could I reach that juncture in my life where I either choose to try to convince you or not [as you try to convince me or not] and not choose only that which I was ever going to have chosen given the manner in which my brain/mind is just another inherent component of all that can ever be understood about existence itself?
No, it presupposes that any agent/entity [from subatomic particles to human beings to the multiverse] is quite the opposite of problematic. All is only as it was ever going to be given that all is only as it ever could have been.
As though my “relinquishing” is not in turn only as it ever must be. It’s just that when the agent/entity evolves into the human brain/mind it necessarily acquires a psychological component that predisposes it to think that it is choosing freely. Again, in the manner in which I construe a determined universe. When, in fact, “I” may not be wholly determined at all.
Unless, of course, the person in the present is considering only that which it was only ever able to consider. And then acting on that consideration in the only manner in which it was ever able to. Like imagining chess pieces with brains. They are aware of having moved as they do but they were never able to not move as they do.
He didn’t chose to be killed in the manner in which one chooses to be killed given some measure of human autonomy. In the latter instance he was able to choose not to be killed. Here in my view choice is circumscribed/circumvented by the components of my own argument: dasein, conflicting goods and political power. The assumption is that “I” has some capacity to choose freely but only as an existential contraption.
So Ghandi moved in the only direction that he was ever able to move. You call this him moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Why? Because that is the only reaction that you were ever able to have. This exchange is necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe and it embodies the “greater satisfaction” of both of us. But somehow you make it appear as though my reaction to all of this should be more in sync with your reaction. That somehow my missing your point is more egregious than you missing mine. Even though in choosing the points that we do we are necessarily in sync with our wholly determined existence. Necessarily in sync with whatever explains the existence of existence itself.
All I can do here is to appeal to others:
What really important point do I keep missing here? Assuming that we do live in a wholly determined universe. Which, from my frame of mind, assumes that I could never have not missed it.
Sigh…
I chose not to read it because I could never have chosen not to not read it. Not because others compelled me to not read it but because all of my choices must be in sync with the manner in which all matter necessarily unfolds [including my brain/mind] in a wholly determined universe.
Isn’t this why dualism has always been an important consideration in philosophy? How is the mind [or for some the soul] not just the brain?
Okay, but, if, one day, they are not freaked out, it is only because their new understanding was always going to be a part of a future that could only ever be. The past, present and future of “I” — how is it really different [for all practical purposes] from the past, present and future of those dominoes set up by an individual who was no less set up by the laws of nature. How [to nature] is “I” not just a thinking domino?
No, these things don’t have to continue. But in however they do continue it won’t be because of anything that you and I and others were able to freely choose to do. The dominoes toppling over onto each other may not make it to the end. A mistake in setting them up was made. But [per nature] the one setting them up was never able to not make that mistake. For both the dominoes and the one setting them up the past, present and future are what they are. What they were only ever going to be. The same with war. Any war.
No conflict and yet our reaction to these relationships are different. With respect to either an autonomous world or a wholly determined world. Yet both would seem to be subsumed only as they ever could have been in a determined world.
But: I could only have been satisfied in a determined universe. I have “absolute control” only in the sense that you were compelled by the laws of matter to say this. You could never have chosen freely not to say it. My mind was made up from the moment that existence itself began to unfold only as it ever could have given these laws of matter.
So, in some distant future that could only ever have been what it is, this new world will have progressed such that behaviors that you find unappealling will have given way to those behaviors that you do?
Is that actually what you are saying? Even though as this all unfolds “we, as agents, have no say in what we choose.”
Same thing tomorrow? next week? next month? next year? All the way up to the day we die? Nothing could have been done differently?
Back again to you insisting that, “nothing can force us to choose something we don’t want to choose.” And then you acknowledging that all that we come to want is all that we could only have come to want.
Unless I am misunderstanding how you connect the dots here. Given that somehow I had the capacity to not misunderstand this.
Well, if I did want to be right at all cost, I could never have not wanted to be. Right?
But my point is always that none of us have the capacity to claim that because none of us are able to demonstrate what actually is in fact right here going back to the explanation for existence itself.
We don’t even have the capacity to fully demonstrate that this exchange itself is unfolding either only as it ever could have or as we freely choose to twist and turn it.
Instead we have these arguments embedded tautologically in the assumptions we make about the definition and the meaning of words put in a particular order.
Sometimes this seems reasonable to me and sometimes it does not. The distinction I tend to focus on is the one between the either/or world and the is/ought world — in a No God world in which the assumption is made that I do have access to some measure of autonomy.
By defining determinism in this way, you are abdicating all responsibility for any choice made since, according to your definition, it’s not you doing the choosing; you’re just going along for the ride. Your definition of determinism differs from mine which is why we aren’t on the same page.
It’s not problematic in the sense that everything is mapped out the way it had to be mapped out, but it is problematic (which many philosophers worried about) in that a person could just excuse himself by saying, “I couldn’t help shooting that person because my will is not free.” That’s what Johnathon Schooler’s experiment tried to show when college students were told their will isn’t free. But there is an interesting take on this which needs explaining.
Maybe the idea that we have free will is because we have choice, and people don’t usually think beyond that unless they are interested in this topic and go deeper. Relinquishing the agent appears to be what you construe as determinism. I am saying that having agency does not negate determinism.
That is true, they would be aware of having moved as they did and that they were never able to NOT move as they did. But before a move is made, they have a choice. Compatibilists call this free will, which it is not. The word ‘choice’ though is misleading for it makes it appear that there is more than one possibility. In actuality, this is a delusion since the choice that is made (out of necessity) has to be the choice that gives greater satisfaction after all options are considered.
Gandhi was able to choose not to be killed (that was one of the choices available to him) but not at the cost of losing his freedom, and no ultimatum by his captors could make him do what he didn’t want to do when unafraid of death. I’m not sure where your comment regarding conflicting goods and political power comes into play. We know the capacity to choose freely is false even though it often appears as if we’re making a free choice.
Because I’m explaining a more accurate definition of determinism, and yes, it’s the only reaction that I was ever able to have.
I’m not missing your point, and I’m not saying one is more egregious than another. I’m saying one is more accurate. You cannot leave out the agent, and yet you obviously have no choice but to believe that agency equals free will. That is wrong and that is why my definition of “greater satisfaction” is a more accurate definition. Nothing can cause you to make the choices you make even in a wholly determined universe. You make the choices you make in the direction of greater preference or satisfaction based on the options under consideration, and yet still part of a wholly determined universe.
You have autonomy to do what you want to do, as long as your choices are not constrained by physical force. Even drug addicts are under a compulsion but they still have a choice to not take drugs, albeit difficult as we know it is to break an addiction. Having choice is what most people think free will to be. But, as we know, we don’t have a free choice to pick what is the least preferable among the alternatives that are under our present consideration.
How is having a “disposition for random acts of extreme violence” different from having a “predisposition” for the same? How wide is the gap here between them given this particular tendency? In a universe where human autonomy was actually able to be measured, a disposition/predisposition for acts of violence would be construed by me as an “existential contraption”.
But in a wholly determined universe there would seem to be no existential contraptions in the manner in which I construe them. There is only the contraption that is existence itself unfolding in its entirety only as it ever can.
In other words, anything that we come to know about the passions that we have is only that which we were ever going to know.
So, all of this speculation would in turn seem to be but one more necessary component of that.
You couldn’t conceive of an existential contraption on the same page, if seeking difference between disposition and predisposition. I hope to explain this .
A predisposition, once differentiated from merely a disposition, can not entail anything on the order of dispositing factors, dice they are not contraptions, other than natural ones.
However, natural phenomenon can not be the product of existential markers, by definition.
“…nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will.”
Yet, from my frame of mind, in a determined universe, everything compels us to do what we do.
In that everything in the universe is an inherent, necessary component of existence itself. In other words, if that is actually true.
“Blame” here is just another domino.
…and we want to be here only because we could never have not wanted to be here. Nothing escapes here. It is always everything that we think, feel, say and do.
And this [to me] is precisely the point that the free will folks will make. When you make it however I just get confused all over again.
Unlike the domino, the agent “I” chooses to topple over in behaving in particular ways. But like the domino, it topples over only as it ever and always must.
So, sure, if you focus on the word “choose” then “I” is clearly not a domino. But nothing changes. The reality that is existence unfolds for both the domino and “I” in the only way that was ever possible, permissible given a complete understanding of the laws of matter.
But how does he make a distinction between “I” and all of those components other than as he is compelled to? If nothing changes in his life because nothing was ever able to change what can ever really be more or less important?
But: How is further clarification not in the same boat as the previous clarification?
You say it is up to me but is it ever really up to me to choose not to be repetitive?
This all sort of reminds me of the arguments that religious folks make in regard to reconciling the free will of mere mortals with an omniscient God. God knows all but I am still free to do what I choose because once I do it I could never have chosen not to do it. Or something like that.
It’s all a world of words. I am still unable to connect the dots between them and the behaviors that I think I may or may not be free to choose.
Yet the dictionary lists the following synonyms for it: choice, free will, self-determination, volition
You are either making decisions that you could have chosen not to make or you aren’t.
I am making the only distinction that I was ever able to “choose” to make. In a determined universe.
I have a say the way tides have a say in rising and falling wholly in sync with the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon. Brain matter may extraordinary but it is no less in tune with the laws of matters.
Unlike the tides, I do something because I desire to do it. But I was never able to not desire to do it.
Justification is just another domino though. I can only justify or not justify that which the laws of matter propel me to. My “consent” is a given.
In a determined universe [as I understand it] “I” give consent in the manner in which the heart gives consent to beat. The brain is just another internal organ in a body that is just another component of existence unfolding.
Again, as though I am able to think this through…only this time I choose to understand your point.
Is that or is that not precisely the point that the free-will folks will make?
Until people learn that it isn’t useful. Then it won’t be just another domino.
We could never have not wanted to be here because it gave us greater satisfaction TO BE HERE. When the options provided to us give us a better choice than to be here, we will no longer choose to be here, in the direction of greater satisfaction.
There’s nothing to be confused about. It’s really rather simple but you’re making it confusing because you’re thinking that if we make choices as autonomous individuals (i.e., without external constraint), then that’s what free will is, but that’s not what free will is.
The only difference is that we, as humans, are able to contemplate before a choice is made. It doesn’t change the direction we must go, or the fact that life unfolds according to natural law.
Only that the “I” is the one that makes choices, which are based on all of the pros and cons being considered when making a choice. The “I” is different only in the sense that we are able to contemplate, ruminate, think ahead, etc. The “I” or “self” is still following its course as it unfolds and as it could ever be. But as we gain new knowledge, we can learn ways to stop the domino, so to speak, (e.g., the wars, the poverty, the crime, etc.) from knocking us down in ways that we don’t want and can prevent.
This is not about what is less or more important, right and wrong, good and bad intrinsically. This is about understanding our nature so that we can use it for our betterment, all in the direction of what must unfold necessarily since we are compelled to move toward what is better, not worse, for ourselves. If you had a choice, wouldn’t you choose joy over sorrow, peace over war, health over sickness, sustenance over poverty? If you could choose either/or, would you really be given a choice?
It is in the same boat, but sometimes it doesn’t become clear until further clarification is made. Haven’t you ever read a book a second time and got more out of it than the first time?
It is up to you, but only if you want to be less repetitive.
If you could never have chosen not to do it, where are you free? This has nothing to do with the kind of free will that religious folks believe we have. Remember, just because we aren’t constrained by external force doesn’t mean we aren’t compelled to choose only that option that is the most preferable given our particular circumstances. We’re all different to a degree so what you may find preferable may not be what I find preferable.
[i] The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point…he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?
“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or
bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is
remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case present
alternatives that affect choice.
“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”
“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.”
“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the
yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently, my
taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater
satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes
me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate
that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple —
I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”[/i]
The word free is misleading because everything we do we are compelled to do. Even scratching an itch, or changing position are all part of movement away from that which dissatisfies to a more satisfying position, which is life. We cannot move in a direction that is worse for ourselves [in our eyes] when a better option is available. Could you not satisfy an itch by scratching it in order to relieve the uncomfortable position you were in? Could you not change position when your arm falls asleep to relieve the uncomfortable position you are in? There’s only one direction we can go and only one choice is possible at any given moment in time. I’ll repeat this excerpt. Maybe you’ll get it this time or maybe you won’t. Whatever your response is could not have been any different.
[i]The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. 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.
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.[/i]
True, but I’m trying to help you understand why the word autonomy doesn’t give you free will so that maybe your question will be answered adequately.
Yes, and your choice not to do something (or do something against your will) is also wholly in sync with the laws of matter because you can’t be forced to do something you don’t want to do.
Just because I cannot be made to do
something against my will does not mean my will is free because my
desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free
choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did
it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually
did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me
no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”
You can say it is another domino as part of the unfolding, but when there is no justification for pulling the trigger, then we won’t be able to pull the trigger [as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction], which also becomes part of the unfolding.
Great! Then that means you understand the second principle, and we can move forward.
You can describe what’s happening any way you want. What matters is that your explanation using your terminology is the same as my explanation using my terminology.
You made an effort to listen to my point. I’m glad you understood it. Some people try to understand a point, but they can’t. It’s not of their choosing for if they could, they certainly would choose to understand.
Being able to choose to listen to my point may be what free-will folks think of as free will, but it is anything but as you and I well know.
From my frame of mind [given a wholly determined universe] we are not on the same page here and now because here and now we we never going to be.
If our brain is matter in sync with the laws that all other matter is in sync with then it is no less going along for the ride that is existence unfolding only as it ever can.
Like I was ever really free to choose another definition instead.
Thus…
A person could not freely choose to excuse or not to excuse herself about anything.
And in this experiment were any of the thoughts, feelings, utterances or actions of any of the participants ever able to be other than what they were?
Basdically, this part:
They go deeper or not only because they were not actually able to freely choose one or the other. The “choice” here is embedded psychologically in the illusion of autonomy. In the human brain, relinquishing or not is just another domino.
Our quandary in a nutshell? What compatibilists call free will they are no less compelled to call free will. But you seem to zero in on the fact that unlike the chess pieces they do choose – they do choose. Even though just as with chess pieces all of the moves that “I” make in the chess match were only ever going to be what they must be.
What freedom in a wholly determined universe? If human history involving the choices that Gandhi made was always going to unfold as in fact it did, Gandhi was not able to choose not to be killed.
Conflicting goods and political economy are relevant only in a world where human autonomy does in fact exist. There is no way [in a No God world] to determine if Gandhi’s cause was either inherently right or wrong. And, in the end, those who have the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors prevail.
As though your explanation here is any less determined than your reaction.
How can you call one frame of mind here more accurate when both frames of mind were only what they were ever able to be? If I cannot not leave out the agent, and you cannot not note here that I do, what on earth does “accuracy” really mean?
Again, one of us is missing something in the other’s argument. Not that we could ever have not missed it.
For all practical purposes, calling something that could only ever have been preferable or more satisfying to someone misses the most important point: that nothing actually changes out in the world of human interactions. They still unfold only as they ever could have.
But we are not able to freely consider and then to choose options. The autonomous aliens note that we do in fact choose our behaviors, but they are the only behaviors that we are able to choose. Whereas the aliens could have freely chosen not to watch us interact at all.
And if their bosses insisted that they were obligated to watch us, they could be held responsible for choosing not to.
Yes, that is exactly what seems reasonable to me.
Yes, but what does it mean to blame someone for pushing me if they were never able to not choose to push me? In a determined universe holding someone responsible would seem to be just another manifestation of that psychological freedom the human brain is able to propel us to believe is actually autonomy.
Political conflict is very different from, say, the conflict that unfolds in a sporting event. In the later there is clearly a winner or a loser. In the former there is only those able to enforce a particular assessment of any particular conflicting good. At least until philosophers are able to tell us how all rational men and women are obligated to behave.
And if all policies will unfold only as they ever could have what does it mean to call them better or worse?
If my thinking is only as it was ever able to be, that seems rather robotic to me. It’s just that nature itself programed my brain to sustain a thinking mind that is not in the least autonomous.
So we acquire knowledge that we were only ever going to acquire in order to change the trajectory of things that were only ever able to unfold as they do.
What difference does it make what I know here and now when what I finally do come to know is all that I was ever able to come to know?
And how is the feeling of “excitement” not just another manifestation of life on earth evolving into human brains able to feel excitement but not able to choose freely when and where to feel it. Or about what. Why does John feel excited about something that Jane views with dread? Did they freely choose any of this?
Either you or someone else will finally figure out a way to explain this gap between us.
This makes sense to me given my own rendition of determinism.
This part does not. You will show me only what you never able not to show me and I will react to that in the only manner that I was ever able to.
So, until the day I die, everything that I think, feel, say and do is already embedded in the laws of nature. Okay, so how are these factors not also embedded in it?
Like I could have freely chosen to take or not to take the horse to water any more than the horse could have freely chosen to drink or not to drink.
If the man is not free to make up his mind to either do or not to do something [or want to do or not to do something] this distinction makes no sense to me. At least not “for all practical purposes” in understanding human interactions. He must move in the direction of greater satisfaction and then when he does this somehow demonstrates his “absolute power” over…what exactly?
Nothing in his life could, is, or will be other than what it must be but…
So, according to your frame of mind, is this a fruitless discussion that will continue to go in circles?
I never said it was no less going along for the ride that is existence unfolding only as it ever can. I know you could never not have thought about what I’m saying any differently, but my reaction to you also couldn’t have been different either. We are both moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. So why do you keep repeating this, as if there is disagreement? I hope others come forward who show interest in what I’m trying to convey because you won’t let me move to Chapter Two, not literally, but because your questions compel me to answer them in the same repetitive way, all in sync with the laws of matter.
So because you were not free to choose another definition means anything other than what you did you could not not have done? I am not disputing that, but you won’t let me show you why the choice to steal in our present environment (although unfree) can be prevented when the environmental conditions are also altered in accordance and in sync with the laws of nature.
We both agree that nothing is freely chosen. Actually, under the changed conditions a person could not choose to excuse himself (for reasons you don’t understand because I haven’t been able to get that far), although that’s the problem many philosophers worry about. They believe that a person could misuse the knowledge of having no free will to his advantage. He could hurt someone and excuse himself by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will was not free to do otherwise.” Do you see the problem?
Of course not.
We actually do have choices. Are you saying that you don’t have a choice to be in this thread? Of course you have a choice. It’s just not a free one. The illusion is that superficially it appears that we can choose one thing over another EQUALLY, but this is impossible when there are meaningful differences. It could be a choice over what to eat for breakfast, or it could be a more significant choice such as what state to live in. Regardless of the seriousness of the choice, we are always choosing the option that gives us greater satisfaction.
They are no less compelled but that doesn’t make their definition of free will correct. Until they understand that there is a better way than to hold people responsible by defining the term “free” in a way that keeps the status quo of blame and punishment intact, then they will look no further (in accordance with the unfolding of natural law).
We make the chess moves, and all of the moves that “you” make in the chess match were only ever going to be what they must be AFTER THE CHOICE IS MADE.
You’re right, but that wasn’t the point being stressed. Nothing they did to him could force Gandhi, against his will, to surrender and be spared death when the choice to die rather than give up his freedom was the choice that gave him greater satisfaction.
Yes, those who are in power can enforce a particular set of behaviors, or they can make someone face the consequences. That’s the world we’re living in. But I’m not talking about the world we’re living in. I’m talking about a new world.
It isn’t any different, but my explaining a more accurate definition is important for the purposes of this thread.
There is no right and wrong when it comes to frames of mind.
You are missing a lot of my points, not that you could ever have not missed them.
Yes, but there is practicality in understanding how, with new knowledge, we can veer in a different direction all in sync with the unfolding of natural law.
That’s how free will works. It’s being held responsible for not doing what the bosses insisted they watch. Sounds like us on Earth.
There’s a difference. Brains can think; dominoes can’t.
I can be autonomous in my choice to go on my own path without help from others. This doesn’t grant me free will.
In total perspective they are not better or worse because everything unfolds according to natural law, but that being said there are policies that give more people sustenance and well-being than other policies.
That is a confusing word. As I wrote before, autonomy can mean doing things without the need for help from others. It does not mean free will.
Right.
That’s a fatalistic attitude. It makes a world of difference if what we do and come to know (although it was all that we were ever able to come to know) helps to make our lives better, more prosperous, and more peaceful.
No they did not, but the desire for happiness and a sense of well-being is common to most of humanity.
Or they won’t.
You’re getting warmer. What a thief may find preferable to steal in this world will be the least preferable choice in the new world. How this is accomplished I’m trying to explain.
We do have a say in what we choose but it has to be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This world of peace and brotherhood could not be accomplished if our will was free because we could choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available. But this is impossible.
I’m glad we’re in agreement.
I am trying to explain that changes in the environment will elicit changes in human conduct. Does that make sense?
“Embedded” implies that we have no say in the choices we make; it’s all done for us without our consent. It’s like saying, I may as well do nothing because my choices are already made for me. That’s fatalism, and not what this is about. Although our choices are not free, we get to decide which choice we find preferable based on our history, environment, heredity, our upbringing, our circumstances, etc.
True, but as I just explained, we have a choice to do or not do something. Once the choice is made (whatever choice that is), we could not have chosen otherwise.
Again, technically, in the manner in which a serious philosopher might approach these relationships, this may well be a brilliant observation. But given my own inclination to bring assessments of this sort out into the world of human interactions, I don’t really have a clue as to how it might be relevant.
So, in terms of disposition and predisposition [as you understand them], was there ever a possibility that you might have freely chosen 1] not to post what you did or 2] that, after thinking about it some more, you might have freely chosen to post something else altogether?
The point in this exchange that one of us keeps missing.
People cannot freely choose to learn that it isn’t helpful. In other words, what any particular individual either learns or does not learn here is necessarily included in the part about everything – everything – being determined.
But it could never have not wanted to give us greater satisfaction. Everything being determined leaves absolutely nothing out regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do. Perceived options would seem to be embedded in but the illusion of human autonomy.
Note to others:
Anyone here also not confused by the points she makes? I am myself compelled by the laws of matter [in a determined universe] to be confused by them, but somehow she makes it appear [to me] as though I am still responsible for being confused.
That, in other words, I could somehow choose of my own volition to think them through again and not be confused.
Instead, around and around we go:
Always the emphasis on choosing what we do. The fact of it as witnessed by the autonomous aliens. And not the fact that from their point of view we are really just “choosing” to do what we do.
And, in a determined universe, I do choose here. But only what I was ever going to choose. Only what I was ever able to choose. Whereas in an universe with some measure of human autonomy, the things we choose are [in my view] largely existential contraptions. Different things bring different people joy. Different people profit by or are killed in war. Wealth and poverty are intertwined in our global economy. Some are not able to choose health because they literally cannot afford to.
But I didn’t freely choose to read the book either the first time or the second. Clarification here [to me] is just another of nature’s dominoes. I didn’t read the book the second time and, of my own volition, garner new insights. These new insights were always going to be perceived by me the second time around.
But how are the things that I want not also inherently embedded in the fact that everything is determined? If in fact they are.
This sort of example makes a distinction that I am unable to grasp in a determined universe.
On the one hand, genetically, your body is allergic to red apples. That is clearly embedded in biological imperatives. It’s not like one day you decided to be allergic to them.
But the fact that you chose to eat one, discovered that you are allergic, and then chose not to eat them again is no less a sequence that is determined. The biological imperatives are entirely intertwined in everything that we choose. In that everything that we choose is wholly determined. It’s just that psycholoically we are hard-wired to make this distinction in the first place.
Biologically our greater satisfaction revolves around not eating red apples. But in choosing to eat or not eat them that is not less determined. In fact, for some, a greater satisfaction can revolve around choosing to die. So, they choose to eat a ton of red apples hoping that this kills them. But this too is no less determined.
But only to the extent it can be demonstrated that we do in fact live in a wholly determined universe.
So you are compelled to post this indicating one point of view, and I am compelled to read it reacting from a different point of view. Both choices reflecting that which our brains construe to be a “greater satisfaction” for each of us.
That’s not the point for me. The need to scratch an itch is embedded in the fact that biologically this happens to be what the evolution of life on earth has led to. Who actually knows what the first creature was who felt an itch. But the human brain is able to ponder it on a level that no other creature can. But: in pondering it [and scratching it] is there any capacity on the part of “I” to do so freely?
Does a mosquito freely choose to bite Jim prompting him to freely choose to scratch it? If, in a universe where everything is determined, how are these events the same or different. In particular, given that whatever the mosquito and Jim do they were always only going to do it.
I still recall the the time in Vietnam when I was retuning to our MACV from the B34 green berets camp and ran into a group of VC and/or NVA soldiers. I was just as few feet from them hiding behind a log when I had the mother of all itches. But all I could do was lie there motionless until they left. The urge to scratch became almost unbearable. But I just endured it given the possible consequences.
So, here, what was I freely in control of and what was only going to unfold as it ever could?
How is an assessment of this sort…
…relevant to my experience above?
Then back to this:
What I’m arguing is true, but…not quite. I think that you are compelled to help me understand the word autonomy in a wholly determined universe. Just as I am compelled to understand [react to] your help as I do.
But I still seem to be going about it the wrong way. I am not reacting to autonomy and free will as you do. And [apparently] it is more reasonable that I react to them as you do rather than that you react to them as I do.
Again, citing an example…
But how [here] are the laws of nature in compelling me to think, feel, say and do the things I do, not to be construed in turn as forcing me to do them?
Here and now, I think of that in this manner…
I was always going to pull the trigger. Period. There is no getting around the fact that, in a determined universe, the trigger would be pulled by me. We can go on and on in discussing things like satisfaction and justification and circumstances and motivation and intention, but…but the trigger was never not going to be pulled by me.
Only I am not at all convinced that the terminology used in my description comports with what is in fact true. I’m still no less inclined – intuitively? – to believe that human autonomy is a factor in the things that I think, feel, say and do. And, if that is the case, the crucial distinction I then make is between [u][b]I[/u][/b] in the either/or world and “i” in the is/ought world.
It’s missing because you don’t yet understand why blame is preventing the very thing that it is purporting to do.
True. The people who understand this discovery will unfreely choose to learn that it isn’t useful.
We have options that we consider on a daily basis, and we can do things autonomously and not have free will. This is just more of the same.
No iambiguous, some people won’t understand what I’m talking about. You may be one. I’m not blaming you for being confused.
I never said you could choose of your own volition to not be confused. If you’re confused it’s not of your own volition whatsoever. You can’t tell yourself to understand if you don’t. Volition only means you did the choosing. I went to the party of my own volition (of my own free will), nobody forced me to go.
There is nothing contradictory here.
You say nothing changes but it changes dramatically. Reality unfolds in the only way possible, but the trajectory changes when the environment changes, all in accordance and in sync with natural law, that is, if people understand the principles of this law and bring this knowledge to light. If not, then that also is according to the laws of nature. But, you need to remember that people move in the most satisfying direction, not in the least. When they learn there is a better way to control behavior to where no one will ever want to hurt another with a first blow, they will, by definition, want to create this kind of world if it is, in fact, capable of being created.
Choosing is not equivalent to autonomy, the way you are defining it. I may choose in the direction of greater satisfaction to be very dependent. I may choose to be independent because I find this more satisfying. But in terms of autonomy being defined as having free will, we don’t have this kind of autonomy.
That is true, but you did have and still have a choice every moment of time. The choice you make is the choice you could never not have made, but we don’t know what choice that will be until you make it.
Human autonomy or free will does not exist. It’s an existential contraption because people believe they have free choice when no one has the kind of autonomy where they could choose otherwise.
It was not of your own volition or free will. I tried to clarify the term “volition” to make you see that it is only a colloquial usage. It doesn’t mean you actually have this free will or volition.
The things you want ARE inherently embedded in the things you will ultimately choose in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Correct.
I don’t know if you understood the excerpt. The guy was trying to prove that he could move in the direction of dissatisfaction by eating the red apple that he was extremely allergic to, but in this example his choice to eat the red apple gave him greater satisfaction to prove his point. But his example failed the test. The conditions under which he would have normally eaten the yellow apple were changed by his desire to prove that he was not moving toward satisfaction when, in fact, he was.
Correct.
You don’t do anything freely as in “free will.”
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’
They are always going to do it, but there is a difference between a mosquito biting Jim (which doesn’t involve choosing) and Jim’s scratching it, which also doesn’t involve choosing to scratch the itch. He doesn’t think should I scratch or not scratch. He just scratches because he’s uncomfortable. He is moving from a dissatisfying position (itching) to a more satisfying position. Not all movements require contemplation yet still are in the direction of satisfaction. Mosquitoes don’t think about what they’re doing, they’re just following their nature.
It unfolded the way it could only have unfolded. You had an itch but you didn’t want to be seen, so you held back from scratching in an effort to be quiet, which gave you greater satisfaction than to be found out. In other words, it was the lesser of two evils (to endure the itch) than to be caught. It’s amazing what we can endure when the alternative is even worse.
I guess the word autonomy can be thought of in different ways. That’s why we have different definitions for the same word. If you’re using autonomy to mean free will, we don’t have autonomy just like we don’t have free will. It’s just a psychological thought process that makes us think we have it because it feels that we can choose one option or another with the same amount of compulsion.
I have a choice to help you or not help you. At this moment I choose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to help you, but I could change my mind if different reasons for not helping you come into play. The choice is still mine to make, and whatever that choice turns out to be, it is the choice had to be. If B (not helping you was an impossible choice under these circumstances), I was not free to choose A (helping you). But this only becomes an impossible choice after the choice is made, not before. Then you can say it was wholly determined. No one knows all of the factors that goes into a prediction as to how someone is going to react, but accurate prediction is not necessary to prove that will is not free.
According to my frame of mind, I have no way to ascertain this definitively. I merely make the assumption that in a wholly determined universe [as “I” understand it here and now], every thought, feeling, utterance and behavior on our part was/is/will be only what they could/can/will ever have been. And that would certainly include this exchange.
This computer technology that permits is to have this discussion doesn’t consciously choose to sustain it. It’s a piece of technology that was programed by someone consciously to sustain it. But: Was the programmer’s choice/“choice” not just a manifestation of nature having evolved into life having evolved into human brains that are in turn no less in sync with the laws of matter?
The mystery here is always matter as mind as matter. And how the dots are connected between that and the explanation for existence itself. Which, admittedly, I certainly have no capacity to grasp.
Thus:
How is this then “for all practical purposes” not you and I going around and around in circles? Up to this point in the exchange. By nature’s design though, not because of anything that we freely choose to do.
There you go again [from my frame of mind], asking me why I keep repeating something that I was never free to not repeat in the first place. I don’t let you move to chapter two because I was [again, up to this point in the exchange] never able to let you.
But: Who knows what nature has in store for the future of this exchange.
But: whatever that is it won’t be because of anything that you and I choose autonomously to do. Right?
Unless, of course, we really do have some measure of autonomy here. And I’m certainly willing to speculate that this is in fact the case. But how do I determine that beyond all doubt?
Misuse. Hurt. Choose. Believe. See. Excuse.
How are these not “action” words that you are compelled in a determined universe to put in this order? You typing them, me reading and reacting to them. Only as it ever could have been.
Of course of course not. And now we’re stuck again. But only because here and now we were never able not to be stuck. We can only hope that nature unfolds such that we are no longer stuck. Though even that will have nothing to do with anything that we freely choose to make us unstuck.
The circle again. The computer doesn’t consciously choose to sustain this thread, but, consciously, we do. But, as with the computer, we remain wholly in sync with the laws of nature.
And nature applauds us for choosing what she compels us to choose. Only nature here is embedded in the profoundest mystery of all: teleology.
Is there a “purpose” behind the laws of matter unfolding only as they ever can? Which most “choose” to call God?
Damned if I know.
The circle on steroids? They can only understand what they are compelled to understand but their understanding is wrong because it is not in snyc with what you were compelled to understand.
This is the part that [over and over again] I keep missing. You are pointing out something very profound here that keeps going over my head; or I am reacting to it in even more profoundly…and that keeps going over yours. The moves are always going to be what they could only ever have been, but unlike with the chess pieces themselves, I am conscious of having made them. Even more problematically, “I” am then able to delude myself into thinking that the moves were all entirely of my own volition.
Thus when we bring this down to earth…
You insist…
And I’m back to those autonomous aliens noting the history of our species unfolding and marveling at how most of us are able to convince ourselves that our own part in it was more or less thought through and acted out autonomously. Meanwhile “in reality” Gandhi and all of those folks around him were intertwined in the historical necessity of matter unfolding only as it ever could have down on earth.
Again: Entirely per nature’s design?
And yet over and again [from my frame of mind] your frame of mind seems to suggest that in not “choosing” to understand all of this as you do, I am the problem here.
This part…
Note to nature:
Help me to understand this as she does. Either that or help her to understand this as I do. Or, rather, as “I” “think” “I” “do” “here and now”.
No, it sounds like interactions in their own autonomous world. Down on earth bosses go about the business of being bosses autonomically, all the while convinced that they are freely choosing to do what they have come to think is the right thing [or the profitable thing] to do. Their entirely illusory freedom.
Then we [continue] to understand determinism in different ways. Fortunately, we can both note that [up to now] we were never really free to understand it in the same way. Instead, we “chose” to understand it in conflicting ways.
To wit:
Here it’s like we are circling the circle that we are going around and around in itself. You say “right” as though that explains…what exactly? It is certainly beyond my grasping. While never able not to be so.
Yes, the autonomous aliens note that the choices we make in our wholly determined segment of the universe do make our lives more or less better, prosperous and peaceful. But then they note that this has absolutely nothing to do with choices freely made. Instead, what we chose was in fact fated by the laws of nature.
Why? Because the evolution of matter on earth has culminated in human brains able to delude “I” into thinking it has some measure of autonomous control over these desires and feelings of well-being.
But only to the extent that matter unfolding into the future allows for this. The thief [here and now or there and then] is literally just along for the ride. Preferences are just more dominoes toppling over in the brains of those convinced that they are really choosing freely here. But that too is entirely of nature’s design.
We just don’t why that is the case if that is the case.
So, out in the world that we live in here and now, the struggle between those inclined toward captialism as the font of greater satisfaction, and those inclined toward socialism, reflects what exactly?
If all are embedded in a future that will unfold only as it ever could unfold, what does it really mean to speak of satisfaction when the sense of satisfaction embedded in conflicting goods here was only ever going to be what it was too?
Until we get to the actual existential implications of this when we choose our thoughts, feelings, utterances and behaviors. In my rendition everything – including the choices themselves – is wholly determined.
But I cannot even wholly determine if that itself is true. Then…
But you and I and all the rest of us here are inherently at one with this unfolding environment which is nature unfolding necessarily into a future that can only ever be given that time itself is but another manifestation of the laws of matter.
Nothing escapes it. Nothing transcends it.
No, to me, embedded suggests this: that “the say we have”, “the choices we make”, “the consent we give” is inherently, necessarily in sync with nature unfolding into the only future the laws of matter permit. Then we can get into a squabble over whether or not this is “fatalistic”.
Fatalism: “the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.”
Well, if the laws of nature propel all matter into a future that is necessarily in sync with these laws, and our brain is just another manifestation of this matter, how are our choices then not fated to be what they must be?
The factors that procede our choice make us choose what we do. So how is our permission to do something not but one of those factors in turn?
But we can’t not say that if in fact we do say that, right? Again, it would seem [to me] that in a wholly determined universe all of the factors in our brain and all of the factors out in the world come together to compel us to choose only that which we are “fated” to choose by the laws of matter.
I truly do appreciate your attempts to make me understand this, but it makes no sense to me given the manner in which I am trying to convey to you the manner in which I think of a wholly determined universe.
I don’t think she is saying that, at least not regarding learning to no longer blame.
Let’s say blame leads to more pain. Part of why we blame is to make things better. We can’t help but think that.
However, we might learn - be changed - by experience, over time, unfreely, to no longer blame, as some people already have.
That is a direction things might inevitably take. Bringing this up and communicating this would be one of the causes leadning to other people, unfreely, realizing this, especially when coupled with their experiences.
Determinism does not mean that organisms cannot learn or change. It simply means that their changing is determined.
For edification perhaps for the self, as opposed to others, there is merit to asking the question, as to how to makes sense out of the question, the statement:
How do determined acts result in ideas which induce self referential ideas of responsibility, through compatible epochs of free will?
Logically this apparent paradox is solvable by the inclusiveness of both : by the use of both: the rhetorical and the structural continuum as partial differentiated constructions. Structural and functional meaning evolves in conjunction as a result.
Peace Girl, a while ago I retracted my initial reactions, on realizing Your solution based upon the first two of Your suggestions, because I could not yet realize its non rhetorical structural signifiers, in addition struggling with clarity. I think I’m getting nearer, yet not yet in an ideal position regarding the same clarity. But its a step forward., worth noting.
