New Discovery

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Wed May 29, 2019 4:39 pm

promethean75 wrote:
So you responded to satisfy yourself? You still satisfied? Isn't that the opposite of what a wise man is?

So I'm curious, after you got the satisfaction, where did it go? Unless you're still satisfied? Is that enough?
Is wisdom satisfaction? Does it thrill you to believe you're correct?


let me do this one, peacegirl.

by 'toward greater satisfaction', it is meant that at the level of some function of some system, sustaining some degree of stasis is being attempted. 'satisfaction' is not merely 'what i like', but actions that avoid dissonance, disintegration and local entropy. for example, if joe chooses to do x, but is in doubt about him oughting (wait is oughting a word?) to do x, cognitive dissonance will result... but here's the kicker; this dissonance is not founded at the level of language or conscious thought, but in the very reasoning he's developed as a conditioned response to historically similar experiences which, in turn, were not products of his 'choice'. an entire series of habitual beliefs and certainties are accessed and processed at a neurological level during every individual decision to act... so satisfaction does not amount simply to 'well i think this would be the better thing to do', but instead inventories the motivation of a whole greater than the sum of its parts comprising a complete system... one which wants to sustain it's stasis.

the big mystery is, for instance, why does, say, the failure of certain neurotransmitters to be reabsorbed by uptake valves on the dendrites result in a feeling of 'whoa this is great'?

'toward greater satisfaction' presents the entire organism as one big hedonistic putz that even at an intellectual level is only striving to prevent dissonance from occurring. so all these wonderfully logic and rational arguments exist only for the sole purpose of preventing that lowest level of pain - the 'uh oh i'm wrong' - from happening to the organism. being wrong on a math problem is neuro-ontologically identical to bashing your shin on the front step... only it's a different kind of dissonance, a different kind of breaking of stasis.


So then what happens when you don’t care if you’re right or wrong? What if you have no attachment to caring about being right or wrong? Preventing pain? When pain is the only thing that is not temporary? How is that a useful purpose.. I understand it has a biological function and our knowing this offers a form of control, does it not? What is the point of knowledge or understanding then? If not a better point of being or controlling oneself more sufficiently?
Is there not one time where you choose the harder option and a not being satisfied biologically? Isn’t that how we learn?

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed May 29, 2019 5:55 pm

peacegirl wrote:
there is a better way even if the world as it stands is all that it can be at this time

There is always a better way but it can never reach a point of perfection because human beings are beyond that state
Gradual self improvement is therefore the best that we can do because that is simply how we develop as moral beings
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Wed May 29, 2019 6:39 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Artimas wrote:So you responded to satisfy yourself?


No, that's not what greater satisfaction means. I can't communicate with you if are determined to be right without proof and you are only here to defend your position, which is a joke.

Artimas wrote: You still satisfied? Isn't that the opposite of what a wise man is?

Let it go Artimas. You don't have a clue.

So I'm curious, after you got the satisfaction, where did it go? Unless you're still satisfied? Is that enough?
Is wisdom satisfaction? Does it thrill you to believe you're correct?


With all due respect, this thread is probably not for you because you came in too late.

Artimas wrote:Free will is the never ending cause and effect scenario(s) that one has the option of choosing. The present moment is a continuity of choice, which is an infinite string of options until dead.


It's fine to say you did something of your own free will if it means you had a choice (nothing was constraining you), but having a choice does not mean your will is actually free since you are compelled to move in a direction that you feel is the better choice in your eyes, not the worst.

Artimas wrote:Note, there is a beginning and an end, for cause and effect yes? So then where's the middle? You think you are caused? Have an effect then just die? Do we look like cells? Unconscious and not able to choose our purpose? The fact that we have options and cause and effect is observable should be enough to show you there is more at play than only that. Does a cell self destruct because they want to or do they function to keep the body alive? Do we self destruct or try to keep ourselves alive? I've seen both forms of self destruction in the case of humanity but not in cells. So then how can both exist if everything is managed by a system of cause and effect that isn't open to any sort of freedom? Which freedom would bring new. How did we evolve otherwise if no freedom or diverse multiplicity within cause and effect itself?


I have said over and over that cause and effect doesn't work when it comes to human choice. Nothing causes, so how can there be a direct effect?

Artimas wrote:I mean if that's how you wish to live your life, being an effect of others cause than so be it but in my life, I control my emotions to the best of my ability and I am not merely an effect to everything else's causing or effecting me. How? Understanding the role attachment plays to satisfaction or desire/instincts. Your argument for greater satisfaction is pointless due to satisfaction barely lasting a minute and if that's the case that you argue for your own satisfaction then you meet the quota of a fool and I am not calling you it, I am pointing out what is there according to Plato. It's only satisfying if you have attached yourself to an idea you defend. Attachment brings a bias, so how can you be clear in your thought, logically or reasonably rather, if biased toward an idea that is your own?


You are misunderstanding the meaning of "greater satisfaction." You are telling me I'm wrong because I have an attachment toward my idea. So if someone makes a genuine discovery, they can't be right because they're biased?

Artimas wrote:Why would a 'fool' -have- to say something? For their own satisfaction right?


Your interpretation is incorrect because you have neglected to understand what he means by greater satisfaction.

Artimas wrote:That means my response now will easily trigger you into responding because you will want a satisfaction from that addressing me, right? So tell me Peacegirl, how can I predict you if I am just an effect of cause or cause of effect, I don't need a free will to choose to respond to you directly? I can just observe and I am bound by a need to respond to you? So I'm curious how can I observe the system while being in the system? Does that mean a cell in our body can as well? How can I predict you by observing you and the system? It just happened? I didn't choose freely?

Are you claiming I do this for satisfaction as well?


Of course.

Artimas wrote: I could think of a million things I could be doing with my time 100x more satisfying and a quarter of those are probably sexual lmao.


Obviously not because you would do those things.

Artimas wrote: Wisdom is necessary to evolve, not because I wish to spend my life in the dark, learning through pain.


Are you saying the only way we can gain wisdom is through war, crime,and poverty? =;

Artimas wrote:Your satisfaction argument makes it seem like wisdom or pain is just a play jump house, a mockery. Wisdom and it's pursuit is no satisfying and easy task. No proof? What's society? Why isn't everyone doing philosophy actively then? If it's such a satisfying thing to pursue? Why and how are our achievements built off of suffering then? Fruits of labor aren’t made with being satisfied nor hope alone. It’s easy to say or think this /after/ the fact.


Once again, you have completely misunderstood what he meant by this word. How can I even begin to explain this knowledge when you didn't understand the first premise? Satisfaction does not mean pleasure or doing only those things that are easy to come by. A person may find greater satisfaction pursuing a difficult task that takes much sacrifice. You find greater satisfaction being here at this moment than being somewhere else, or you wouldn't be here.

Artimas wrote:So there's two or three possible choices or responses to me, I'll let you figure those out on your own, they should be as clear as day.
That wasn’t the definition of freewill, that’s why/how it is.
My definition for free will being self determinism is fucked up?

“1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.”


That is not how the word "free will" is defined. Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances, we CHDO (could have done otherwise), which is false.

Artimas wrote:A fate is only a fate by the choice of what one may value, whatever it may be that one picks. The only thing determinism has set in stone is genetics, which genetics aren’t the sole or even the main cause of personality and genes can also be altered by environment, which we can choose environment. How else did we breed the dog out of the wolf?


How we move about about this world is dependent on a combination of our genetics and environment. Environment plays a big role in how we interact with our world on a daily basis.

Artimas wrote:I’ll leave the thread, but not because you told me to, because arguing with logic bots is pointless.


I can tell you jumped into this thread without a shred of understanding as to what it's about.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Wed May 29, 2019 7:05 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
there is a better way even if the world as it stands is all that it can be at this time

There is always a better way but it can never reach a point of perfection because human beings are beyond that state
Gradual self improvement is therefore the best that we can do because that is simply how we develop as moral beings


If someone is suffering from hunger and steals from another, is he being immoral? IOW, if someone has been hurt, are they justified in striking back? Most children are constantly hurt by their parents, school, and society in general. Then when they explode in a murderous rage, we call them evil. It's true that not everyone with a difficult background murders, because each person's predispositions are different to a degree. These murderous rampages are just a symptom. Locking someone up (which may be necessary) doesn't get to the root cause and is bound to happen again and again, which we are now seeing.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 29, 2019 7:25 pm

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Above you pointed out that you had "chosen" to end this exchange. Now you have "chosen" to resume it.

So, did nature compel you to flip-flop here or were you in fact able to choose to "choose" to reverse yourself?


Nature didn't compel me to flip-flop as if it forced this on me, no.


From my frame of mind what you are doing here is making nature the equivalent of the man holding a gun to your head. Nature becomes the "external" force giving you no choice but to choose what it compels you to do. But nature and you are one and the same from my point of view. The laws of nature compel you to "choose" only what you must. Without actually holding a gun to your head. In fact, you, the man with the gun and nature are all seamlessly [re the laws of matter] of but one necessary unfolding reality.

iambiguous wrote:In other words, regarding the part I do not understand, what was unfolding inside your head before and then after these two "choices"? How is free will -- the lack of it -- understood by you in both instances?


peacegirl wrote: What was unfolding inside my head was before I said I was going to bow out was basically frustration with the lack of progress.


But how is this emotional state not in and of itself just another manifestation of nature embodied in your brain embodying the laws of matter.

peacegirl wrote: Haven't you ever said you were never going to do something again, and then you did it again?


Sure, but it still comes down to whether these flip-flops were ever actually something I was able to choose to make.

peacegirl wrote: I don't have identifiable reasons why I decided to post after I posted that I was bowing out. Maybe I felt more relaxed and at that moment I changed my mind when you were the only one posting. Maybe I saw something in your post that I wanted to respond to. We can change our mind up to the very last instant before we make a choice.


What if the alleged identifiable reason [not able to be substantiated by any of us] was embedded in the laws of matter? You change your mind at the last minute because [and only because] nature compelled you to.

peacegirl wrote: Saying I appreciate something does not reflect the sort of thing that would be raised by those who just believe in free will. I can still say "I appreciate" without turning it into language that I can't use.


iambiguous wrote:But how are these words not in turn just more of the same: the embodiment of nature compelling you to "choose" them. How is your expression of appreciation different from how a free will advocate would encompass it? The inflection [to me] is basically the same.


peacegirl wrote: A libertarian would think I had a choice, where I know I didn't. It's not about the inflection, it's about the underlying belief system.


Or: A libertarian would be compelled by nature to think you had a choice. His/her underlying belief system would be just like yours: entirely natural.

iambiguous wrote:Also, I have no clear understanding at all of what particular point nature has compelled you to make. As usual [with you and the author] it's just words defining, then giving meaning to, then defending more words.


peacegirl wrote: Nature hasn't compelled me to choose something; nature has compelled me to desire to choose something.


Exactly: Before, during and after a choice that you make, "I" is compelled by nature. You choose something precisely because nature has compelled you to desire to choose it.

iambiguous wrote:Only, sure, another part of "me" scoffs at this, convinced that, in a manner no one really understands fully, "I" am capable of choosing the words that I type. Even if I am compelled [by the laws of spelling] to chose particular sets of letters to comprise.


peacegirl wrote:You ARE capable of choosing the words that you type. Capability means you have the capacity to choose.


iambiguous wrote:Which just takes me back to the distinction made between "choosing" words and choosing words.


peacegirl wrote: We can't "choose" words that are not part of our repertoire. If every move we make is not done of our own free will, and every thought is not done of our own free will, we have no choice in anything we do. Contemplation is also part of the causal chain, which moves us in only one direction.


Now it's "repertoire". Another word you were compelled to choose to confuse me. Thus moving this exchange along in the only possible direction it can go.

peacegirl wrote:A lot of it is repetitive and we just don't see eye to eye.


peacegirl wrote: Once you make a choice you are responsible for that choice. Most choices are benign. It only becomes a problem when your choices impinge on others.


iambiguous wrote:Or: Once I am compelled by nature to choose the one behavior that is in sync with nature's inherent laws, my "reponsibility" [perceived by both myself and others] becomes just another necessary manifestion of reality unfolding only as it ever could have.


peacegirl wrote: That's perfectly fine to say, although "your responsibility perceived by others" is a judgment that will not occur under the changed conditions.


How can our reaction to anything not occur but only as it must if the changed conditions themselves occur only as they must?

peacegirl wrote: I can't blame you for neglecting to read the first three chapters and acting like you know what it's about. It doesn't mean I have to like your accusations.


iambiguous wrote:Again, I am compelled by nature to ask: What choice do you have in reacting as you do other than in how nature compels you to? Instead, you settle for this mysterious "choice" that your own particular "I" has in the moment before the choice that you make is finally understood by you to be the embodiment of no free will.


peacegirl wrote: No, you are misunderstanding.


Or: I am compelled by nature to only misunderstand.

peacegirl wrote: Before you do something that requires serious thought, you contemplate, right? There is no mysterious "I" that comes to a decision. All I am saying is that this law prevents the act of crime BEFORE it takes place, not AFTER. Why? After contemplating should I rob this person or not, for example, the desire to rob will be less satisfying than not to. If this person chooses not to rob, do we need to do those things that were required in a free will society such as incarcerate, rehabilitate, punish, seek justice and recompense?


Until you can explain to me how human contemplation before, during and after a choice to rob someone is not at one [from start to finish] with the laws of matter themselves you lose me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed May 29, 2019 8:37 pm

peacegirl wrote:
If someone is suffering from hunger and steals from another is he being immoral? IOW if someone has been hurt are they justified in striking back? Most children are constantly hurt by their parents school and society in general. Then when they explode in a murderous rage we call them evil. It is true that not everyone with a difficult background murders because each persons predispositions are different to a degree. These murderous rampages are just a symptom. Locking someone up (which may be necessary) doesnt get to the root cause and is bound to happen again and again

Stealing to eat is not immoral because food is a necessity not a luxury
Striking back when attacked is only moral when self defence is needed

Parents and teachers are no longer allowed to hit children but in my day they were and both hit me

Evil is a way of separating the most immoral from everyone else although given the acts that it describes it is understandable why the term is used
But when it is tolerated by the masses even though it may be initially perpetrated by one individual it becomes more acceptable - it becomes banal

Most psychopaths probably dont murder as most non psychopaths dont too
But you are far more disposed towards it if you happen to be a psychopath

Sometimes it is not psychopathy but something else entirely - anger - jealousy - lust - greed - revenge
Unlike psychopathy these other traits exist within the general population so are impossible to contain
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 29, 2019 8:45 pm

iambiguous wrote:They can't of their own free will choose to read his book, but it clearly seems to exasperate you to no end that many of us here don't "choose" to read it.


peacegirl wrote: Of course I'm exasperated! Imagine how Edison felt when no one listened because they thought he was a goofball until he was able to prove that he was right during the short time he had a window of opportunity.


Or: Of course because of course you were compelled to be.

And Edison was in fact able to demonstrate that the things he invented/discovered were in fact in sync with the laws of matter.

But: How might he have gone about demonstrating that he was not compelled by nature to invent these things involving precisely the sequence of choices he made? That, in fact, he invented them of his own free will.

iambiguous wrote:So, in terms of an actual context preciptating actual choices precipitating actual behaviors, show me where/how the author has demonstrated empirically that someone wanting to do something is not in turn just a necessary adjunct of his or her brain complying with the laws of matter.


peacegirl wrote: It is a necessary adjunct of her brain complying with the laws of matter. No one is saying any different iambiguous.


Right. Until we get to the "for all practical purposes" implications of that pertaining to an actual choice that she makes. Then this choice that the free will folks embrace becomes this "choice" that you advocate instead.

iambiguous wrote: ...note just one example of where the author his demonstrated that his discoveries are on par with the manner in which folks like Edison and Einstein demonstrated both the use value and the exchange value of their own discoveries.


peacegirl wrote: He demonstrated the value of this discovery in that it changes the entire landscape of human relations for the better. You won't read the book, so there's nothing I can do. Others will read it.


In other words, nature compels you not to demonstrate this at all. Instead, nature compels me to insist that this is just another example of you wiggling out of not noting an example of this.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:You claim this...


peacegirl wrote:Chapter Three gives a clear demonstration of how this law works when applied to the environment.


peacegirl wrote: It does.


But then when I ask for the demonstration...

iambiguous wrote: Sum up the manner in which this is demonstrated. Note an argument that is free of the mere assumptions he makes, of the definitions that others must first agree to accept.


We get this...

peacegirl wrote: There are no assumptions. That's what makes me recognize how off you are in your reasoning.


Wiggle. Wiggle. Wiggle.

That's how nature has compelled me to react.

Always and ever you insist that I must "choose" to read the book that [up until now] nature has in fact compelled me not to read!

On the other hand, one day nature may well compel you to "spoon feed" his demonstrations to me and "progress" will then have been compelled in turn.

peacegirl wrote: You keep saying this discovery has no foundation without understanding what is behind existence itself, which is not true.


And then this [again]:

iambiguous wrote:In my view, only someone very, very naive could possibly believe this. Or are wholly compelled by nature to believe it.

This part:

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the existence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christian beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.


How is this not applicable to your claim about the discovery in the context of all that can be known about existence itself?


peacegirl wrote: It's not relevant. I know that one plus one is two. I don't need to know if this math works in theoretical multiverses.


My point summarily dismissed by something as substantiveless as this.

I am only compelled [once again] to ask why you avoid addressing this more in depth.

Or, if we do possess some measure of autonomy, not compelled. Just curious.

peacegirl wrote: If something was necessary for the application of these principles to work on our planet, then it would be necessary to know what that something is. But we have enough knowledge without having to know every detail about existence itself in order for it to work.


iambiguous wrote:This is really all you have to fall back on, isn't it? You simply keep repeating the mantra that the author doesn't need to close that staggering gap between what he thinks he knows about free will among the human species here on planet Earth and how the existence of Earth itself somehow fits into staggering enormity of the task involved in grappling with an understanding of our own existence in what may be a multiverse encompassing an infinite number of universes.


peacegirl wrote: Do we need to know that two plus two equals four may be three in a different multiverse? Does it matter to our understanding of mathematics here on Earth which provides the building block for every architectural structure that's ever been built?


You must know that this is just more wiggling around addressing my point here. You're only hope in my view is that you really are compelled by nature to respond here as you do.

You keep insisting that you are not an objectivist here. And I keep insisting that this is only because nature has compelled you to insist this. That in a wholly determined universe someone calling you an objectivist and you claiming not to be one is all necessarily embedded in our only possible reality.

peacegirl wrote: I, as the agent, said I was bowing out because it's my preference --- in the direction of greater satisfaction --- when I can't make any headway. Your posts are also way too long. Maybe if you break them up, I'll reconsider. I realize I didn't bow out yet. I took the time to respond to this post.


iambiguous wrote:Over and over and over and over again: precisely the sort of observations and suggestions I would expect from someone who believed that their preferences and the direction that their sense of satisfaction goes in, was embodied in an agency embodied in at least some measure of free will.


peacegirl wrote: You are very confused here. Agency does not mean you have any measure of free will. It's nonexistent, a mirage.


Why don't we just let nature decide which of us is more confused here. :wink:

iambiguous wrote:Always you want it both ways. You topple over only as nature compels you to, but unlike the domino it is absolutely vital for you to believe that you participate in "choosing" to. Nothing at all changes in terms of what you must think, feel, say and do...but at least nature has evolved for you into an "I" that does "choose".


peacegirl wrote: I do participate in choosing. God doesn't choose for me. Nature doesn't choose for me. I choose, although the word choice, once again, is misleading because we don't ever have a real choice.


Unless, of course, there is God and He created nature. That is, before He created us to be a part of it. Then things get particularly complicated. How can mere mortals ever have free will if an omniscient God knows everything? So, on top of being compelled by the laws of nature to do only what we must, we are compelled in turn by an omniscient God to do only what He already knows we must.

In any event, you insist here that you choose but it is not a real choice. Again, what on Earth can that possibly mean?

You know, for all practical purposes.

iambiguous wrote:It doesn't work that way for me. Instead, it is only profoundly mysterious. How can mindless matter evolve over billions of years into a lifeform possessing a brain possessing a mind culminating in a self-conscious "I" wholly in sync with the laws of matter and be able to actually grasp that!!


peacegirl wrote: It has done just that.


How? Why? Well, don't expect that to be covered by the author. That part is inherently irrelevant to his discovery.

iambiguous wrote:The hard guys are, of course, groping and grappling to understand that experientially, experimentally, scientifically, empirically, materially, phenomonologically, etc.. Their discoveries are not predicated solely on intellectually self-serving assumptions and defintions.


peacegirl wrote: Off the wall comment that I know you couldn't help articulating. :-k


Note to others:

You think? Just an "off the wall" comment? Excused by her because, well, I couldn't help but articulate it.

Which ironically is my point!


Nothing can be "off the wall" in nature if nature and its laws encompass everything there is.

Though my point here still being just an existential leap I have taken given what "here and now" I happen to believe going all the back to all the things I still don't know about existence itself.

iambiguous wrote:Consider:

The Boeing 737 is made up of 367,000 parts. And not a one of them chooses a damn thing.

The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons. And each of them works in sync with all of the others to embody an "I". But how [in tandem] do they encompass an "I" that either does or does not possess the will to choose freely among options?

No doubt about it, the parts of an airplane were thought up and assembled by the parts of our own brains. But the distinction between not choosing, choosing and "choosing" here is far, far, far, far from being wholly understood, settled.


peacegirl wrote: There is a lot of unknowns, but you can't clump everything together and just say nothing is settled when much is settled. It boils down to what you want to believe.


That's just what objectivists do though. They clump together their own intellectual assumptions and definitions and say everything [that is important to them] is settled despite what may well be a staggering amount of knowledge that they don't know about existence itself.

The idea being that as long as what they believe in their head is true sustains at least some measure of comfort and consolation, fuck all that other stuff. Their own particular "I" is grounded in one or another TOE. If that works, why not just let it keep on working.

As for shortening my posts, how have they ever not matched the length of yours?

Still, let's at least pin this down, right?

Again, as though the length at which we "choose" to post here is not in turn only the length that nature has compelled us to post.

Oh, but you're not blaming me here are you?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Wed May 29, 2019 9:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Above you pointed out that you had "chosen" to end this exchange. Now you have "chosen" to resume it.

So, did nature compel you to flip-flop here or were you in fact able to choose to "choose" to reverse yourself?


Nature didn't compel me to flip-flop as if it forced this on me, no.


From my frame of mind what you are doing here is making nature the equivalent of the man holding a gun to your head. Nature becomes the "external" force giving you no choice but to choose what it compels you to do. But nature and you are one and the same from my point of view. The laws of nature compel you to "choose" only what you must. Without actually holding a gun to your head. In fact, you, the man with the gun and nature are all seamlessly [re the laws of matter] of but one necessary unfolding reality.


You're right, in either situation the choice you make is a compulsion over which you have no control. The situation where the person is holding a gun to your head is obviously more dire, but the same law applies.

iambiguous wrote:In other words, regarding the part I do not understand, what was unfolding inside your head before and then after these two "choices"? How is free will -- the lack of it -- understood by you in both instances?


peacegirl wrote: What was unfolding inside my head was before I said I was going to bow out was basically frustration with the lack of progress.


iambiguous wrote:But how is this emotional state not in and of itself just another manifestation of nature embodied in your brain embodying the laws of matter.


No one said it wasn't iambiguous. Each and every moment we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. It gave me greater satisfaction to say I was bowing out based on my thought process at that moment. Each moment offers us a new set of alternatives.

peacegirl wrote: Haven't you ever said you were never going to do something again, and then you did it again?


iambiguous wrote:Sure, but it still comes down to whether these flip-flops were ever actually something I was able to choose to make.


You really didn't have a choice since the word implies you could have done otherwise, which we know is impossible.

peacegirl wrote: I don't have identifiable reasons why I decided to post after I posted that I was bowing out. Maybe I felt more relaxed and at that moment I changed my mind when you were the only one posting. Maybe I saw something in your post that I wanted to respond to. We can change our mind up to the very last instant before we make a choice.


iambiguous wrote:What if the alleged identifiable reason [not able to be substantiated by any of us] was embedded in the laws of matter? You change your mind at the last minute because [and only because] nature compelled you to.


You may not know the reason. We often just do what our desires dictate us to do. There could be subconscious factors. It's all part of the brain doing what it must.

peacegirl wrote: Saying I appreciate something does not reflect the sort of thing that would be raised by those who just believe in free will. I can still say "I appreciate" without turning it into language that I can't use.


iambiguous wrote:But how are these words not in turn just more of the same: the embodiment of nature compelling you to "choose" them. How is your expression of appreciation different from how a free will advocate would encompass it? The inflection [to me] is basically the same.


peacegirl wrote: A libertarian would think I had a choice, where I know I didn't. It's not about the inflection, it's about the underlying belief system.


iambiguous wrote:Or: A libertarian would be compelled by nature to think you had a choice. His/her underlying belief system would be just like yours: entirely natural.


Libertarians believe that you made a choice that you didn't have to make because you were free to choose otherwise.

iambiguous wrote:Also, I have no clear understanding at all of what particular point nature has compelled you to make. As usual [with you and the author] it's just words defining, then giving meaning to, then defending more words.


peacegirl wrote: Nature hasn't compelled me to choose something; nature has compelled me to desire to choose something.


iamiguous wrote:Exactly: Before, during and after a choice that you make, "I" is compelled by nature. You choose something precisely because nature has compelled you to desire to choose it.


Correct.

iambiguous wrote:Only, sure, another part of "me" scoffs at this, convinced that, in a manner no one really understands fully, "I" am capable of choosing the words that I type. Even if I am compelled [by the laws of spelling] to chose particular sets of letters to comprise.


peacegirl wrote:You ARE capable of choosing the words that you type. Capability means you have the capacity to choose.


iambiguous wrote:Which just takes me back to the distinction made between "choosing" words and choosing words.


peacegirl wrote: We can't "choose" words that are not part of our repertoire. If every move we make is not done of our own free will, and every thought is not done of our own free will, we have no choice in anything we do. Contemplation is also part of the causal chain, which moves us in only one direction.


iambiguous wrote:Now it's "repertoire". Another word you were compelled to choose to confuse me. Thus moving this exchange along in the only possible direction it can go.


I'm not sure why that would confuse you. We can only make choices based on the options that we have at our disposal. How can we choose what is not in our repertoire of options?

peacegirl wrote:A lot of it is repetitive and we just don't see eye to eye.


peacegirl wrote: Once you make a choice you are responsible for that choice. Most choices are benign. It only becomes a problem when your choices impinge on others.


iambiguous wrote:Or: Once I am compelled by nature to choose the one behavior that is in sync with nature's inherent laws, my "reponsibility" [perceived by both myself and others] becomes just another necessary manifestion of reality unfolding only as it ever could have.


peacegirl wrote: That's perfectly fine to say, although "your responsibility perceived by others" is a judgment that will not occur under the changed conditions.


iambiguous wrote:How can our reaction to anything not occur but only as it must if the changed conditions themselves occur only as they must?


You are absolutely right. Our reaction to anything can only occur as it must. It's all beyond our control.

peacegirl wrote: I can't blame you for neglecting to read the first three chapters and acting like you know what it's about. It doesn't mean I have to like your accusations.


iambiguous wrote:Again, I am compelled by nature to ask: What choice do you have in reacting as you do other than in how nature compels you to? Instead, you settle for this mysterious "choice" that your own particular "I" has in the moment before the choice that you make is finally understood by you to be the embodiment of no free will.


peacegirl wrote: No, you are misunderstanding.


iambiguous wrote:Or: I am compelled by nature to only misunderstand.


Right, I'm just pointing it out as I must.

peacegirl wrote: Before you do something that requires serious thought, you contemplate, right? There is no mysterious "I" that comes to a decision. All I am saying is that this law prevents the act of crime BEFORE it takes place, not AFTER. Why? After contemplating should I rob this person or not, for example, the desire to rob will be less satisfying than not to. If this person chooses not to rob, do we need to do those things that were required in a free will society such as incarcerate, rehabilitate, punish, seek justice and recompense?


iambiguous wrote:Until you can explain to me how human contemplation before, during and after a choice to rob someone is not at one [from start to finish] with the laws of matter themselves you lose me.


There is no difference. The only thing that changes is the input which alters the output in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Wed May 29, 2019 9:28 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
If someone is suffering from hunger and steals from another is he being immoral? IOW if someone has been hurt are they justified in striking back? Most children are constantly hurt by their parents school and society in general. Then when they explode in a murderous rage we call them evil. It is true that not everyone with a difficult background murders because each persons predispositions are different to a degree. These murderous rampages are just a symptom. Locking someone up (which may be necessary) doesnt get to the root cause and is bound to happen again and again

Stealing to eat is not immoral because food is a necessity not a luxury
Striking back when attacked is only moral when self defence is needed


This tells us that we are hurt in some way and feel justified in what we're about to do.

surreptitious75 wrote:Parents and teachers are no longer allowed to hit children but in my day they were and both hit me


Times are a changin. :) Punishment was often used to embarrass the student. Cruel!

surreptitious75 wrote:Evil is a way of separating the most immoral from everyone else although given the acts that it describes it is understandable why the term is used
But when it is tolerated by the masses even though it may be initially perpetrated by one individual it becomes more acceptable - it becomes banal.


But evil really is not evil when seen in total perspective, which means that no one is actually evil. They are doing what their nature dictates they must do. But even with this given, we can change the outcome if we are able to change the environment which created these individuals.

surreptitious75 wrote:Most psychopaths probably dont murder as most non psychopaths dont too
But you are far more disposed towards it if you happen to be a psychopath


Somewhere along the line, the environment allowed the psychopathic personality to develop. A child isn't born a psychopath but may have a predisposition for becoming one if it's a perfect storm of nature and nurture, or lack thereof.

surreptitious75 wrote:Sometimes it is not psychopathy but something else entirely - anger - jealousy - lust - greed - revenge
Unlike psychopathy these other traits exist within the general population so are impossible to contain


We can't always predict who is going to act out their emotions, but in the new world anger, jealousy, lust, greed, revenge will be easily contained because they won't exist within the general population.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Wed May 29, 2019 11:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:They can't of their own free will choose to read his book, but it clearly seems to exasperate you to no end that many of us here don't "choose" to read it.


peacegirl wrote: Of course I'm exasperated! Imagine how Edison felt when no one listened because they thought he was a goofball until he was able to prove that he was right during the short time he had a window of opportunity.


iambiguous wrote:Or: Of course because of course you were compelled to be.

And Edison was in fact able to demonstrate that the things he invented/discovered were in fact in sync with the laws of matter.


This, too, can be demonstrated on a smaller scale, but if the principles are sound we could set up the Great Transition and based on the accuracy of the blueprint we would have no doubt it would work, just like we would know before a bridge was built that it would hold up, if the architecture was sound.

iambiguous wrote:But: How might he have gone about demonstrating that he was not compelled by nature to invent these things involving precisely the sequence of choices he made? That, in fact, he invented them of his own free will.


He could not have demonstrated that he was not compelled, because he was. But that wasn't his discovery. It probably didn't occur to him that he made his discoveries that were not made of his own free will.

iambiguous wrote:So, in terms of an actual context preciptating actual choices precipitating actual behaviors, show me where/how the author has demonstrated empirically that someone wanting to do something is not in turn just a necessary adjunct of his or her brain complying with the laws of matter.


peacegirl wrote: It is a necessary adjunct of her brain complying with the laws of matter. No one is saying any different iambiguous.


iambiguous wrote:Right. Until we get to the "for all practical purposes" implications of that pertaining to an actual choice that she makes. Then this choice that the free will folks embrace becomes this "choice" that you advocate instead.


This has nothing to do what the free will folks advocate. This isn't about what anyone advocates.

iambiguous wrote: ...note just one example of where the author his demonstrated that his discoveries are on par with the manner in which folks like Edison and Einstein demonstrated both the use value and the exchange value of their own discoveries.


peacegirl wrote: He demonstrated the value of this discovery in that it changes the entire landscape of human relations for the better. You won't read the book, so there's nothing I can do. Others will read it.


iambiguous wrote:In other words, nature compels you not to demonstrate this at all. Instead, nature compels me to insist that this is just another example of you wiggling out of not noting an example of this.


The book is filled with examples. I'm not wiggling out of anything.

iambiguous wrote:Thus...

You claim this...

peacegirl wrote:Chapter Three gives a clear demonstration of how this law works when applied to the environment.


iambiguous wrote:But then when I ask for the demonstration...

Sum up the manner in which this is demonstrated. Note an argument that is free of the mere assumptions he makes, of the definitions that others must first agree to accept.


You believe the law of greater satisfaction is an assumption. It's not. Neither is the fact that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do. Those are the two principles that lead to the two-sided equation, and both are sound. If they don't understand the proof that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives, which is why man's will is not free, it will be difficult for me to show them how this law works in real life.

iambiguous wrote:We get this...

peacegirl wrote:There are no assumptions. That's what makes me recognize how off you are in your reasoning.


iambiguous wrote:Wiggle. Wiggle. Wiggle.

That's how nature has compelled me to react.


I'm not wiggling.

iambiguous wrote:Always and ever you insist that I must "choose" to read the book that [up until now] nature has in fact compelled me not to read!


Because, for whatever reason, you don't want to.

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, one day nature may well compel you to "spoon feed" his demonstrations to me and "progress" will then have been compelled in turn.


The book needs to be read in a step by step fashion. Stepping out of the order in which it was written to explain a chapter without having a basic understanding of the first two, is problematic.

peacegirl wrote: You keep saying this discovery has no foundation without understanding what is behind existence itself, which is not true.


iambiguous wrote:And then this [again]:

In my view, only someone very, very naive could possibly believe this. Or are wholly compelled by nature to believe it.

This part:

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the existence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christian beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.


How is this not applicable to your claim about the discovery in the context of all that can be known about existence itself?


It has nothing to do with naivety, it has everything to do with astute observation. Again...

It's not relevant. I know that one plus one is two. I don't need to know if this math works in theoretical multiverses.

iambiguous wrote:My point summarily dismissed by something as substantiveless as this.

I am only compelled [once again] to ask why you avoid addressing this more in depth.


It's irrelevant. Did Edison have to know about multiverses and what's behind existence itself to make his discoveries? Maybe light bulbs wouldn't work in another universe. So what.

iambiguous wrote:Or, if we do possess some measure of autonomy, not compelled. Just curious


It's been proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that we don't have free will.

peacegirl wrote: If something was necessary for the application of these principles to work on our planet, then it would be necessary to know what that something is. But we have enough knowledge without having to know every detail about existence itself in order for it to work.


iambiguous wrote:This is really all you have to fall back on, isn't it? You simply keep repeating the mantra that the author doesn't need to close that staggering gap between what he thinks he knows about free will among the human species here on planet Earth and how the existence of Earth itself somehow fits into staggering enormity of the task involved in grappling with an understanding of our own existence in what may be a multiverse encompassing an infinite number of universes.


peacegirl wrote: Do we need to know that two plus two equals four may be three in a different multiverse? Does it matter to our understanding of mathematics here on Earth which provides the building block for every architectural structure that's ever been built?


iambiguous wrote:You must know that this is just more wiggling around addressing my point here. You're only hope in my view is that you really are compelled by nature to respond here as you do.


Then I don't understand your question.

iambiguous wrote:You keep insisting that you are not an objectivist here. And I keep insisting that this is only because nature has compelled you to insist this. That in a wholly determined universe someone calling you an objectivist and you claiming not to be one is all necessarily embedded in our only possible reality.


That is what had to take place and I still say I'm not an objectivist. My response is all necessarily embedded in our only possible reality.

peacegirl wrote: I, as the agent, said I was bowing out because it's my preference --- in the direction of greater satisfaction --- when I can't make any headway. Your posts are also way too long. Maybe if you break them up, I'll reconsider. I realize I didn't bow out yet. I took the time to respond to this post.


iambiguous wrote:Over and over and over and over again: precisely the sort of observations and suggestions I would expect from someone who believed that their preferences and the direction that their sense of satisfaction goes in, was embodied in an agency embodied in at least some measure of free will.


peacegirl wrote: You are very confused here. Agency does not mean you have any measure of free will. It's nonexistent, a mirage.


iambiguous wrote:Why don't we just let nature decide which of us is more confused here. :wink:


Nature can't decide. We decide, as part of nature's law.

iambiguous wrote:Always you want it both ways. You topple over only as nature compels you to, but unlike the domino it is absolutely vital for you to believe that you participate in "choosing" to. Nothing at all changes in terms of what you must think, feel, say and do...but at least nature has evolved for you into an "I" that does "choose".


peacegirl wrote: I do participate in choosing. God doesn't choose for me. Nature doesn't choose for me. I choose, although the word choice, once again, is misleading because we don't ever have a real choice.


iambiguous wrote:Unless, of course, there is God and He created nature. That is, before He created us to be a part of it. Then things get particularly complicated. How can mere mortals ever have free will if an omniscient God knows everything? So, on top of being compelled by the laws of nature to do only what we must, we are compelled in turn by an omniscient God to do only what He already knows we must.


True. :-k

iambiguous wrote:In any event, you insist here that you choose but it is not a real choice. Again, what on Earth can that possibly mean?


Having options, but only ever being able to pick one of them, renders all other options that were not picked an impossibility, thus proving that free choice (or free will) is an illusion.

iambiguous wrote:You know, for all practical purposes.

It doesn't work that way for me. Instead, it is only profoundly mysterious. How can mindless matter evolve over billions of years into a lifeform possessing a brain possessing a mind culminating in a self-conscious "I" wholly in sync with the laws of matter and be able to actually grasp that!!


To think that man has evolved into a species that is self-conscious and says "I" to distinguish himself from others yet still be in sync with nature's deterministic law of greater satisfaction is quite amazing!

peacegirl wrote: It has done just that.


iambiguous wrote:How? Why? Well, don't expect that to be covered by the author. That part is inherently irrelevant to his discovery./quote]

It's interesting to think about but it's not a prerequisite.

iambiguous wrote:The hard guys are, of course, groping and grappling to understand that experientially, experimentally, scientifically, empirically, materially, phenomonologically, etc.. Their discoveries are not predicated solely on intellectually self-serving assumptions and defintions.


peacegirl wrote:Off the wall comment that I know you couldn't help articulating. :-k


iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

You think? Just an "off the wall" comment? Excused by her because, well, I couldn't help but articulate it.

Which ironically is my point!

Nothing can be "off the wall" in nature if nature and its laws encompass everything there is.


Nothing is "off the wall" when you are looking at life in total perspective, but at the same time the phrase "off the wall" can be used as defined in the dictionary. I can point these things out in a conversation and be very much in sync with the law of greater satisfaction.
OFF THE WALL | meaning in the

Cambridge English Dictionary
dictionary.cambridge.org/.../english/off-the-wall
off the wall definition: 1. surprising and unusual: 2. strange or very different, often intentionally:


iambiguous wrote:Though my point here still being just an existential leap I have taken given what "here and now" I happen to believe going all the back to all the things I still don't know about existence itself.

Consider:

The Boeing 737 is made up of 367,000 parts. And not a one of them chooses a damn thing.

The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons. And each of them works in sync with all of the others to embody an "I". But how [in tandem] do they encompass an "I" that either does or does not possess the will to choose freely among options?

No doubt about it, the parts of an airplane were thought up and assembled by the parts of our own brains. But the distinction between not choosing, choosing and "choosing" here is far, far, far, far from being wholly understood, settled.


peacegirl wrote: There is a lot of unknowns, but you can't clump everything together and just say nothing is settled when much is settled. It boils down to what you want to believe.


iambiguous wrote:That's just what objectivists do though. They clump together their own intellectual assumptions and definitions and say everything [that is important to them] is settled despite what may well be a staggering amount of knowledge that they don't know about existence itself.


What assumptions did he make? That we move in the direction of greater satisfaction from a position of less satisfaction? Is it that you want to believe we have a little bit of free will which makes it hard to accept that the "I" is just another aspect of the law of matter that gives me no choice in anything I do, yet still gives me agency or responsibility for the choices I make? Like I said, who makes the choice other than ourselves? When you say nature made me pull the trigger, it's misleading because nature doesn't have the power to make you do anything. A more accurate way of saying the same thing is: I wanted to pull the trigger because if I hadn't it could have put me in more danger.

iambiguous wrote:The idea being that as long as what they believe in their head is true sustains at least some measure of comfort and consolation, fuck all that other stuff. Their own particular "I" is grounded in one or another TOE. If that works, why not just let it keep on working.


There you go again, making the biggest assumption of all; that this is just a belief in my head.

iambiguous wrote:As for shortening my posts, how have they ever not matched the length of yours?

Still, let's at least pin this down, right?

Again, as though the length at which we "choose" to post here is not in turn only the length that nature has compelled us to post.

Oh, but you're not blaming me here are you?


I'm not blaming you. I am not sure how these posts got so long (not anyone's) but it's taking up too much time. Maybe we can break them into two or three posts. It would be easier on the eyes.
Last edited by peacegirl on Wed May 29, 2019 11:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Wed May 29, 2019 11:42 pm

peacegirl wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Artimas wrote:So you responded to satisfy yourself?


No, that's not what greater satisfaction means. I can't communicate with you if are determined to be right without proof and you are only here to defend your position, which is a joke.

Artimas wrote: You still satisfied? Isn't that the opposite of what a wise man is?

Let it go Artimas. You don't have a clue.

So I'm curious, after you got the satisfaction, where did it go? Unless you're still satisfied? Is that enough?
Is wisdom satisfaction? Does it thrill you to believe you're correct?


With all due respect, this thread is probably not for you because you came in too late.

Artimas wrote:Free will is the never ending cause and effect scenario(s) that one has the option of choosing. The present moment is a continuity of choice, which is an infinite string of options until dead.


It's fine to say you did something of your own free will if it means you had a choice (nothing was constraining you), but having a choice does not mean your will is actually free since you are compelled to move in a direction that you feel is the better choice in your eyes, not the worst.

Artimas wrote:Note, there is a beginning and an end, for cause and effect yes? So then where's the middle? You think you are caused? Have an effect then just die? Do we look like cells? Unconscious and not able to choose our purpose? The fact that we have options and cause and effect is observable should be enough to show you there is more at play than only that. Does a cell self destruct because they want to or do they function to keep the body alive? Do we self destruct or try to keep ourselves alive? I've seen both forms of self destruction in the case of humanity but not in cells. So then how can both exist if everything is managed by a system of cause and effect that isn't open to any sort of freedom? Which freedom would bring new. How did we evolve otherwise if no freedom or diverse multiplicity within cause and effect itself?


I have said over and over that cause and effect doesn't work when it comes to human choice. Nothing causes, so how can there be a direct effect?

Artimas wrote:I mean if that's how you wish to live your life, being an effect of others cause than so be it but in my life, I control my emotions to the best of my ability and I am not merely an effect to everything else's causing or effecting me. How? Understanding the role attachment plays to satisfaction or desire/instincts. Your argument for greater satisfaction is pointless due to satisfaction barely lasting a minute and if that's the case that you argue for your own satisfaction then you meet the quota of a fool and I am not calling you it, I am pointing out what is there according to Plato. It's only satisfying if you have attached yourself to an idea you defend. Attachment brings a bias, so how can you be clear in your thought, logically or reasonably rather, if biased toward an idea that is your own?


You are misunderstanding the meaning of "greater satisfaction." You are telling me I'm wrong because I have an attachment toward my idea. So if someone makes a genuine discovery, they can't be right because they're biased?

Artimas wrote:Why would a 'fool' -have- to say something? For their own satisfaction right?


Your interpretation is incorrect because you have neglected to understand what he means by greater satisfaction.

Artimas wrote:That means my response now will easily trigger you into responding because you will want a satisfaction from that addressing me, right? So tell me Peacegirl, how can I predict you if I am just an effect of cause or cause of effect, I don't need a free will to choose to respond to you directly? I can just observe and I am bound by a need to respond to you? So I'm curious how can I observe the system while being in the system? Does that mean a cell in our body can as well? How can I predict you by observing you and the system? It just happened? I didn't choose freely?

Are you claiming I do this for satisfaction as well?


Of course.

Artimas wrote: I could think of a million things I could be doing with my time 100x more satisfying and a quarter of those are probably sexual lmao.


Obviously not because you would do those things.

Artimas wrote: Wisdom is necessary to evolve, not because I wish to spend my life in the dark, learning through pain.


Are you saying the only way we can gain wisdom is through war, crime,and poverty? =;

Artimas wrote:Your satisfaction argument makes it seem like wisdom or pain is just a play jump house, a mockery. Wisdom and it's pursuit is no satisfying and easy task. No proof? What's society? Why isn't everyone doing philosophy actively then? If it's such a satisfying thing to pursue? Why and how are our achievements built off of suffering then? Fruits of labor aren’t made with being satisfied nor hope alone. It’s easy to say or think this /after/ the fact.


Once again, you have completely misunderstood what he meant by this word. How can I even begin to explain this knowledge when you didn't understand the first premise? Satisfaction does not mean pleasure or doing only those things that are easy to come by. A person may find greater satisfaction pursuing a difficult task that takes much sacrifice. You find greater satisfaction being here at this moment than being somewhere else, or you wouldn't be here.

Artimas wrote:So there's two or three possible choices or responses to me, I'll let you figure those out on your own, they should be as clear as day.
That wasn’t the definition of freewill, that’s why/how it is.
My definition for free will being self determinism is fucked up?

“1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.”


That is not how the word "free will" is defined. Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances, we CHDO (could have done otherwise), which is false.

Artimas wrote:A fate is only a fate by the choice of what one may value, whatever it may be that one picks. The only thing determinism has set in stone is genetics, which genetics aren’t the sole or even the main cause of personality and genes can also be altered by environment, which we can choose environment. How else did we breed the dog out of the wolf?


How we move about about this world is dependent on a combination of our genetics and environment. Environment plays a big role in how we interact with our world on a daily basis.

Artimas wrote:I’ll leave the thread, but not because you told me to, because arguing with logic bots is pointless.


I can tell you jumped into this thread without a shred of understanding as to what it's about.


My greater satisfaction is not a satisfaction for me.
It’s for you. So then what compels me? Talking about the same thing over and repeating the same points, is not satisfactory for me but it could be for you and it can be for others. There comes a point when repetition becomes NOT satisfactory, yet wisdom condemns one to its responsibilities. You think this isn’t true? Try doing the same thing for your entire life and tell me the grass doesn’t seem greener on the other side, this proves that your satisfaction talked about here, is -illusory-, temporary. And if you expect it then how can you be truly satisfied? Your argument has holes.

We don’t always pick a satisfactory path, it’s evident in society, people living miserable paths and then playing victim for it.

That definition of free will is not false, how is it false? Because it isn’t /your/ definition? Apparently it’s the agreed about definition because it’s on google, first page.

Ok and we choose environment, so what’s that say about us?

Nothing causes? What’s life, you know, that middle ground where we have a freedom to do what we wish or even what we don’t wish?

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 30, 2019 1:19 am

peacegirl wrote:
Artimas wrote:So you responded to satisfy yourself?


No, that's not what greater satisfaction means. I can't communicate with you if are determined to be right without proof and you are only here to defend your position, which is a joke.

Artimas wrote: You still satisfied? Isn't that the opposite of what a wise man is?

Let it go Artimas. You don't have a clue.

So I'm curious, after you got the satisfaction, where did it go? Unless you're still satisfied? Is that enough?
Is wisdom satisfaction? Does it thrill you to believe you're correct?


With all due respect, this thread is probably not for you because you came in too late.

Artimas wrote:Free will is the never ending cause and effect scenario(s) that one has the option of choosing. The present moment is a continuity of choice, which is an infinite string of options until dead.


It's fine to say you did something of your own free will if it means you had a choice (nothing was constraining you), but having a choice does not mean your will is actually free since you are compelled to move in a direction that you feel is the better choice in your eyes, not the worst.

Artimas wrote:Note, there is a beginning and an end, for cause and effect yes? So then where's the middle? You think you are caused? Have an effect then just die? Do we look like cells? Unconscious and not able to choose our purpose? The fact that we have options and cause and effect is observable should be enough to show you there is more at play than only that. Does a cell self destruct because they want to or do they function to keep the body alive? Do we self destruct or try to keep ourselves alive? I've seen both forms of self destruction in the case of humanity but not in cells. So then how can both exist if everything is managed by a system of cause and effect that isn't open to any sort of freedom? Which freedom would bring new. How did we evolve otherwise if no freedom or diverse multiplicity within cause and effect itself?


I have said over and over that cause and effect doesn't work when it comes to human choice. Nothing causes, so how can there be a direct effect?

Artimas wrote:I mean if that's how you wish to live your life, being an effect of others cause than so be it but in my life, I control my emotions to the best of my ability and I am not merely an effect to everything else's causing or effecting me. How? Understanding the role attachment plays to satisfaction or desire/instincts. Your argument for greater satisfaction is pointless due to satisfaction barely lasting a minute and if that's the case that you argue for your own satisfaction then you meet the quota of a fool and I am not calling you it, I am pointing out what is there according to Plato. It's only satisfying if you have attached yourself to an idea you defend. Attachment brings a bias, so how can you be clear in your thought, logically or reasonably rather, if biased toward an idea that is your own?


You are misunderstanding the meaning of "greater satisfaction." You are telling me I'm wrong because I have an attachment toward my idea. So if someone makes a genuine discovery, they can't be right because they're biased?

Artimas wrote:Why would a 'fool' -have- to say something? For their own satisfaction right?


Your interpretation is incorrect because you have neglected to understand what he means by greater satisfaction.

Artimas wrote:That means my response now will easily trigger you into responding because you will want a satisfaction from that addressing me, right? So tell me Peacegirl, how can I predict you if I am just an effect of cause or cause of effect, I don't need a free will to choose to respond to you directly? I can just observe and I am bound by a need to respond to you? So I'm curious how can I observe the system while being in the system? Does that mean a cell in our body can as well? How can I predict you by observing you and the system? It just happened? I didn't choose freely?

Are you claiming I do this for satisfaction as well?


Of course.

Artimas wrote: I could think of a million things I could be doing with my time 100x more satisfying and a quarter of those are probably sexual lmao.


Obviously not because you would do those things.

Artimas wrote: Wisdom is necessary to evolve, not because I wish to spend my life in the dark, learning through pain.


Are you saying the only way we can gain wisdom is through war, crime,and poverty? =;

Artimas wrote:Your satisfaction argument makes it seem like wisdom or pain is just a play jump house, a mockery. Wisdom and it's pursuit is no satisfying and easy task. No proof? What's society? Why isn't everyone doing philosophy actively then? If it's such a satisfying thing to pursue? Why and how are our achievements built off of suffering then? Fruits of labor aren’t made with being satisfied nor hope alone. It’s easy to say or think this /after/ the fact.


Once again, you have completely misunderstood what he meant by this word. How can I even begin to explain this knowledge when you didn't understand the first premise? Satisfaction does not mean pleasure or doing only those things that are easy to come by. A person may find greater satisfaction pursuing a difficult task that takes much sacrifice. You find greater satisfaction being here at this moment than being somewhere else, or you wouldn't be here.

Artimas wrote:So there's two or three possible choices or responses to me, I'll let you figure those out on your own, they should be as clear as day.
That wasn’t the definition of freewill, that’s why/how it is.
My definition for free will being self determinism is fucked up?

“1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.”


That is not how the word "free will" is defined. Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances, we CHDO (could have done otherwise), which is false.

Artimas wrote:A fate is only a fate by the choice of what one may value, whatever it may be that one picks. The only thing determinism has set in stone is genetics, which genetics aren’t the sole or even the main cause of personality and genes can also be altered by environment, which we can choose environment. How else did we breed the dog out of the wolf?


How we move about about this world is dependent on a combination of our genetics and environment. Environment plays a big role in how we interact with our world on a daily basis.

Artimas wrote:I’ll leave the thread, but not because you told me to, because arguing with logic bots is pointless.


Peacegirl: I can tell you jumped into this thread without a shred of understanding as to what it's about.

Artimas: My greater satisfaction is not a satisfaction for me.
It’s for you. So then what compels me? Talking about the same thing over and repeating the same points, is not satisfactory for me but it could be for you and it can be for others. There comes a point when repetition becomes NOT satisfactory, yet wisdom condemns one to its responsibilities. You think this isn’t true? Try doing the same thing for your entire life and tell me the grass doesn’t seem greener on the other side, this proves that your satisfaction talked about here, is -illusory-, temporary. And if you expect it then how can you be truly satisfied? Your argument has holes.

Peacegirl: The term”greater satisfaction” does not mean you are always satisfied. You don’t understand what it means.

Artimas: We don’t always pick a satisfactory path, it’s evident in society, people living miserable paths and then playing victim for it.

Peacegirl: Do you think they are responsible for what they couldn’t help doing?

Artimas: That definition of free will is not false, how is it false? Because it isn’t /your/ definition?

Peacegirl: It is not my definition. It is the definition that is used in regard to the free will/determinism debate. The pressing question is: Could a person have done otherwise. The answer is a categorical no.

Artimas: Apparently it’s the agreed about definition because it’s on google, first page.

Peacegirl: Free will means being able to choose other than what was chosen. Libertarians say, you didn’t have to do that! You could have chosen otherwise, therefore you are morally responsible!

Artimas: Ok and we choose environment, so what’s that say about us?

Peacegirl: We are usually born into a particular environment. No choice at all.

Artimas: Nothing causes? What’s life, you know, that middle ground where we have a freedom to do what we wish or even what we don’t wish?

Peacegirl: It is true the more options we have, the freer we feel, but that type of freedom is unrelated to the freedom of will we don’t have. Using different definitions can really create problems in a debate.
Last edited by peacegirl on Thu May 30, 2019 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Thu May 30, 2019 1:34 am

So then what happens when you don’t care if you’re right or wrong? What if you have no attachment to caring about being right or wrong?


what do you mean 'what happens'? oh you mean how can i be motivated to act 'toward greater satisfaction' if i'm not particularly concerned about being 'right'? okay, lemme give it a shot.

i don't care if mercury is the closest planet to the sun, so i wouldn't mind if i were wrong in believing it. this lack of caring is an expression of a motivation to act toward the greater satisfaction... the greater satisfaction here being the relief i experience in not feeling alarmed about believing and caring that mercury is closest to the sun, and incidentally being wrong about it. the lack of concern here is actually a gain of sorts. the position of mercury is one less thing i need to worry about being correct about.

on the other hand, i do care very much that the weather report is accurate because believing it, in the event that it turned out to be wrong, would prevent me from acting toward the greater satisfaction of being able to work.

in either case, both caring and not caring are implemented in the effort toward greater satisfaction.

Preventing pain?


one will willingly endure a degree of pain if they believe that in doing so, something will be gained that is worth the pain experienced. means justifying the ends stuff. so even here both subjecting oneself to, and avoiding, pain, is part of an effort toward greater satisfaction.

Is there not one time where you choose the harder option and a not being satisfied biologically? Isn’t that how we learn?


yeah nobody said the 'toward greater satisfaction' formula works only in physical terms, although i would argue that ultimately it must be reduced to physical terms once it is understood how the 'mind' works. even such crazy shit as kin altruism has biological explanations; e.g., a mother goes running into a burning building to save her kid. now there is no sign of immediate, physical gratification for the mother in something like this unless she is one helluva masochist. but it is still an act toward greater satisfaction. it satisfies by being qualified as the 'right' thing to do, given the nature of the mother's beliefs, feelings, emotions, what have you. and if this isn't enough, evolutionary psychologists would argue that this is a complex evolved behavior that serves the purpose of preserving some set of genes by sacrificing an old carrier for a younger carrier.

but you'll note that even while this isn't a strictly hedonistic imperative to act (serving to increase the immediate pleasure of the animal), it's still reducible to the physical in that the structures and processes in place that influence the commission of such an act... and such an idea that the act is 'good'... are not conceptual in content. that is to say, the desire and drive to commit such an act does not originate in the thought... rather the thought follows, post hoc, the effort toward greater satisfaction (which 'activates' conditioned behaviors, habits, desires, etc.), and then appears in consciousness as an illusory, voluntary choice after the fact.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Thu May 30, 2019 2:00 am

what would it mean to have freewill, but not 'absolute' freewill? would it be something like a cat being a mammal, but not absolutely a mammal? see where this is going?

a philosopher loves nothing more than playing around with the word 'absolute' so he can avoid being pinned down, absolutely. and yet no matter what he does with the word, he ends up either at nonsense or contradiction.

if you hand one of these turkeys the law of identity, he'll refuse to accept that A=A, but before he even finishes muttering his objection, he's already employed the law six or seven times in his argument. one example:

'yeah but everything changes so A is something else now'

let the value A = the proposition 'everything changes'.

no if the law of identity isn't true, i can disregard his argument, because it's an absolute statement about the nature of reality. so if he's right, he's wrong.

but nevermind all that. it gets even more technical when you get into nominalism and the problem of universals and all that crazy shit.

but for the freewillist, who is not the illest, ... what does he mean when he says 'i'm free but not absolutely'?

if he means he's free to stand up but not turn invisible, then he's right. but wait, he's not right, because ability has nothing to do with cause, with what compels one to exhibit an ability. wait didn't we already do this argument? i swear we did somewhere. let me think. yeah we did. i remember now. okay, carry on then. if the freewillists, who are not the illest, didn't get it the first time, they prolly won't get it this time.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu May 30, 2019 4:22 am

peacegirl wrote:
Nature cant decide. We decide as part of natures law

We are not outside of Nature but inside it - as everything is - so all our decisions are made from within
Its laws are therefore not something we have any control over so we have no choice but to follow them
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu May 30, 2019 4:46 am

iambiguous wrote:
Nothing can be off the wall in nature if nature and its laws encompass everything there is

There is nothing outside of Nature and anything that appears off the wall is due to us not understanding it very well
Everything within Nature has a perfectly rational explanation for it because that is how it works and it is all there is
This does not mean that everything will eventually be understood by us although knowledge does increase over time
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu May 30, 2019 5:12 am

peacegirl wrote:
Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances we CHDO (could have done otherwise) which is false

Two people entirely independent of each other are faced with exactly the same choice between two options [ A / B ]
Person A chooses option A and Person B chooses option B - what this demonstrates is that both options can be chosen
And another time they can choose the alternative option so Person A chooses option B and Person B chooses option A
So this disproves your claim - twice - that when the circumstances are repeated the option chosen is always the same
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Thu May 30, 2019 5:47 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances we CHDO (could have done otherwise) which is false

Two people entirely independent of each other are faced with exactly the same choice between two options [ A / B ]
Person A chooses option A and Person B chooses option B - what this demonstrates is that both options can be chosen
And another time they can choose the alternative option so Person A chooses option B and Person B chooses option A
So this disproves your claim - twice - that when the circumstances are repeated the option chosen is always the same


I’d say that argument for “could have” is ridiculous. They are essentially confining the present possibilities as a one option because that’s what an individual may pick, so basically they’re saying it’s determined and the present moment of continuity and choice/options doesn’t matter squat diddly because you’re going to choose what you’re going to choose and they can tell you that from a point of after you have already chosen, what a weak pathetic argument. I could have said differently, in fact I typed it out here then rewrote something else. Nothing is set in stone until /after/ the choice is made of which doesn’t /have/ to be bound to satisfaction or a choosing a path of lesser resistance. And even after, it may still not be set in stone.

I think history disagrees with their assessment of “could have done otherwise” that’s like, the entire point of history too, to prevent repetition. Which that same history reveals a long struggle of getting to where we are now, yet now we can easily wave our fingers in the air and declare the present satisfying after the fact, just know you are happy dancing on a pile of bones.
Last edited by Artimas on Thu May 30, 2019 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 30, 2019 8:17 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances we CHDO (could have done otherwise) which is false

Two people entirely independent of each other are faced with exactly the same choice between two options [ A / B ]
Person A chooses option A and Person B chooses option B - what this demonstrates is that both options can be chosen
And another time they can choose the alternative option so Person A chooses option B and Person B chooses option A
So this disproves your claim - twice - that when the circumstances are repeated the option chosen is always the same
You do realize that determinists think that different people do different things, right? You do realize that determinists realize that on different times, due to different causes being involved, the same person will do different things, and that none of this disproves determinism. All it does is point out that the specific entities involved at the specific moments in time are different. The causes are different, since we do not remain absolutely the same through time, nor are different people driven by the same set of internal and external causes.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu May 30, 2019 8:33 am

I accept all that but was just demonstrating the fact that free will exists before a decision cannot be changed at all
Up until then one is free to change their mind as many times as they want to - regardless of whether or not they do
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 30, 2019 9:46 am

surreptitious75 wrote:I accept all that but was just demonstrating the fact that free will exists before a decision cannot be changed at all
Up until then one is free to change their mind as many times as they want to - regardless of whether or not they do
And wouldn't all the reasons one would change one's mind be causes from one's personality and temperment and external factors? And wouldn't these be only those that are present in that moment before the act/choice?

Why would you change your mind?

Whatever the answer is is causes that are present - no other causes are present. One choice. At least you have not said anything that shows why this is not the case.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Thu May 30, 2019 3:04 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:I accept all that but was just demonstrating the fact that free will exists before a decision cannot be changed at all
Up until then one is free to change their mind as many times as they want to - regardless of whether or not they do
And wouldn't all the reasons one would change one's mind be causes from one's personality and temperment and external factors? And wouldn't these be only those that are present in that moment before the act/choice?

Why would you change your mind?

Whatever the answer is is causes that are present - no other causes are present. One choice. At least you have not said anything that shows why this is not the case.


Not if they don’t have any attachment to external factors and personality derives from environment as well as genes and we can choose environment.. so what’s that say?

It means we can be what we want and who we want by choice and consistency. Acquired tastes do exist.

So you’re saying I can’t choose option B after I have chosen option A? People do it all the time if they get bored or regret option B.

Sometimes what is necessary, is not what is satisfactory and this is a fact.

I view people as clay, especially children. Can shape them into what you want or you can let them shape themself. So tell me, how can someone, a child, shape themself by choice if they lack the experience before hand? You going to say it’s all genetics? Really genetics just dictate advantages and disadvantages, they don’t make up the whole sum of personality, so if a child chooses an environment and that environment shapes their personality, is that not a choice that they made to freely shape themself?

And if everyone starts off ignorant, no matter what path you pick to go to and fro, you will learn something. And if learning grants more available possibilities/options through pain and an understanding/acceptance, then is that not deterministic will freeing itself by the use of cause and effect or it’s own system, to grant more availability? IF they choose an environment they did not like by became like that environment, they can /sever/ attachment and leave that environment to consistently work on themselves to become different by another environment. People do it all the time. I think you lot have boiled semantics down way too far and call it philosophy, to be completely honest.

And peacegirl keeps saying “he” as if greater satisfaction is not her own theory or idea but then dictates it’s not what it means, which is exactly what I am doing, except I am going off my own logic and reason and ideas.. so could that not be considered appeal to authority?

But when I do this with the definition of freewill or religious text/mythology, I’m automatically wrong because i don’t appeal to any authority, right guys?

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 30, 2019 3:23 pm

:-?
surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances we CHDO (could have done otherwise) which is false

Two people entirely independent of each other are faced with exactly the same choice between two options [ A / B ]
Person A chooses option A and Person B chooses option B - what this demonstrates is that both options can be chosen
And another time they can choose the alternative option so Person A chooses option B and Person B chooses option A
So this disproves your claim - twice - that when the circumstances are repeated the option chosen is always the same


You have misunderstood. Every moment offers a new set of alternatives that affects choice, even if it's a moment later. But there is no way we can prove that a person could have chosen otherwise given the same exact same conditions that led him to making the choice he already made.

“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would appreciate
your opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s will is free?”

“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing
compels an individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers this
only because he wants to partake of this evil, not because something
is forcing him.”

“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more
alternatives when making a choice?”

“Absolutely; that bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the
bank, he wanted to do it.”

“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to
prove that which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”

“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?”

“No, it is not possible for me not to do what has already been done
because I have already done it.”

“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent
to asking is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer
to two plus two. Now if what has been done was the choosing of B
instead of A, is it possible not to choose B which has already been
chosen?”

“It is impossible, naturally.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of
mathematics, not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B
instead of A once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A
in this comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice
you must not choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“Again I must admit it is something impossible to do.”
“Yet in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the
impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has
already been done, and then show that A — with the conditions being
exactly the same — could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is
utterly impossible to reverse the order of time which is absolutely
necessary for mathematical proof, free will must always remain a
theory. The most you can say is that you believe the bank robber had
a choice, but there is absolutely no way this can be proven.”

“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that
bank and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to do
what he did.”

“I’m not in the mood to argue that point but at least we have
arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable, for we have
just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any person to
prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is free yet a
moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that man’s will is
definitely free.”

“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the
consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”
“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following:
If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever
that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that
something false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that
it is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this was
a matter of opinion.”

“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false. Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing
your belief in free will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge
that, when released, can remove the very things you would like to rid
the world of, things you preach against such as war, crime, sin, hate,
discrimination, etc., what would you say then?”

“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s
ways are mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking
with you, son, and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will
be driven from our lives.”
Last edited by peacegirl on Thu May 30, 2019 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Thu May 30, 2019 3:27 pm

The way to prove it is psychological.. peacegirl... why do you think people go to therapy and psychologists? To see their options because they may not be fully aware of all of what they really do have. That’s proof of what you say can’t be proven. What a person “could” do. There is a choice to make. You can hastily make a choice or you can look at your available options. You’re lying to yourself If you don’t think you “could” choose other than what you have in your past present moments.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu May 30, 2019 3:32 pm

Hi peacegirl

AD: This is true in part. At the same time, peacegirl, might you admit that we have more choices than we actually take the time to "see"? We need to learn to think "out of the box".

PG: That may be true, and learning what those choices are may give people greater opportunity, but how does this challenge the fact that will is not free?


I understand that our thinking and our decisions are not free to a great extent. They can be bound up by all kinds of pre-determined realities but if you will begin with the letter A and proceed onward, can you not see that at some point in time along that journey, name your own letter, your thinking can and will eventually become based in reason and in what is the most practical outcome. From there, your OWN will takes over and all constraints melt away. What is left or may I say begun in that moment, is in a way, a tabula rasa of a human being.

These people had a burning desire and the determination that it took to survive, but they didn't do it of their own free will. All of the factors that made them who they are allowed them to get through the nightmare. None of this was done of their own free will.


Yes, I can of course agree with that - in part. The statement is obviously true but at the same time, there had to be some "defining" moments for some/many of them, moments when perhaps they experienced a particularly horrible scene (they all were) which made their "free" Self rise up thus motivating them to become more than "part and parcel" of who and what they were before, thereby becoming self-determined humans in the moment whose potential would become known in the future. I may not have expressed that well enough so that you would know what I mean.

Self-determined means they had free will, according to the dictionary definition. This is false because no one has free will.


I still think that you are throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Just like "love" to me is more a matter of "action", not just feelings, resolute, self-determination based on right conscious reasoning followed by action becomes free will. That might not make any sense to you.

And of the choices available, most are made consciously. What does this have to do with free will?


Putting that scenario aside, many do not make "conscious" choices. We make them on a whim, the ones which best suit our desire and our time-line, even though it is true that what we sow in haste, we shall reap at our leisure. When we have determined, through reflection and clear thinking what is the best possible outcome for something, that is exercising our free will, our autonomy.

Their choices were limited but they were able to think positively and gather as many resources as they could to try to beat the odds, but none of this was done of their own free will. They moved in this direction out of necessity and their desire to self-preserve, which was in the direction of greater satisfaction.


Leaves which blow in the wind and are carried here and there are not actually free. Their movements are not based in conscious thinking or decision making for their survival. They are not autonomous. They do not have the will to go their own way or to come to a halt when they feel like it. They are not capable of feeling like it. They do not have consciousness, mind, spirits or hearts with which to guide their existence.

So, are you saying that these people in the concentration camps were no better than leaves blowing in the wind simply because they were imprisoned? Are you actually saying that at no time did they experience the inner power to transform their selves and to make the decision to see their selves as human beings exercising free will?


They were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though their choices were extremely restricted. They were choosing the best survival strategies they could in order to stay alive in the hope that they soon would be rescued.


They were "consciously" moving in the direction of greater satisfaction....these were not random unconscious acts - they were "deliberate" - they knew or felt what it would pretty much take to survive. That does not speak to me of a lack of free will.
Yes, their lives were horribly in the hands of others but not necessarily their minds and their hearts. That is what determines the individual's inner freedom and freedom of the will.

You would say that because of certain conditions and circumstance within a person's life, there can be no free will. Every act has already been spoken for, decreed - like Judas Iscariot hanging himself because he felt that there was no other way, no other possible outcome. He could not envision otherwise but that does not mean that he could NOT if he had given himself the chance to re-think his options.

I would say that DESPITE these things, conditions and circumstances AND BECAUSE of these things, every act and decision performed can arise from a freedom of the will because so much had already been against the grain, in the tar pit, whatever. The way I look at it, the greater one's will has been restrained and undermined, the greater the power to Will freedom, upheaval and transcendence and to act on that.
History has shown that as much as it has shown the other.


...
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.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves.

The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a
discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did
what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this
demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not
be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.


The fact that you say "that to me is free will" shows me that you don't understand that this is not an opinion. Either we have free will or we don't.


How close either of us is to the truth I cannot say for sure. But I DO see both in a way as our own opinion, our own subjective thinking or perception. Many of us perceive things in one way and many of us in other ways. This is why I think that philosophy may never get to the end of this question. Is it supposed to? How can you be absolutely sure about this? Much in philosophy is supposition and theory, no?

We can't have both because they are opposites.


Why not? Human beings are highly complex creatures. Some of us see with tunnel vision and others with a more panoramic vision. Some of us have the ability to hold to separate thoughts about something in our minds at the same time and then come to the conclusion after investigation, whatever, that both can be part of the same truth.

Do you see opposites - as in light and dark, night and day, hot and cold, wet and dry, good and evil, joy and pain, et cetera? Or are you of one mind who gathers them into Oneness, wholeness. #-o That may not be a good example insofar as free will or not free will.

It is wonderful to be able to overcome adversity. The only thing I'm trying to explain is that whatever a person chooses, is in actuality not done of his own free will. He does what he can to make his life better if he is able. Both are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given their particular circumstances. Once again, the confusion over the meaning of terms is problematic. I see it over and over again.


Perhaps what philosophy needs to do then is to completely drop the word "free" from the situation. lol I think that I am only kidding here.

But that doesn't mean he is any freer (or that he could do otherwise) than a person who can't make his life better, for whatever reason.


The fact that he is able to transcend what the other person cannot shows me that there is more a sense of freedom and will power motivating him. This person made a conscious decision based on reflection and what is it Nietzsche said - turning everything upside down, inside out, this way and that way. Free will takes over in these instances - at least to me they do. We need to be able to see ourselves as being able to push through that locked box (bad example) and crawling out. If we cannot envision the box being opened, there cannot be free will.


I've said this before that it's okay to say I did this of my own free will, if it means I did something because I wanted to, but this doesn't mean your will is free in the sense that you could have done otherwise.


But this is where consciousness comes in for me. Examination/investigation of who we are and how we are influenced, considering all aspects of a situation, thinking ahead and asking how this or that choice might influence a conclusion - there is free will in that. There is no shabby thinking or being lead by patterns or triggers. The more grounded we are, the more conscious and self-aware we are, the freer our will and choices are. We are not leaves in the wind.

AD: “Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.”
― Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning


That there shows the potential for free will depending on which path an individual chooses to take. Either way, it is his choice. An individual either makes the movement toward transcendence and transformation or he stays in the quicksand.


PG: I think what he meant by that is that human beings can overcome many atrocities, and that we can stand up to our oppressors. He can also be encouraged not to give in or give up, which may help him to fight the good fight, but this does not mean he has ultimate control or can pull himself up by the bootstraps if he does not have the wherewithal to do so. As individuals we are doing the best we can given our life circumstances, which only means given the hand we've been dealt we try to make the best choice we can (in the direction of greater satisfaction), even if to others it is the worst choice.


Why does "the direction of greater satisfaction" have to be devoid of free will?


I'm only trying to define determinism in a way that reconciles what we do "of our own accord" with the fact that our will is not free so that I can show how this changes our world for the better.


I may be misunderstanding you here. This can lead to a real slippery slope I think.
This might not lead to a better world but one where people offer excuses for the horrible things which they do or think that they have a right to do because, well, after all, "there is no free will and I live in an already determined world. I am like the Borg. What could I have done."
But again I might be misunderstanding you here. Can you offer an example.


People often think determinism would reduce them to robots (which it doesn't), and why they resist the truth. Determinism hasn't shown how to overcome the problem of moral responsibility, which is what I'm trying to show.


How can your absolute thinking about there being no "free" will help the cause then?


AD:Carl Jung said: "Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do."

PG: Doing that which you must do is not free will. It's the compulsion to do that which you have no choice not doing.


This is just a suggestion. Maybe you can take Jung's advice and incorporate "gladly" into some of your decision-making and see what happens, how it makes you feel. Does it make you feel any different, freer, like you were the one in control and autonomous? First you would have to withhold your belief in a lack of free will for a little while. Or not.


There are things which I know that I must do. They are practical things which have to be done. How does this take away from my free will in doing them? I still have a say in the matter. I can turn my back on them. Why do you associate "must" with not having a choice in the matter? I think it depends on one's perception and frame of mind.

Of course, when it comes to mental illness; for instance, things like being bipolar or having OCD or tourettes, I can see your point. We ARE pre-determined in ways. But even there, things can be different or made better, with motivation and one's will.

Did the stoics feel compelled to do things or were they free and easy about them because they decided it was intelligent and practical to do these things or to live in this way. Where is the compulsion there?


Determinism does not mean that our choices are pre-determined by something external.
This is what I've been trying to explain. This would mean we must make a particular choice because it's been preset, even if that's not what we want our choice to be. That's not how it works. We have the final word as to what choices we permit and which one's we don't.


I may not be interpreting your words clearly with the above, but you seem, to me, to be refuting your own "belief" that there is no such thing as free will.


AD: We really are not born as tabula rasas ~~ we certainly are not ~~ but we do evolve as a process and come to a consciousness of mind where we are able to be/become self-determined entities capable of creating our own personal freedom through exercising conscious free will all through our personal journeys.

I think we agree with each other but we're using the term "free" to mean different things. Language confusion especially with a topic as deep as this one, can be a problem.


I can certainly agree with you about the language problem.

AD: I am not an absolutist. I can see where our minds, our wills and our beings are not always free but at the same time I can also "see" a world where people do "consciously" exercise their wills to come to freedom and to make their own choices and decisions. Does taking action based on the stark reality of necessity cancel out the reality of free will or that of our personal freedom to act?

PG: We are often able to make our own decisions, but what we do of our own free will, or what philosophers often call free will, is not free will in actuality (even though it feels free) because we are compelled to move in only one direction; the direction of greater satisfaction which only offers us one possibility each and every moment of time.


Some times the choices which we inevitably have to make do not necessarily bring us in the direction of greater satisfaction and we are quite aware of this. But we do choose to make the choice for the greater good. The only time, for me, when we do not choose freely is when we are all bound up with indecision, regret and obsession about it both before and afterwards.

Granted, perhaps I still am not sure what you mean by the direction of greater satisfaction. Maybe you mean what I mean when I say "for the greater good".

No need to apologize. I'm glad you stopped by. :)


My pleasure. But where was my coffee? :mrgreen:

Maybe you will desire to read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If you request it, I'll post it for you.


I already found it through your italicized words above. I will give it a shot as I can. Perhaps it will give me a little more insight into your lack of "seeing" free will at all.


This is something which we all have to keep in mind....
“We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.” - Anais Nin

I love going through tunnels but I especially love when we come out of them and see the whole panorama of what is around us. Totally different vision, right?
Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Thu May 30, 2019 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15501
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]