Determinism

To the extent that others are not able to test and then to replicate Lessans’ predictions about the new world other [b][u]than[/b][/u] by agreeing with his analysis/argument, is the extent to which I see his beliefs as residing largely in his head.

After all, if you are going to convince others that his argument is empirically/experientially sound, you must provide them with a methodology to test it.

And, yes, in asking me to consider not predicating my own point here on this rather crucial assumption that I make, you are forced to assume that it is within my power to freely choose not to.

And this is the part of you that, in my view, is able to grasp what being trapped in an immutable, mechanistic design is really all about. You want me to do something that I am not able freely to do. After all, I’m trapped in it too, aren’t I?

There’s the world we live in now. And it is bursting at the seams with blame and punishment. Why? Because most of us believe that both revolve around the assumption we are free to choose our behaviors.

Then Lessans comes around with his disovery that we are not free at all. Furthermore, because of the manner in which he interprets the meaning of this, he embraces principles which, someday, everyone will embrace in turn. And on that day, blame and punishment will cease to exist. Or it will be confined only to those who refuse to become a citizen in a new world now awash in the utopian enlightenment of “universal consciousness”.

From my perspective then the circle revolves around this:

1] Lessans must predict the new world
2] the new world must come about because Lessans must predict it

Unless and until you are able to devise an empirical framework from which to test/replicate his argument, we have only the argument itself to fall back on. And all arguments such as these are comprised of assumptions. I know that mine is.

As I point out:

All I am doing is asking you how Lessans’ discovery obviates the points I raise regarding conflicting satisfactions that revolve around conflicting goods that revolve around the assumption that we blame and punish others for impeding our own satisfaction because we make the further assumption that they were free to choose not to.

And it is not the $4.99 that is at stake here. It is my time. As I have explained a number of times above.

I still fail to see how this clarification rebuts the point I made. There may be nothing “external” to existence/reality causing me to behave as I do, but in being an integral/necessary part of existence/reality, I am ever compelled to do only as I must.

And that takes me back to, “I type this/you read this in the only possible configuration of existence/reality here there can ever be.”

None of this makes me any less off the hook. And none of this explains how, if we are always off the hook in having to choose only what we ever can choose, blaming people now but not blaming people in the new world comes about. Instead, you only predict that it will if we all come to think about these things as Lessans does. But then if we don’t, we are still off the hook.

As I have noted over and again, my own speculation about free will here is indeed predicated largely on the assumption that in some manner “mindful matter” has acquired the capacity to make free choices. I can’t demonstrate it myself and the scientific community seems considerably less inclined to go along. But there is still that gap between what we think we know now about it and all that would need to be known in order to pin the truth to the mat objectively.

Read this for example: opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … will/?_r=0

In fact, my main focus here instead is often in grappling with the practical implications of living in in a wholly determined world from the perspective of acquiring an identity…or in dealing with conflicting behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments. What can “moral responsibility” mean in a wholly determined world?

How? How does he demonstrate any of what he asserts?

What I meant of course is that nothing changes other than in the manner in which it must change. Including everything that we will ever think, feel and do.

And that’s a good thing if you don’t want to be held responsible for doing the wrong thing in a world where everything we do is necessarily the right thing because it is in fact the only thing that we could have done.

And, sure, I can understand how and why that might comfort and console some. And, indeed, there are any number of times in which I would like it to comfort and console me.

And, perhaps, it is my destiny to be so comforted and consoled. Perhaps [per the design] that’s the whole point of this exchange.
Or, perhaps, the point is instead to yank them out from under you.

If that’s all you think this is, then why are you here? There are probably more interesting threads you can engage in.

Of course it is within your power to “freely” (which only means of your own desire) choose not to, IF THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT. If that’s NOT what you want, then you will not choose it.

I do not consider it trapped just because we are under the control of determinism. You are able to choose “freely” (without physical constraint) what you prefer to choose. Nothing is stopping you from choosing A over B or B over A except for your preference. I don’t consider my understanding of determinism to be mechanistic in the same way you do.

Don’t you think I know that iambiguous?—the fact that people blame because they believe will is free? Your responses show me how little you understand these principles which are undeniable. Do you think you would use the excuse that you don’t have the time to read the book if you knew it actually was a genuine discovery? Of course not. :-$

[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 27 The belief
in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not
only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate
crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his
problems without blame and punishment which required the
justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience.
Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did
because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to
choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon
to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you
would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative
than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled
by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but
to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the
principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and why my
discovery was never found.

No one could ever get beyond this point
because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the
solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it
possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing
and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are
supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less
responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature?
Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough he
will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other
nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor
from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of
punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart
of our present civilization.

Right at this point lies the crux of a
problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since
time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history
of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first
demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true. A friend
shared a story with me to show how difficult it is to get through this
established dogma.
[/i]

It doesn’t exist in reality because this discovery remains in obscurity. At this juncture it is only a proposition based on astute observation and sound reasoning which then becomes the groundwork for it to be put into action.

Your posting here is taking longer than it would to read the actual text.

What can ever be is exactly what it must be, but that still leaves us with choices yet to be made. You cannot excuse your actions by saying “it had to be” when it only had to be if you WANTED IT TO BE. You are failing to understand the importance of this statement.

How can anything come about if it doesn’t have an opportunity to come about? A discovery starts out as a proposition which is described orally or on paper. It then gets applied if it is confirmed true. This discovery has such huge ramifications that it may take a lot longer to be validated than was originally anticipated.

I already agreed that moral responsibility has no meaning in a wholly determined world. But you are missing the other side of the equation. In a wholly determined world we achieve a developed conscience which has nothing to do with morality in the sense of right and wrong. As far as identity, you are still YOU in a wholly determined world, which allows you to separate who you are (in terms of your individual characteristics, your lineage, etc.) from others.

He explains very precisely that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That’s given in the Amazon sample. Did you take the time to read that, at least? He was also clear about what he meant by the word God. The point of his book is to demonstrate how it is now possible to remove all evil, not to prove the existence of God although in the process God is revealed as an epiphenomenon.

[i]p. 40 This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil.

He becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts. There is tremendous misunderstanding about the
meaning of determinism, therefore, it is necessary to first demonstrate
why man’s will is not free so the reader can follow the reasoning which
leads to my discovery. [/i]

I maintain that even though a person could not have done otherwise (therefore it was necessarily the right thing because it was the only thing that could have been done) does not mean that a person will continue to do the same thing given new environmental conditions. The mind (or conscience) cannot handle hurting others unjustifiably in a world of no blame, which is the very core of this discovery.

To the extent that others are not able to test and then to replicate Lessans’ predictions about the new world other [b][u]than[/b][/u] by agreeing with his analysis/argument, is the extent to which I see his beliefs as residing largely in his head.
[/quote]

I am still here because I must still be here. And you are still here because you must still be here as well. Isn’t that in essense the fundamental point of your deterministic frame of mind?

How, in a world that unfolds only as it can ever unfold, would I not think as I do now? Am I or am I not necessarily a part of this wholly material world?

Okay, so how do you distinguish between someone having the power to “freely” choose something [as an inherent component of the design] and someone having the power to freely choose something [of their own volition]?

How is anything that you want [or prefer] not necessarily that which you are compelled to want [or prefer]?

Bottom line: Whatever you do consider here and now is only that which you could not not have considered here and now. You can’t extricate yourself from this, can you? All you can do is to insist that what you do consider here and now you consider “freely”. Why? Because it is what “freely” satisfies you.

That just takes me back to my confusion regarding the extent to which Lessans’ discovery is a necessary link to a new world that must come into existence because Lessan predicted that it will. It would seem that you are suggesting here that the new world may well not come into existence if you and others are not successful in yanking it up out of obscurity. All the while insisting that the future can only be what the laws of matter compel it to be anyway.

Until you are able to convince me that what I want anything to be is not what the design compels me to want everything to be, you cannot realistically speak of me failing to do anything other than what I am compelled to do. After all, my future “choices” are no less compelled to be at one with the design.

You can make these distinctions between the past the present and the future. But nothing changes the fact that per the laws of matter all that we choose is only as we can choose. Before, now or later.

To wit:

From my vantage point [the only one I am ever afforded in a determined world] once my conscience becomes but a necessary component of the laws of matter, how “developed” it becomes is moot. It develops only as it must. “I” become only as it must. So, I don’t freely choose any of this. I’m just wound up by existence itself to unfold like clockwork. Thus I can only be wholly cognizant of it [as you believe that you are] or deluded still by the belief that I freely choose not to be cognizant of it.

But still off the hook for being “wrong” here.

Let’s just say then that you and I have a very different understanding of what it means to demonstrate something.

From my perspective, this is just more words telling us what other words mean. In no way, shape or form am I able to test the validity of those words other than by either agreeing or not agreeing with the argument itself.

Whereas when I speak of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, I anchor those words in actual existential contexts in which, based on our own subjective experiences, we are able to come to understand how an identity becomes rooted in history and culture and personal experiences; and how men and women from both sides of a moral conflict are able to propose arguments that the other side’s argument don’t make go away; and how throughout human existence political and economic power have been crucial is enforcing particular sets of behoviors over other. Where is that sort of subtance in Lessans’ argument?

Again, what difference does it make if she does something different if there is never anything different that she can do? And until you are able to provide us with a way in which to grasp more substantively how we reach this world where blame and punishment are relegated only to those who refuse to sign an agreement to embrace the universal consciousness that ushers in utopia, I am back to the circle:

1] Lessans must predict this new world sans blame and responsibility
2] this new world must come about because Lessans must predict it

That’s up to you iambiguous. I feel you are saying this (although I do understand the necessity of proving he was right) because this would remove any hope that humans have free will.

You are here because you desire to be here; because in comparison to the other options available to you at this moment, this choice gives you “greater” satisfaction. The reason this description is important is because your explanation would allow you to hurt someone (if you were a criminal type) and then use the excuse that the design made you do it, which is false. You did it because you wanted to.

Of course it is true that what you want [or prefer] of your own volition is necessarily that which you are compelled to prefer, but, as stated, this preference, although you have no control over it, is what you yourself want. In other words, you can’t say that something other than you is forcing this choice on you. Here he tries to clarify certain points.

[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 51 The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances.

The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic
revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled
to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at
Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic
bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do.

Since this observation is
mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come
to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here
lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion
since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO
ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO
— but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but for
the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not.
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — as you just mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be
made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free?
And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does.

This reveals, as your friend just
pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’

The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?
[/i]

That’s like saying we predict that man will go to the moon based on technological advances. Does that make the prediction circular? Your second statement makes no sense to me.

No, not because Lessans predicted it will but because it’s a genuine discovery that people will desire to take advantage of.

Any discovery has to be yanked into existence (as you put it) before it can be utilized. If a discovery is not yanked out of obscurity, then it cannot be utilized. Isn’t that true?

I am not arguing this point. I am saying that future choices are different than past choices in the sense that they haven’t been made yet, and when the environmental conditions change, our choices change in turn. All of this is in accordance with the deterministic laws.

(THIS NEW WORLD MUST COME ABOUT NOT BECAUSE LESSANS MUST PREDICT IT BUT BECAUSE HE SAW THAT HUMAN NATURE IS SUCH THAT WE CANNOT MOVE AGAINST WHAT IS BEST FOR US)

Lessans gives a thorough demonstration (based on astute observation and sound reasoning) as to why a no blame environment will lead us to peace on earth. Based on human nature and the desire for happiness, it is predicted that once this knowledge is confirmed valid (your guess is as good as mine as to when this will occur since we can only go at a certain rate), this new world must come about because people will want it and will know what they need to do to achieve it, which was unavailable before. Lessans predicted this because he understood human nature. Your accusation that this is circular is ridiculous.

Irony. How does that work in a determined world? If one can do only what is prescribed by the immutable laws of matter, irony would seem to have no real meaning at all.

Thus, when you tell me it is up to me, I can note the irony; but what does it even mean to be ironic in a world where what’s up to me is only what must be up to me?

No, you note that I am saying it because I must say it. And my having or not having hope is no less compelled by necessity.

Could I have freely desired not to be here? No. Could I have freely chosen to be satisfied doing something else? No.

You want to insist that I do only what I must do and that I “choose” to do it. But they are for all practical purposes the very same thing in a determined world. Or so it seems to me.

I cannot make sense of this other than to suppose I have some measure of autonomy regarding the things I choose to want. As though being or not being a “criminal type” is something that I am responsible for even though I will be or will not be a criminal solely in sync with the design.

I’m sorry, but this is still beyond my capacity [here and now] to grasp. How can one realistically speak of something that is “of my own volition” and then immediately subsume that “volition” in the compulsion embedded in the necessity of the design/I unfolding only as, in tandem, existence/reality ever can?

Lessans:

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

How does anything he posits here extricate itself from the point I just made? If what we want/desire/prefer/find satisfying is only what we must want/desire/prefer/find satisfying, then, indeed, the laws of matter encompass not only what we construe to be a rational reaction to the world around us, but the manner in which we react emotionally and psychologically as well. With regard to matter there is no real distinction to be made even between the conscious, the subconscious and the unconscious mind. The mind is matter. It must forever be in sync with whatever future is embedded in the material design.

But men went to the moon because they could not not go to the moon. Not going to the moon was never an option in a world where everything that does happen happens only because it must happen.

In other words, either it must be that the new world is free of blame and punishment for citizens or it must not be. I am merely looking for more substance in an argument that predicts that it will be but then offers no real methodology in which to test the prediction. Or to replicate it. To me, it’s just Lessans insisting that the meaning he gives to the words in his analysis is the only meaning a rational man or woman can acquire. And thus, to me, it’s no different from any other objectivist here embedding the “objective truth” in his or her own definitions and deductions.

So, either Lessans had some capacity to choose freely to write his book or his writing it is the equivalent of men going to the moon. As is this exchange we are having in turn. Nothing is ever not what it must be.

But if the yanking is always only a necessary component of the design, what’s true is, in turn, always only a necessary component of it. Right?

If any choice that we make [before, now or later] is the only choice that we can make, how are they really different? Again, for all practical purposes. The world [existence/reality] unfolds precisely as it is compelled to. Everything [every choice] is necessarily subsumed in [u][b]that[/u][/b].

In this world, a conscience can be made to rationalize virtually any and all behaviors. One conscience cannot tolerate the abortion of unborn babies. Another conscience cannot tolerate living in a world where pregnant women are forced to give birth. Yet somehow in the new world blame and punishment are vanquished here even though the conflicting goods remain. And I am still unable to comprehend how Lessans’ words necessarily lead to Lessans’ world. There is only accepting that the meaning he ascribed to the words in his analysis/argument reflects the objective truth.

Yes, but that is what all of the objectivists insist. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of religious/philosophical arguments made claiming a stake in one or another rendition of an alleged “whole truth”. They can’t all be right but they all insist that they are anyway.

So, all I can do then is to ask them to demonstrate why I should believe them and not all the others. And, for me, that means integrating their words into the world that we live in. And then exploring the extent to which their words might have a substantive/substantial impact on the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

If Lessans insists that we have no free will then how does he propose that we demonstrate this? Beyond merely agreeing that his argument is solid.

When I say it’s up to you, you are making more out of it than it needs to be. This only means that it is your choice, which it is. The choice you make is the only choice you could make, but my answer to you may have an impact on that choice. It’s not like the choice has been made for you in advance of your making it.

You must say it only makes sense after the fact, not before. That’s like saying “I must kill someone” because it’s part of the design. Saying you must kill someone as part of the design is the same thing as saying I want to kill someone, therefore I must. The compulsion is coming from the person making the choice, not the designer as if to say that the choice is not his own. Nothing is making a person kill if his choice not to kill is the better option, and nothing but nothing, not even God himself, can make him do this if he doesn’t want to.

There is an important difference. One states that you must choose something based on a prescribed program that won’t allow you to change course because it’s already written out. The other states that based on antecedent conditions, along with your experiences and heredity, you are “free” (which only means that there is nothing external controlling you) to pick a choice that you yourself desire based on these factors.

You are confusing the two principles. One states that will is not free because we always move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction, which we have absolutely no control over. So if you turn out to be a criminal, you had no control over that. The other principle states that nothing can make or force you to do anything against your will, which you have absolute control over. This means that you cannot use the excuse that someone or something other than you made you do what you did, because nothing has the power to do that. You did it because you wanted to, but most people would never admit to that since it would get them in trouble with the law.

It doesn’t extricate itself from the point you just made, but it does show that you do what you do “of your own desire.” If you don’t desire it, nothing can make you choose it. Of course, we often choose between things that offer us little satisfaction, so we pick the least undesirable. That does not change the direction we’re forced to go. As we move along to the actual discovery (the fact that man’s will is not free is NOT the discovery; it is the gateway to the discovery), both of these principles come into play.

That is all very true, but that does not take away from the fact that nothing has the power to make you do anything you don’t want, which is often misinterpreted when discussing determinism. The standard definition states that we are caused to do what we do. As Lessans stated, nothing from the past can cause us to do anything because we only have the present. It just sets up conditions upon which desire is aroused to act in a particular way.

You are right; now that it has occurred it was not an option, but man had the option not to utilize the technology at the moment of choice. The fact that it gave him greater satisfaction to go to the moon indicates that man is not satisfied to remain stagnant, but always desiring to learn more about the world. This is called progress. Similarly, now that we have the knowledge as to how to prevent war and crime (which you don’t understand yet), it can be predicted that if Lessans is right, and science confirms that he is right, we will desire to utilize this knowledge for our betterment just like we did with going to the moon and the many other advances man has made.

It has nothing to do with the only meaning a rational man or woman can acquire. It does have to do with what is correct in terms of objective truth. Determinism is an objective truth. You keep saying the same thing; that this is all his definition and nothing more. This is completely fallacious and I don’t desire to keep refuting you on this point.

He had no capacity to choose freely, even though he had the ability to weigh alternatives.

It doesn’t change the fact that per the laws of matter all that we choose is only as we can choose, before, now, or later, but it does clarify the meaning of determinism which has been misunderstood. Because free will is defined as choice that is uncaused, it was believed that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is caused by previous events and circumstances. To repeat, antecedent events (the past) don’t cause man to kill or hurt others. This implies that these external conditions are making him do what he does. But nothing (not heredity,environment, or the first cause) can make someone do anything they don’t want to do. Another way of saying the same thing with a slight variation goes like this: the environmental conditions may be such that a person’s desire is aroused to kill based on all the factors that converge at a particular moment in time, which then pushes him in this direction for greater satisfaction. There is a marked distinction between Lessans’ proposition (which is correct because it reflects what is going on in reality) and the standard definition (which is misleading), but you don’t know the importance of this distinction since you don’t understand the two-sided equation or why this nuance in definition matters yet you tell me that it doesn’t make a difference. #-o

You can’t say before you do something that you must do it because you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to. That is the modal fallacy that was discussed earlier. There is nothing that is making you choose this over that. You choose one thing over another because it is the more preferable choice. To repeat: Nothing external is causing you to fall in a certain direction (like the domino). But once you make a choice it could never have been otherwise since any other choice at that moment would have given less satisfaction under the circumstances, which is impossible to do.

You keep referring back to abortion, as if this one conflict ruins any possibility of peace. It does not.

I already said his claim that man has no free will is falsifiable. His explanation is spot on. We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction which offers us only one choice each and every moment of time. This new world can be simulated to prove that he was right, if scientists want to test it empirically.

How can I possibly make more or less of something that I can only make of what I must? See, that’s where we always get stuck here. There is either an element of free will involved in what I make out of anything or I make out of everything only what I was ever compelled to make out of it in order to be in alignment with existence itself.

And what you make of what I make of what you make of anything is also in sync with the only reality there ever was, is now or ever will be.

How can there be an exit here in a determined world? For any of us? Aside, of course, from death. Where, for all eternity, these conundrums will never plague us again. Unless it is determined by the design that death is not The End at all.

Anyway, you always focus on the before I make a choice part. As though what happens before, during or after we make a choice will actually make a difference regarding what does happen.

Back to Jack and Jane. Jack chooses to rape Jane. Now, if I understand you, Jack must rape Jane if Jack raping Jane is necessarily in accordance with the only existence there can ever be. The one in which Jack rapes Jane. There is no existence where Jack doesn’t rape Jane. So, how does his choice to rape Jane at the moment he makes it have any relevance to the fact that he must rape her because, well, that’s reality.

Now, I will be the first to admit that your point may be more reasonable than mine; but I just can’t seem to “get it”. If something must be then it must be. The choices we make are just the next dominoes toppling over in the design we call the “human condition”. The only distinction I am able to make is that, unlike the dominoes, we can become cognizant of the fact that we topple over only as we must.

You say:

Are you then suggesting that the compulsions I have, I can choose freely not to have? No, of course not. After all, how is “I” not inherently in sync with the design here? As long as what I want is only what I can ever want, the manner in which you convey our “options” here is, well, toothless to me.

Or:

Could I have freely desired not to be here? No. Could I have freely chosen to be satisfied doing something else? No.

You want to insist that I do only what I must do and that I “choose” to do it. But they are for all practical purposes the very same thing in a determined world. Or so it seems to me.

Yes, “free”. But never [u][b]free[/u][/b]. I and the design are at one with existence itself. There is nothing external to that. As though there ever could be.

The two principles perhaps. But for all practical purposes, in terms of the behaviors that I will choose existentially, when I move in the direction of what gives me greater satisfaction, it is because I must move in that direction. The only real “control” I have here is in toppling over as I am compelled to. And we still ever become entangled in conflicting goods whereby what brings me satisfaction, brings you dissatisfaction.

Nor does it take away from the fact that what I want or do not want to do is only what I am compelled to want or not want to do. That’s precisely why a determinist has to speak of what we choose by putting "_____ " around the word freely.

Or so it seems to me.

Again, I’m sorry, but I simply do not grasp how humankind had the option not to use the technology that allowed it to go to the moon if there was not an element of free choice involved in going in the other direction instead. As long as the laws of matter were such that humankind must go to the moon, all of the “moments of choice” in the achievment were necessarily in sync with this reality. The only reality there could ever have been in a world governed by the immutable laws of matter.

But even here there were conflicting goods. While many hailed our trip to the moon as “progress”, others insisted that, with a world teeming with so many seeming intractable problems “down here”, it was immoral to spend billions of dollars to explore “up there”. Not in a world where 18,000 children die from starvation every single day. Though certainly not of their own free will.

And, ironically, we have the capacity to end that starvation at any time. What we lack of course is the politcal will to do so.

But, sure, I can imagine that this particular horror story would become easier to endure if you were able to convince yourself that they starve only because they must starve per the immutable laws of matter. It’s not like there is really anything that any of us can ever do if everyting that we do is only as we must do.

It’s just their bad luck that the laws of matter necessitated their starvation.

Okay, he weighs alternatives but then he must write the book. Why? Because the book was written. But at the moment he chooses to write the book his ability to weigh the options might have resulted in the book not being written? No. The book was always meant to be written because, in a determined world, it was in fact written. So [from my frame of mind] his “ability to weigh options” is illusory. Yes, he did weigh them. But, no, the book was always going to be written. Thus he chose “freely” to write it.

Yes, but here again we seem to be focusing more on the meaning that we give to words rather than the manner in which determinism is embodied in the choices that we must make. The laws of matter are such that before or during the time we choose we must choose only that which we ever can choose. And that just keeps repeating itself in perpetuity.

Then [to me] it all becomes semantics in which the most important factor [a la folks like James S. Saint] is that we pin down the precise definition of the words rather than explore the manner in which the words we define can/might/must be used pertaining to human behaviors that come to clash over conflicting goods.

For example:

Even though, per the ineluctable laws of matter, they do only what they can never not do.

But I want only what I must want. I want what existence itself compels me to want. You claim there is nothing making me choose to type these words. I type these words because I prefer to type them…rather than, say, type, “the blue meanie in the White House will one day become a member of the Bilderberg Group.” Which “in the moment” I preferred to type as well rather than something else. And I am still dissatisfied with your own arguments here because I fail to properly understand that you and Lessans are right. About everything.

I often choose abortion in which to discuss dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Why? Because 1] it is a moral congflagration we are all familiar with 2] it literally revolves around life and death and 3] if we can resolve the conflicting goods revolving around this, all the other moral conflicts would seem that much easier.

But time and again above I have noted all of the many other issues in which the human species has become embroiled in conflicting goods. Choose another one if you wish.

Even rape is a conflicting good from the perspective of the narcissist who views morality solely in terms of that which brings him personal satisfaction. Or mass beheadings from the perspective of the religious fanatic who views morality solely in terms of satisfying “God’s will”.

Yes, but, in my opinion, you have not offered us a viable empirical framework/methodolgy from which we might either verify or falsify his predictions about the new world.

How could such a new world be simulated? Other than by, say, conducting an experiment in which one group of subjects are asked to pretend that they do not believe in blame and punishment.

But how then would such an experiment make the conflicting goods [the clash of satisfactions] fiercely embedded in abortion [or another issue of your choice] go away?

Who said there was something external to that? Not me.

This is where I’m going to have to jump ship because you are challenging Lessans without caring to understand how this new world plays out in blueprint form. All these major conflicts, the ones that are causing global disruption, are resolved. To clarify: Dissatisfaction is part of life and what pushes us forward. If we didn’t have dissatisfaction with the present position, we would stay in the same spot forever. Babies cry because they are dissatisfied. This is called life. This aspect of dissatisfaction doesn’t change, so you have to be careful what you mean when you use the word “dissatisfaction”.

You are being premature. The new economic system solves this problem of conflicting opinions regarding going to the moon while people are starving. That’s why it’s hard to discuss this when you have not studied the extension of these principles into the areas you are most concerned about.

Where does “freely” enter into this at all? He did not “freely” choose. The word choice is illusory because, in reality, he had no choice since he was compelled to choose the most preferable option. The ability to weigh options is real, not illusory. This gives us the opportunity to decide which choice is preferable otherwise we would have no way of knowing. But this has nothing to do with freedom of the will. When he said “I did something of my own free will” (which he used throughout the book) he qualified it. He said this does not mean he actually did anything of his own free will. It just meant that he did something because he wanted to, which is an accurate usage of the term.

That is very true, but you’re missing an important distinction, as I’ve said to you before. This other principle; that nothing can make someone do anything he doesn’t want to do IS ALSO TRUE, which has been a source of serious confusion in the free will/determinism debate. This IS the conundrum that is making it impossible to reconcile these two opposing ideologies. Once these two principles come together, we are able to see why responsibility (forget the word moral) for one’s actions goes up, not down.

You actually are correct that you preferred to type these words rather than other words, but this is only half of the equation. You’re missing the other half. No wonder you don’t get it, and you will continue not to get it if you are dissatisfied at this point and therefore you are convinced that he is wrong about everything. You won’t go forward and that’s okay too

I don’t agree. There are other more pressing moral conflagrations that are not dependent on this one issue for their solution such as war, crime, and poverty for starters. If these can be eliminated, imagine how much better our world would be even if there are differences in opinion regarding abortion. Imagine how much better our world will be if everyone has their basic needs met. I think it’s time to focus on the issues that everyone agrees on. The conflicts you talk about will never stop this new world from coming into existence. As I already said, abortion will naturally go down because the conditions that led to the need to abort as the lesser of two evils, will not be present. As far political economy, government (or the age of politics) is coming to an end so there will be no conflict in this regard.

The major conflicts revolve around countries not having enough sustenance to provide for their citizens. When these problems are resolved, the conflicts will disappear along with them, and world peace will be inevitable.

Rape is a hurt to the person being raped. Any kind of hurt that is a first blow will be unjustified in the new world, ending this type of abuse. But you have to remember that children growing up under these changed conditions would never think of raping another human being. Again, you have to be careful about projecting what you think the new world will look like based on the world we’re living in. As far as mass beheadings, this is a larger problem that can only be completely eradicated once these principles are applied on a worldwide basis, otherwise, there will continue to be groups such as Isis who feel unjustly treated by people they have made into scapegoats.

Obviously it would have to be a decision to simulate the new world, which requires a commitment not to blame or punish. People can be unsure that it would work, but why do they have to pretend? Many conflicts will be resolved, especially the ones that involve political economy.

I think it’s the time to say goodbye, at least for the time being. Iambiguous, I believe I understand you more than most. I wish you the best. I do hope you delve into this discovery to see how this new world is possible, even with your misgivings. You have given me a run for my money, that’s for sure. :slight_smile:

But this just prompts me to ask [in the same vein]: Is it within your capacity to freely point this out to me? No. Is it within my capactity to freely consider it? No.

So: am I or am I not considering it only in the manner in which I am compelled to consider it as a necessary adjunct of the design?

But: No one’s perspective ever changes other than as it must change. And, thus, before, now and later are always of a whole. And, finally, always rooted squarely in the laws of matter.

To me, it would be like dominoes toppling over in what is supposed to be the design of the American flag but then, somehow, in the middle of it all, the toppling encounters a paradigm shift and the design ends up being the flag of Russia instead.

As you say, “an immutable law has no exits or exceptions.” But for you to note something here that prompts me to come around to your point of view would seem to encompass something in the way of volition on my part. And then, of course, there is always the possibility of you coming around to my point of view, right? After all, who can really ascertain for certain what the laws of matter will encompass a day from now…a week from now…a month from now. Let alone a thousand years from now.

Nope, it still doesn’t compute. Right now I am contemplating the best way in which to respond to your point. Either the words that I am typing now are the only words compatible with the nature of existence itself or somehow [however problematic] there is an element of free will such that I am choosing these words within one or another rendition of this:

I am able to choose the words as I do here because 1] I reflected on them 2] I tried to grasp the context in which they will be used to the best of my ability 3] I tried to weigh the pros and the cons to the best of my ability and then 4] I chose these words rather than others.

Same thing though. If, at the moment he is choosing whether his satisfaction lies in raping Jane, he does not have it within his capacity to freely choose “yes” or “no”, then he is compelled to rape Jane if Jane’s rape is a necessary component of the design.

We both agree there is nothing external to that. But if all that encompasses what we think, feel and do is a necessary component of existence itself, what are the practical implications of that when Jack “chooses” to rape Jane. Or when Mary “chooses” to abort her baby? Or when the state "chooses’ to execute Bob?

This reminds me of the many objectivists I have encountered here who insist that before I can grasp the practical implications of their own particular objective truth, I have to read this or that [ofttimes voluminous] analysis/argument. Only when I finally grasp these myriad definitions and deductions that they propose will the relevance to the things that interest me become manifest. But then they give me no real incentive to do so by fleshing out their arguments in order to show how they pertain to either identity, conflicting goods or political economy.

Besides, before they will ever bring their own largely epistemological constructs down to earth, I must first agree that they are the starting point for understanding, among other things, the whole of reality.

Then around and around in that circle we go.

As long as you continue to “resolve” all of “the major conflicts” that plague humankind by positing this new world as basically an axiomatic construct revolving largely around embracing Lessans’ own argument/analysis, there is no viable manner in which others can grasp how we will get from here to there. That’s all contained in embracing the assumptions he derived from his observations.

The “new economic system” that, so far, is merely an intellectual construct in the minds of those who subscribe to Lessans’ arguments.

And if Lessans’ more extended lessons regarding political economy are tantamount to [or extentions of] the excerpts you have provided above, there is still nothing really tangible that social scientists can grapple with in order to verify/falsify them more empirically/experientially.

And there are still the difficulties that revolve around conflicting goods. As noted above, social scientists can in fact perform experiments in order to verify/falsify propositions relating to human behavior in crowds. But that does not enable them in turn to ascertain whether the moral/political cause embraced by the crowd is objectively moral or immoral.

Yes, this is the point that I often raise, isn’t it? But you are the one above who often encloses the word freely here in these: " ". Thus Lessans is compelled to write the book. Eventually, enough people are compelled to read and embrace it. And then [a 1000 years from now] the future is compelled to be without blame or punishment. At least for those citizens who take the “universal consciousness” oath .

If I do miss this other half it is only because I am compelled as a necessary component of the design to miss it. And that’s the part that you have never managed to reconcile for me. I must type what I can only type here but still I somehow fail to type what you insist that I should type in order to be in sync with what you type.

And by “going forward” I have found that most objectivists mean “agree with me”. But my problem is that I can’t make sense [realistically] of how their theoretical analysis has any substantive [existential] relevance to the world that we interact [and conflict] in.

But I have asked you [and others] any number of times to pick a moral conflict that you/they deem most relevant to these relationships. Again, I am more than willing to integrate the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in the discussions.

[b][u]Discussions in which words and worlds are explored in tandem.[/b][/u]

Yes, I agree. Rape is certainly a devastating infliction of pain on the one being raped. But that doesn’t mean much to the narcissist who construes morality solely in terms of his own personal satisfaction. And I keep pointing out time and again that, with respect to all moral conflicts, folks on both sides of the issues have their own rendition of the hurt brought on by either pursuing or not pursuing particular behaviors.

But then, in my view, you only make this go away in the new world theoretically, analytically, axiomatically; once everyone willing to sign up for universal consciousness creates their own utopian paradise.

Well, if you really must:wink:

Seriously, an exchange of this sort is always an intriguing endeavor for me. It’s another facet in which to explore the only question that seems to matter much to me these days: How ought I to live?

Is there a way to discover this philosophically? And, pertaining to free will, is the pursuit even meaningful in the manner in which many who subscribe to one or another rendition of libertarian values like to think of it.

Anyway, all the best. Please come back if you do so “choose”/choose, and we can grapple with it some more.

I do intend to use this thread to further explore that part of determinism which most fascinates me: the part about moral responsibility.

I guess you didn’t see my last post. Now I feel compelled to answer even though I just posted that I would like to take a break. Of course you are compelled to consider it as a necessary adjunct of the design. Once again, no one is arguing with this. I was just explaining to you that the answer I gave is not inconsistent with my knowledge of determinism. You seem surprised that I pointed out that you are making more out of it than needs to be. Obviously, you couldn’t think any differently at that moment.

Even though your perspective can only ever change as it must change before, now and later does not change the fact that each and every moment offers a new perspective based on the accumulated knowledge and experience you have gained up to that point in time. My offering you feedback on what we’re discussing may play a role in what your next choice will be.

No, nothing escapes that framework of determinism just because of new knowledge. That would mean nothing new could ever come into play because the dominoes would already be predetermined to fall in a certain way. That’s how it works with dominoes, but not with human nature. We do make choices; dominoes don’t get to. Based on new knowledge, a paradigm shift could occur and with great speed. You are making a comparison that doesn’t apply to humans, even though we cannot escape the laws of determinism. I don’t think you understand why the past does not cause the present, and why this matters.

Of course it would be of your own volition, or your own choosing, but as Lessans stated this choice (which is coming from your will, no one else’s) is correct if it means “of your own desire”, but this has nothing to do with having freedom of the will.

I will not come over to your point of view (that I can promise you) because I know for a fact that we have no free will and that there’s no ghost in the machine.

Sorry iambiguous but the fact that you are reflecting on the words, trying to grasp the context in which they will be used, and weighing the pros and cons DOES NOT GRANT YOU FREE WILL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

In the sense that he can choose not to rape Jane IF HE DOESN’T WANT TO, or rape her IF HE WANTS TO, the term “freely chose” can be used in place of “of his own desire” (which Lessans was clear about), but it does not mean he has free will to choose A over B or B over A equally. That is what freedom of the will implies. The fact that he has the power of contemplation does not mean he has the capacity to freely choose “yes” or “no.” He is compelled to choose the alternative that he finds the most preferable, which is an immutable law. In other words, the fact that he has two choices does not mean he has the capacity to freely choose since he must pick the choice that gives him greater satisfaction. That is why choice is an illusion.

Although we cannot change the past because we know that we could not have chosen otherwise, that does not mean man’s choices will be the same when these principles are introduced on a worldwide scale. The practical implications of this change cannot even be fully comprehended.

I have no idea what “truths” these objectivists are defending. All I know is what I know is true based on what I have learned. I am offering you a book that I believe will have a huge impact on your life personally, and an even bigger impact on the world at large.

This is just repeating the same thing over and over again. I am very sorry but these observations were not assumptions. He made valid inferences based on what he observed but there are no assumptions anywhere in his proposition, his observations, or his reasoning.

The irony is that these types of moral conflicts won’t even exist. How can they when the age of politics is coming to an end? You are unable to consider the possibility that what you are envisioning is impossible is an incomplete and myopic view based on the world as it is now. I don’t need you to tell me that your view is more practical one more time. =;

And I will ask again: Where does “free” in the way I qualified it have to do with freedom of the will? I already explained how the phrase “I did it of my own free will” is qualified and can be used if it means “of my own volition”. We are losing communication.

It is true that if you don’t desire to read the book, then you found it more preferable not to read the book [in the direction of greater satisfaction]. I don’t see what there is to reconcile.

You wouldn’t. You haven’t read the book. You’re just denying that there could be something valid because either you don’t want to believe there is no ghost in the machine and this might burst your bubble, or you just can’t believe that someone could make a major discovery that would cause a paradigm shift and still be within the framework of determinism. Whatever the reason you will be acting in accordance with your nature.

The conflicts that are most pressing such as war and crime are prevented by this natural law. Definitions (and words) mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they are symbolic of reality. It just so happens that his words are just that.

There is nothing theoretical about his vision based on his spot on observations. I don’t see many people not wanting to become part of this new world once it gets underway. You seem to be thinking that people will not want what they want. Who would want to live in a world where accidents, crime, medical mistakes, torture, war, and poverty exist when they can enter a world that none of these things exist? In other words, how can a person not want what is the better choice? BTW, there is nothing theoretical about this law of our nature and how it works under changed environmental conditions.

Think about that. Something compelled you to take a break from this exchange. And now something compels you to continue it. And that has absolutely nothing to do with free will?

Maybe not. But that’s the first thing that popped into my head.

But [to me] this always seems to imply that there are moments when I might have chosen to think about of it differently. But it would seem that in a wholly determined world all of our moments unfold in sequence only as they must.

You “chose” to take a break from the exchange. You “chose” to continue. There’s never getting away from these: “_______”. In other words, you chose “freely”.

Aside from the fact that, unlike the dominoes, we are matter that has evolved the capacity to know [consciously] that we must think, feel and do solely from within an immutable framework that encompasses the laws of matter encompassed within the design that is existence itself, this distinction you make here is not very persuasive. Before, now and later are always “of a whole”. The whole of reality.

We and the dominoes are always just necessary components of it. The dominoes know nothing of will and desire. Of “volition” and “freedom”. But the fact that we do makes us no more able to topple over from moment to moment other than as we must.

That’s the objectivist in you talking. On the other hand, what you “know for a fact” is still predicated largely on the internal logic of the assumptions you make about these relationships; while, concommitantly, providing almost nothing in the way of a scientific methodology for testing these “facts” empirically and experientially.

Or so it seems to me.

But this would seem to assume that wanting to or not wanting to was something that he could choose freely. You keep going back from the choice to the wanting or not wanting to make it…as though they were not intrinsically both “of the whole” that is the design.

You say:

But, from my perspective, this just takes us back to the fact that in a determined world, Jack’s “power of contemplation” results in his being able to “freely” choose – to freely “choose” – only what he was ever compelled to choose anyway.

And thus the manner in which determinism and free will are made to seem compatible is just a trick of the mind to me. It takes the world that we live in and reconfigures it into the words used by the compatibilists to give Jack a “choice” in a world where he must rape Jane.

So you say. But [over and again] you have not yet, in my estimation, been able to demonstrate a manner in which we can probe the validity of this prediction much beyond accepting the rationality of Lessans’ argument. Isn’t that always the stumbling block here? Shouldn’t you be spending more time contemplating the inevitable questions you will receive from scientists regarding how they might go about testing his observations “for all practical purposes”? Of making his predictions more fully comprehensible.

I repeat it because I believe it is important that you understand how, in my view, this will always be the pivotal obstacle when you try to convince others to give Lessans’ book a shot.

You have to be able to make that crucial leap from what he observed in watching us make our choices to how science grapples with the human mind and the human brain intertwined in the act of choosing one thing rather than another.

Understanding the biology of the brain here would seem to be an indisputable compoment of all this.

It would be like trying to understand human sexuality without a comprehensive understanding of the sex organs. Who would say, “who needs them?” in predicting sexual politics a thousand years from now?

Back to the gap between asserting these things and demonstrating how we actually do go from the world that we live in now to the world that we will live in a thousand years from now if we merely accept as true Lessans’ predictions.

And my view is predicated on a world bursting at the seams with relationships that I can encompass empirically/experientially in the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And it is a world that down through the ages has always revolved around one or another rendition of blame and punishment.

Or, sure, one or another objectivist insisting that if only everyone would embrace his or her own “objective reality” then one or another “utopia” would be our shared destiny.

That’s my point though. It always comes down to the conditions that we set for understanding words like freely/“freely” and choose/“choose”. If we put them in what amount to scare quotes it means they are to be understood differently. Often ironically.

Thus we are “free” to “choose” in a determined world. In other words, in the manner in which we understand the meaning of those words in a non-determined world, we are not free to choose at all.

If I cannot of my own free will choose to read the book, prefer to read the book, desire to read the book etc., then every connection between me and the book unfolds out of the necessity engrained in the design.

There is never anything to reconcile here because everything is always of a whole.

The whole of reality itself.

I have no bubble to burst. I am more than willing to concede that my understanding of these relationships may well be wrong. In fact, you are the one in the bubble. You are the one insisting that your own understanding of these relationships is the objective truth. And, in my view, you have a lot riding emotionally and psychologically on/in believing that the fate of the new world rides on everyone finally embracing Lessans’ observations/principles and ridding the world of blame and punishment.

But then you don’t [and in my view can’t] provide us with a methodology for testing his prognostications about the future. Other than either believing or not believing his analysis. And all any of us really know for certain [or almost for certain] is that none of us will be around in order to confirm his predictions.

Pertaining to an actual existential moral conflict, I have no idea what this means. I know only that whatever it is that you think it means “in your head” seems to be as far as you feel you need to go in order to demonstrate to me how it is connected substantively to an issue like abortion in the context of conflicting goods and moral responsibility in a world where everything we do is ever only what we could never not do.

How could it not be theoretical when no one is able to actually show us this world for perhaps another thousand years?

Now, imagine how different your argument would be if, say, all the people in a small town somewhere had read Lessans’ book and then embodied his principles in the lives that they lived. You would be able to take folks to this town and show them what the new world will be like for all of us one day…once everyone embraced his narrative.

Instead, the new world here is purely hypothetical. A world predicted to be. A world predicated soley on everyone [eventually] embracing Lessans’ argument.

At least in my opinion.

Iambiguous, I have never ever ever disputed this. I am in full agreement. But you do not understand the second half of this equation. I am not blaming you or saying you could do anything other than what you’re doing.

How do my actions have anything whatsoever to do with free will? Where does free will even enter into this at all? My continuing to post had more to do with the fact that I felt compelled to answer your post than leave it unanswered. Your post created a new antecedent condition which I didn’t anticipate (and one that I felt was important enough to answer), thus changing my resolve to end the discussion. Every single move I have made has been in the direction of greater satisfaction; the only direction my desire could have taken me, so where is my free will?

You would have thought about it differently only if your brain gave you the thoughts to think about it differently. The fact that you might have chosen to think about something differently is also part of the natural unfolding of what must be, if that is what actually occurred. If it did not so occur, then this is what had to be. There’s no escaping determinism.

Where did I choose freely? Just because I am able to contemplate options based on an ever-changing set of conditions does not grant me free will.

That is true, but you are forgetting that our choices are based on contingent factors that are always coming into play, so what I may have chosen before the fact may not be the same thing I choose later on based on a new set of antecedent conditions. That is why, although everything unfolds as it must, we are not subject to making the same choices over and over again if those choices don’t serve us anymore.

No, but it does offer us a greater array of options that can afford us a different way of looking at a situation. Dominoes cannot do that.

But determinism IS an objective truth, one of the few objective truths that exist. We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is not a theory.

I refuse to cut and paste this whole book just because you refuse to read it. However, I will cut and paste this one excerpt. I don’t think there is anything that will motivate you to read further. You will continue to tell me that these astute observations are nothing more than assumptions. #-o

[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 45 Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family
but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States
and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration of
unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit
for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If he steals
a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish him by
saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly
true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an
option which was good. In this case almost any other alternative
would have sufficed.

But supposing this individual preferred stealing
because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the
evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him,
at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were
available to him — so does this make his will free? It is obvious that
he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it
is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish
him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did
under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for
man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

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.
[/i]

Having the option of contemplation does not grant one free choice. It just offers him options, all of which are under the reign of determinism.

[i]p. 49 The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point…he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?[/i]

He must rape Jane if his choice to rape Jane is the most preferable. If it is not, he does not have to rape Jane as if he is part of some kind of pre-programmed design that is now being forced on him.

Well, arguments are based on rationality, and Lessans’ observations and reasoning are as rational as you can get.

His predictions about a new world are based on the knowledge given in the book, which are fully comprehensible. The fact that this knowledge has not been empirically confirmed should not stop people from doing whatever they have to do to feel confident that this knowledge is accurate because its potential value is unmistakable.

We don’t need to dissect the brain to know that man’s will is not free. We cannot observe greater satisfaction in a lab, but it is a universal law. Why one person chooses one thing in the direction of greater satisfaction while another person chooses something else cannot be answered through an MRI. You are downplaying his discovery, which is really unfortunate.

There are some things we can learn about sexuality in a lab, but other things we can’t. As I said many times, not all learning is done through dissection or taking something apart. Sometimes we need to observe the entity functioning as a whole its natural setting to find answers, not in a lab.

We’re not discussing morality, remember? We are only talking about what one chooses in the direction of greater satisfaction, and when people are no longer hurt by economic downturns (not of their own doing), they will not desire to hurt others as a means of retaliation (using people as a scapegoat for their unfortunate lot in life) or for self-preservation (hurting others if not to makes matters worse for them).

The only objective reality I am asking people to consider is that man’s will is not free and what extends from this knowledge. It just so happens that when we do extend the corollary that goes along with it: Thou Shall Not Blame, we can see how the entire world of moral conflicts dissipates due to this amazing paradigm shift in human relations.

We can use the phrases “I chose freely” or "I chose of my own “free will” in a determined world if it means we are given the choice to opt for this or that, but this in no way means we have freedom of the will.

Iambiguous, I have been agreeing with you this whole time if you use the phrase “I prefer to read the book of my own free will” which only means “I prefer to read the book because it gives me greater satisfaction.” You can use the phrase “of my own free will” in the way you suggested. He said this in Chapter One, and I’ve shown it to you. You are the one confusing words to make them mean what they don’t mean. :frowning:

The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free.
In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

That doesn’t put me in a bubble because there’s no bubble to burst since this natural law is not one of my imagination.

I admit that I am emotionally involved, but this in itself does not negate the objective truth I am trying to share. You can’t use the fact that I was his daughter as a reason to deny that there is anything substantive to this knowledge.

The fact that we won’t be here can’t be helped, but if you took the time to read the book you might be a little skeptical and then be one of those people who pass the book onto others. If everyone did that, we might actually be here to see this great change. :smiley:

I told you that in regard to abortion, when the environmental conditions change so, too, will the need to abort as the lesser of two evils. He shows explicitly how the entire economic/political landscape is changed for the better, preventing the moral conflicts that you believe are here to stay.

That would have been further confirmation, but if you understand
these principles it’s not necessary just as any mathematical
equation can later be proven true by its application but that in
itself does not negate the veracity of the equation:

This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.

You’re completely off base. I’m sure this doubt of yours is what is causing you to resist delving into this discovery further.

What possible practical difference can it make how I understand either half of the equation if how I understand both of them is only as I ever could have undertood them? Nothing that I think, feel or do in a determined world will be other than what it was always going to be.

From my perspective then, you seem to nod in agreement here but must still insist that your argument is more reasonable than my argument; and then you must still aim to pursuade me to embrace it. Even though the fact of my embracing or not embracing it is predicated solely on the laws of matter going all the way back to whatever it was that clicked them on in the first place. Whatever that might possibly mean.

The part where you chose “freely” to continue the exchange because my post set up a new “antecedent condition” prompting a new shift in your mind/brain in the direction of a new “greater satisfaction” is still all just matter intertwined in a sequence that could not have been otherwise. Isn’t this true? The totality of this exchange is still just words toppling over onto other words as they must in order to be in sync with the design.

And that is precisely why neuroscientists study the brain: In order to determine more precisely what it means [objectively] when we speak of the brain “giving us the thoughts” – new thoughts – that we utilize in the course of engaging in an exchange like this.

And in a determined world [it would seem] the brain gives us only the thoughts [and emotionally reactions] it was programmed to in being a necessary adjunct of the design. And then I am back to “you” and “I” just going along for the ride. Typing only what we were ever scheduled, organized, arranged, planned, destined, fated, made etc., to type by the design.

But that is my point. You did not choose freely. You chose “freely”. Meaning you chose only what you could not not have chosen.

What is the point of having options if you are always obligated to “choose” the option that you must? What does it mean to speak of different ways of looking at a situation if you are always selected per the design to see it as in fact you do?

But: I refuse to read it because I must refuse to read it. What other “option” do I have here if per the design I am not compelled [here and now] to read it? I’m off the hook. But then the fact that you have thus far failed to convince me to read it is only as it must be too. So you’re off the hook too. In fact, that’s the beauty of living in a determined world: we always are.

Lessans:

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.

Yes, a man steals or does not steal because, as a necessary component of the design, he necessarily feels a greater satisfaction in stealing or not stealing.

But the Marxist will argue that in order to attain [and then sustain] what satisfies them, the capitalists embrace a political economy that is ever predicated on boom and bust cycles that lead to recessions [or even depressions] that precipitate the sort of poverty that precipitates in the minds of some a satisfaction that then revolves around stealing.

The question then becomes this: Is this all unfolding [historically] like clockwork – every individual intertwined with every other individual in a series of synchronized, mechanical interactions, or is there some element of true freedom involved in the choices they make.

It offers him only the capacity to “choose” – to choose “freely” – the option that he must choose.

Lessans:

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

How meaningful can the differences be when choice is always expressed inside these: “________”. He is determined to find satisfaction “choosing” this instead of that. And so he “freely” opts for the greater satisfaction. Again, like clockwork.

If the unfolding design is predicated soley on the immutable laws of matter, how is this not analogous to being pre-programmed by them?

Thus contingency, chance and change in our lives are all only as they must be. It’s just that from the perspective of an individual who believes in free will, they seem to be factors that ever impinge upon his capacity to choose in the most rational manner. Or to wholly control his life. They are instead the variables that make his life seem to be topsy-turvy. You never really know what’s around the next corner. Whereas in a determined world it is always going to be what it could only ever have been. All we can do is to either acknowledge this and go with the inevitable flow or be deluded that we have a real capaity to shape our own destiny. However problematic that must always be in a world marbled through and through with the existential implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

All I can do is to note how, in my opinion, this will get you nowhere fast with scientists [and others] who insist that predictions made about a future world must be such that they can be tested beyond merely arguing over definitions and the meaning of words used in arguments.

As I have noted a number of times above, my own interest in determinism revolves largely around how one can grasp the meaning of “moral responsibility” in a world where blame and punishment are ever by rote.

Do we or do we not live in a world where what one person finds satisfying invariably precipitates behaviors that others will find anything but satisfying. It is in fact our conflicting satisfations that generate the conflicting behaviors that revolve in turn around the conflicting narratives we espouse regarding what is deemed to be good or bad.

You just make the booms and the busts of capitalism go away by insisting that in the future everyone one will somehow be in sync regarding all of those behaviors we are anything but in sync regarding now.

In other words…

You make predictions about a world that you assert must exist because you assert further that the manner in which you construe determinism is necessarily true.

In my view, this is how most will always react to your argument until you can make the argument more than just the theoretical constructs that Lessans links together in what I construe to be largely an intellectual contraption.

But we are given the “choice” only in the sense that our sole option is to choose what we must choose.

We will just have to agree to disagree regarding the practical implications of this. That being basically this: we practice only what the design [necessarily] preaches.

And so around and around and around we go…

…and where it will stop only the design knows.

He shows no such thing. Not in the excerpts that you provided. Instead, he makes the assumption that if his arguments about free will and blame and punishment and universal consciousness etc., are correct, then the world he predicts will come about.

If there is a way in we can actually test this “out in the world of conflicting goods”, I haven’t come across it yet.

In other words, you want us to understand [and to accept] these principles without being able to actually show us any flesh and blood human communities that practice what Lessans preaches. Instead, you predict it in a future world where none of us will be around to see it confirmed one way or another.

[b]From “Moral Responsibility in a Deterministic Universe” by Ray Bradford

Philosopher Daniel Dennett provides a sufficient definition of determinism on page one of his book Elbow Room when he states, “All physical events are caused and determined by the sum total of all previous events.” When people conceive of the choices they must navigate in everyday life, they appear to implicitly assume such an outlook on the universe–after all, choosing between alternatives only proves meaningful if one deterministically expects certain choices to result in certain consequences. Yet the application of determinism to human behavior itself elicits overwhelming hostility. A primary criticism tends to center on the issue of moral responsibility. Critics often argue with a mixture of disbelief and indignation that the concession of a deterministic universe (from which human behavior is not exempt) would entail the breakdown of morality and personal responsibility. They contend that if humans lack the capacity to act otherwise given a set of initial conditions in the universe, morality loses its basis of rationality and its raison d’être. They not only find such a world preposterous, but they imagine society would spontaneously disintegrate into anarchy as individuals justify their unbridled selfishness with “I could not have done otherwise.” [/b]

Yes, this is an excellecnt summation of the problem that determinism poses for me. In other words, if we do assume that hard determinism is true, what does it mean “for all practical purposes” to speak of moral responsibility at all?

Iambiguous, I appreciate your posting this but do you actually think Lessans didn’t know this? Do you actually think he overlooked this problem? I hope that after talking to me all this time you will have a little faith that he overcame this problem as he extended the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame. You won’t let me continue because of your doubt that anyone could make such a discovery. What can I say other than you’re wrong. =;

I am considerably less interested in what Lessans claimed to know about this and considerably more interested in the extent to which he was able to demonstrate that what he thought he knew about it is what all rational men and men must believe about it in turn.

And that [for me] will always revolve around the extent to which he was able to offer us a methodology for testing and replicating his observations such that we too must come to embrace the new world as he did.

In any event, very little in his argument seems able to adequately contend with the points I raise regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

All he seems to be suggesting instead is that the manner in which I have come to understand these relationships is the only manner in which I ever could have come to understand them.

And if that is the case I am always covered no matter what I might think and feel and do. From my perspective, if I am “wrong” here and now, it is only because I must be “wrong” here and now.

Just as you must now react to this only as another necessary component of existence. In fact, there would seem to be no exit from the only possible reality here until we die. Then our matter reconfigures back to “star stuff”.

And then the mystery that is mindful matter – the mystery that is “I” – is gone forevermore. Or so it seems.

A quote from Stephen Hawking

If there really is a complete unified theory that governs everything, it presumably also determines your actions. But it does so in a way that is impossible to calculate for an organism that is as complicated as a human being. The reason we say that humans have free will is because we can’t predict what they will do.

What is he saying here? Just because the complexity is such that we can’t predict what we will do, does not mean that, in a determined world, it can’t be predicted.

Right?

And if what we do can be predicted because what we do is only what we must do in order to be in sync [necessarily] with the laws of matter, then free will is no less an illusion.

And thus moral responsibility would seem to be subsumed in that as well.

[b]From: “Moral Responsibility in a Deterministic Universe”
by Ray Bradford

Any discussion on the bearing of determinism upon issues of moral and personal responsibility first requires an adequate understanding of determinism and its distinction from fatalism. Dennett’s definition of determinism adequately captures the viewpoint as, “All physical events are caused and determined by the sum total of all previous events.” Human behavior, as with all other causal sequences in the universe, is a function of antecedent states and causes. Popular misconception often interprets this viewpoint as the position that all our behaviors, including me writing this paper, are the direct one-to-one result of our genetic composition. While such a position is one form of determinism, genetic determinism, it is not the most widely accepted version. By and large, determinism instead suggests that human behavior results from an incredibly complex function of inherited genetic predisposition, environmental and cultural influences, and prior responses to, and interpretations of, environmental influences (learning). However, the theory holds that given an initial set of conditions external and internal to the mind, only one “choice” or behavior will result. Thus, given any set of actual initial conditions in this world (as opposed to slightly different “possible worlds”), any person’s “choice” could not have been otherwise.

While easy to confuse, determinism carries a subtle but significant distinction from fatalism. Fatalism suggests that certain events will occur regardless of how humans act. This is a significantly different conclusion than determinism. Dennett aptly sketches the distinction in his interview with Reason magazine, “Fatalism is the idea that something’s going to happen to you no matter what you do. Determinism is the idea that what you do depends. What happens depends on what you do, what you do depends on what you know, what you know depends on what you’re caused to know, and so forth–but still, what you do matters. There’s a big difference between that and fatalism. Fatalism is determinism with you left out.” [/b]

This distinction has always been one I can never quite seem to grasp “for all practical purposes”. How “in the world” is it applicable?

Fatalism, after all, is defined as: “the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.”

Either I must type these words or I have some capacity [however problematic and/or inexplicable] to choose not to. Or to choose other words instead.

I can understand that events will unfold because of how we choose to act. But: if we choose to act only in accordance with the immutable laws of matter, then there is still nothing other than those particular events unfolding in the only possible world.

I still see “choice” here as equivalent to the falling dominoes. Only the dominoes are utterly mindless matter not able to be conscious of toppling over per the natural laws of physics.