We already know that everything we do is determined by laws over which we have no control, whether it’s conscious or subconscious. I am trying to explain what people do to excuse themselves, not that it could have been any different.
That is absolutely true! I am trying to show you what happens when we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, under changed conditions.
And this kind of free will doesn’t exist because we ARE bound by our biology and environment which drive our choices.
I am not talking about doctrines either, I’m offering a definition that reflects what is true (according to reality), nothing more, nothing less.
I wasn’t referring to an external force such as putting a gun to someone’s head. I am only using the term “external” (my fault for the confusion) to mean that NOTHING can compel a person to do what they don’t want to do. Because of the limitation of language it can be difficult to get across what is being conveyed. I hope you can see what I mean by “external” because there is really nothing to disagree with, when understood in context.
That is true, even if what someone believes is in his best interest is not what others believe is in his best interest. But let me clarify, this does not make anyone selfish in a cold sense. Selfishness (or the desire to do what is best for oneself) does not have to conflict with caring for others. This term has confused everyone.
Life IS what it is. You can rail against the laws of the universe all you want, but sadly people and animals die. I am only discussing the choices we do have that appear free, but are anything but.
Thank you for the link (I will check it out when I have time), but for the purposes of this thread what I am hoping to demonstrate is not only the proof that man’s will is not free, but when extended how this knowledge can prevent what none of us want (i.e., the conflict that leads to war, crime, and poverty). Please try to keep your eye on the ball.
There is also a probability that I’m a worm believing I’m a person. We have to start out with the belief (or idea) that we exist, and that we, as agents, make choices, otherwise, there is no way we can even begin to have a productive dialog. It’s up to you whether you want to scrap anything I’m saying because you can always come back with the retort “I don’t exist so no proof about anything can be certain.”
This is where my explanation is more accurate than the conventional definition. There is nothing in life that “causes” a particular response. Therefore, the idea of a first cause that goes back to prior causes is flawed in that we only have the present. Two plus two does not cause four. It is that already. How can the past “cause” anything in the present if there is no such thing as the past? Let me repeat: Nothing from the past (even if it’s a second ago) can “cause” me to act a certain way. My consent is required which involves my present state of mind and my available options as to what I consider the better choice. This is not trivial. Please hold off your judgment before you jump to another false conclusion.
Serendipper, it is wonderful that you contribute the way you do. Writing a book is not the end all unless you desire to put into words something you care about. I didn’t write this book, BTW. I compiled it. I will post the first three chapters. If you find anything compelling, I could offer you this as a gift (through Amazon) or you could pay $10, which is a drop in the bucket for a 600 page book that shows us another way, the only way to prevent the “evil” that has prevailed since time immemorial.
Faulty beliefs are not what makes life, life. It is true that all of our choices, whether positive or negative, have an influence on how we respond to life’s challenges. But the delusion that we have free will does not have to continue once we know for a fact that it is false. This new understanding will change many things for the better.
Serendipper : A will can be both free and unfree in the sense that some choices can be made while others cannot [ for whatever reason ]
It is therefore wrong to present the free will question in binary form between zero free will or absolute free will with nothing in between
peacegirl : if free will doesnt exist then how are we able to make any choices ?
I think that free will exists but with legal / moral / psychological / physical limitations so I am free to do anything that I can do and would want to do
I am also free to do anything that I can do but would not want to do but still do anyway [ usually because my moral / psychological resistance to do so
has been sufficiently compromised ] Also things can be done / not done that were later regretted [ for whatever reason ] and suggests that it matters
more than at the actual time the things in question were done / not done
Even if it could be objectively demonstrated that free will doesnt exist it would not affect me psychologically
as I have absolutely no problem in accepting any limitation that reality imposes upon me [ I am a pragmatist ]
Also once I am dead I will no longer be restricted by zero free will assuming it exists and so all of my current limitations will eventually pass
In the meantime I simply accept as much as possible all impositions with a neutral or detached mindset so that they do not really bother me
I can see that you didn’t read the first three chapters carefully, or at all. You are using the word “free” in a different context than what is meant by freedom of the will. Obviously, we are free to choose one thing over another, but we are not free to choose the option that gives us the least satisfaction, which renders the least satisfying choice at that moment in time (among the available options that are being considered) an impossibility.
[i]The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?
“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”
This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative.
[/i]______________________________________
This hindsight recognition only shows that we are constantly re-evaluating our choices and trying to make better ones the next time a similar situation presents itself. This does not take away from the FACT that man’s will is not free to choose what gives him less satisfaction under the present conditions.
Well that’s a good thing. What I am showing is all about pragmatism, for the conditions that make it practical to fight, cause wars, create poverty, become very unpractical when we are shown a better way.
A big assumption on your part (which gets into fantasy thinking), number one; and number two, having free will would not free you from your limitations, whether physical, psychological, or any other way.
That’s good that you are neutral so as to create less stress on yourself. That being said, there is truth to be told. All of our limitations and freedoms (please don’t misinterpret how I’m using the word “freedoms”) will eventually pass because we we all will die, but what we leave behind will be part of the causal chain (please don’t misinterpret "causal chain to mean we have no choice because we are being forced to do what we may not want to do) of the next generation. Nothing we do or say therefore is unimportant in the scheme of life.
I agree but I would also say that one may consider choosing different options at different times before finally deciding upon one
I try to avoid being dogmatic where any choices are concerned and so prefer any decision arrived at to be as organic as possible
Unfortunately I am human and so have to operate from within a very restricted limitation but I am old and that helps very much
We are all restricted by the choices available to us. I can’t fly to Paris today because it’s not a choice that is possible. But deciding how I want to structure my day, I can choose to either go food shopping first and then visit a friend in the hospital, or visit a friend in the hospital and then go food shopping. Does that make sense? Obviously, some choices are more difficult to make while others don’t need that much consideration and can be more organic.
As a loner I do not give any time to those I leave behind because in my case there is no one
I have no idea what will happen after I die but what I do know is that I have no fear of death
To be able to work within restriction without being aware of its limitation is something to aspire to
I think it probably gets easier as one gets older but what is free for one is not so for every one else
I find being as physically and psychologically detached as possible is very good for my state of mind
I’m sorry that you have no one that you are leaving behind. I’m sure you feel lonely sometimes. I’m a loner too in that I don’t socialize often, but I do have family. You may really like the chapter, Our Posterity, in the book I am promoting.
[i] If you are slightly
less skeptical and more willing to continue the investigation, you will
see how effective are these laws as God puts an end to all war, crime,
adultery and divorce. Last but not least, though our magic elixir will
not apply here, I shall reveal something about death in a
mathematical, undeniable manner which will make every reader very
happy. Don’t you think it strange that of all the millions of years
Earth has been in existence (and what is a million years when the
words through which you see this relation are clarified) you, of all
people, should have been born to see the universe now; why weren’t
you born 5000 years ago, or why shouldn’t you be born in the future?
My friends, you are in for quite a pleasant surprise, but your mind is
so filled with words like spirit, soul, reincarnation, heaven, etc., which
have absolutely no meaning whatever,that you are terribly confused,
especially those who think they know. You will soon learn that there
is absolutely nothing to fear in death, which in itself will revolutionize
your lives, but everything is related, so please bear with me since it is
mathematically impossible to put everything down at one time. As I
said, you will catch your breath in utter amazement at the infinite
wisdom that governs this universe, and you will be given no choice but
to change your ways. But first, I shall reveal my second discovery
which will play a vital role in the new world.
declineandfallofallevil.com/ … tQkenlw6ek
[/i]
I totally get where you’re coming from! I watch a guy on youtube who wants no commitment at all physically or psychologically, and he’s only 38. He doesn’t want kids nor does he want to get married. He doesn’t even want the responsibility of owning a dog. He sold his condo of 15 years, moved to Florida, and lives out of his car. He works remotely and uses Starbucks as his office. And he’s happy! 
I have no problem being on my own so no need to feel sorry for me
I am alone but I am not lonely because I just keep myself occupied
I have no family or friends or job but I just accept this and it does not bother me
I am only passing through so my life means nothing in the grand scheme of things
I will try and read the book but I much prefer physical books so I may order it if I can
I don’t feel sorry for you; I can identify with you. It’s great that you are able to keep yourself occupied.
Every life is valuable. You cannot know the ways in which your life may have positively impacted others.
Surreptitious, I am receiving the proof within a few days. As soon as I publish the print version I’ll let you know. It won’t be too long.
I have just placed my order and it will be delivered in two weeks
What makes me want to listen to a new understanding [re my own understanding of a wholly determined universe] is the fact that I could never not want to.
I literally have no choice but to choose to want to. And [clearly] we don’t think about that in the same way. And I always allow for the possibility that, autonomously, I could choose to think about it differently.
Let’s just say that throughout the entire length and breadth of human history, our species has been awash in them.
Right, like in a wholly determined universe, we could choose to think about this in any other way than we are compelled to. Like we are actually free to recognize this.
Meanwhile out in the world that we live in? To build or not to build Trump’s wall. To be or not to be a socialist. To abort or not to abort the unborn baby. What here does improve the human condition?
But how are you not reducing us down to men and women who choose only that which they are compelled to? Was the Terminator more like us or more like an automaton?
In a world where the meaning we ascribe to things is the only meaning we were ever able to ascribe to things…what does that tell you about this choice? Something different than what it tells me.
You mean your words only as you ever could mean them. And they mean to me only that which they ever could mean to me. But those autonomous aliens are up there pointing out that that we still “choose” this meaning.
I’m still missing something in the meaning you are trying to convey. Not that I could ever have not missed it?
As nature’s dominoes, we’re not removed.
But what on earth does this mean regarding our actual interactions with others? Other than the only thing that it ever could mean?
Other than the fact that our “will” is entirely subsumed in nature —and in those immutable laws of matter?
We can just take that back [re an infinite regression] to the understanding of existence itself. I pulled the trigger because someone made me. And someone before that made him make me. And then all of the wholly determined interactions that come into play that brought both of us into existence. Going back to the laws of matter that brought into existence life itself.
That was getting too long, so I distilled it down.
Suppose I intend to order chocolate, but then I overhear someone say they pissed in the chocolate, so some outside force has compelled me to change my mind.
I think what you’re getting at is the will cannot will want it doesn’t want to will. The will can be changed, but at the end of the day, the will still wills what it wants to will.
If I give someone a gift, do a favor, or even sacrifice myself for someone else, it can only be for a selfish reason because there is nothing I can do that I don’t want to do.
Selfishness in the cold sense is really just dimwitted in my opinion. That person doesn’t see that doing things for others is better for him. It’s not any more or less selfish, just dumber.
There are no laws, but only observed regularities.
The links were to help you accept probabilism. If you already accept it, then don’t worry about the links.
If you posit that you exist, then where is the line that separates you from not-you? This is not only problematic in space, but also time: when did you begin?
When I look at an animal, I see a bunch of luggage pushing a brain around, but then I realize the brain is just luggage too. Where is the animal? Alright, ok, so if the animal is the luggage, then what isn’t luggage? The animal needs food and water and a planet, so where does the luggage end? Obviously if the animal is the luggage, then there is nothing that is not the animal. So either there is no animal or there is nothing that is not the animal, but I cannot for the life of me see the animal as different from everything else.
So if there is no animal, from where is the will coming from? And if there is only the animal, on what is the supposed will exerted? The whole thing is just an illusion. There is nothing being determined because there is nothing there but abstractions.
I don’t have any problem with that since I believe nothing has a cause. There are no things or events, and the abstracted things that we call things are caused by random (causeless) chance.
And I could go further and claim that if there were causes and deterministic mechanisms, then there would be no point to the universe. But that requires a lot of unpacking. Essentially, purposelessness can be the only purpose.
Educating others helps me to live in a better world, so it’s not noble, but selfish.
I have literally tons and tons of books (and a Reader’s Digest collection going back to the early 1900s when staples were used in the spine to hold pages together), but I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve only ever read one book (that I can remember) from cover to cover. My father devours books just for fun, but for me it’s painful and I take a more utilitarian perspective that reading is a tool to learn. Dad reads for kicks, but I toil to achieve a goal. Anyway, I have oodles of books on queue awaiting whatever it is I’m missing so I can eventually attend to them, but it’ll probably never happen. My eyes are also getting worse which makes it that much harder.
If I were born in a time absent tv, radio, and youtube, perhaps I’d have developed an affinity for reading, but I find it an antiquated method of learning and far too inefficient in light of alternative mediums. I’m spoiled by progress. I don’t want to offend you or anything, but it would be a miracle if I ever found myself in a position where I didn’t have 10,000 things more pressing or exciting to do in order to snuggle up to a book. Most of my reading is done in waiting rooms where nothing else is possible. Likewise, I have the same problem in writing a book. Why write a book when the purpose of writing, as David Hare said, “writing is the act of discovering what you believe”? If I’ve already discovered what I believe, why rehash it when I could move on to more interesting things. Maybe someone will compile my work one day since I’m too poorly equipped to do it. I can’t even get around to compiling Alan Watts’ work, which is on my bucket list.
Usually a book is written surrounding a few key ideas. One starts with the ideas and adds fluff to make a book from it. Isn’t there a way to convey to me the nuggets without requiring me to wade through all the accessory fluff to find them?
The will is free in some senses and not in other senses, but within the context of one sense, it is either free or not. That’s closer to what I meant.
How does a computer make choices?
Yes, certainly the capability exists for you to choose chocolate or vanilla, but the choice you will make is not under your control because you cannot make yourself prefer one to the other.
Scientists can be aware of your choices before you are and by a margin of 7 seconds! wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/
So if you’ve made your decision before you even knew it, then how could you be in control of making it? The you that you think you are lives in the past and is always last to know 
I’m not sure which version they’re sending. I updated the book which is why I said to wait, but it’s not here nor there. The changes are minor. Let me know when you get it.
You’re repeating yourself over and over and over again. It is an established fact that everything we do could not have been otherwise, so why keep repeating it? We can’t make progress if you keep going around in circles iambiguous.
So what is your question?
A new grasp of what it means that man’s will is not free which has never been fully understood.
For purposes of this discussion, I don’t want to get into the difference between humans and computers. We make choices and those choices are determined not by force from a program dictating what we must obey, but by our desires and preferences which can only go in one direction. Please make note of that as we continue…if we do. We are not Terminators who are blindly doing what a program tells us to do yet our will is not free to do otherwise.
[quote="In a world where the meaning we ascribe to things is the only meaning we were ever able
to ascribe to things…what does that tell you about this choice? Something different than what it tells me.
We still choose this meaning because we had no other choice but to choose this meaning. No one is disputing this iambiguous.
You definitely are missing what I am trying to convey. You obviously didn’t read any of the first three chapters which is why you are having problems understanding. If you don’t read because it doesn’t give you greater satisfaction to move in this direction, then obviously you couldn’t have done otherwise, but I hope you will be inspired to read the first three chapters so you will better understand what I am trying to convey. 
We are not removed from nature, but we are not dominoes or Terminators that have no say in the choices we make, although those choices are not free. In that respect we are part of the causal chain of life where everything that has been done or will be done could not be otherwise.
It means a lot iambiguous if you follow the extension.
True, but being that our will is entirely subsumed in nature does not take away from the fact that our will has absolute control to say “no” to a choice that we do not want to make. No domino can force a choice upon us, in other words.
No one made you pull the trigger. You had control over whether to pull the trigger or not. You pulled the trigger because the option to not pull the trigger was less desirable at that moment. This is not trivial and leads to an important observation.
Once again, no one made him do anything. No one has that power to force you to do what you don’t want to do. Keep this in mind because this IS the other side of the equation which leads to an amazing discovery about how these two laws of our nature bring about enormous changes in human conduct.
But that’s inaccurate. You cannot be free to do otherwise and not be free to do otherwise. You are trying to conflate different definitions of “free” like the compatibilists do to make it appear like a non-contradiction.
They don’t. They just follow the program. This is dissimilar to humans in the sense that humans do make choices and CAN SAY NO if a choice is not to their liking.
Because the “I” or “self” or “agent” has control over giving permission to follow through on an action. You cannot say, for example, my brain made me kill that person because in order for your brain to kill someone, it requires your approval.
The sub conscious mind that makes decisions is still part of you and in that respect you are still in control of them
The mistake is to assume all major decisions are made by the conscious mind simply because that is the only one we actually experience