Determinism

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! :slight_smile:

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 :wink:

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. #-o

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

amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All … 1553953304

Surreptitious, all major decisions involve the conscious mind in order to give permission for an action to be performed (based on that decision) or else someone could easily say, “I didn’t make that choice, my unconscious mind did.” Not only is that false, but how would that fly in a court of law?

I agree that the subconscious mind is still part of you and in that respect you are still in control of them. All major decisions involve the conscious mind in order to give permission for a choice to be made (even if the motivation for that choice involves subconscious factors), otherwise someone could easily use the excuse, “I didn’t give permission to pull the trigger, my subconscious mind did 7 seconds before my conscious mind agreed to it.” How would that fly in a court of law? Once again, that doesn’t mean there aren’t subconscious factors involved in making a choice, but the ultimate decision maker is the conscious agent whose job it is to decide whether there is justification to make the choice he is about to make. I am only trying to establish the “I” or “self” who is responsible for making a choice where someone, let’s say, was badly injured as a direct result of someone’s choice to run a red light. We are not talking about right or wrong here; just who is the responsible party.

Sleepwalkers are entirely unaware of what they do when sleepwalking [ even though they can demonstrate perfect motor function if knowledge
of it is in their memory ] and so if they commit a crime they cannot in principle be held responsible for it regardless of what it might actually be

The law however should not be changed to allow the guilty to blame their sub conscious every time they commit a crime
Although I was more interested in the question from a psychological / philosophical position rather than from a legal one