Determinism

Again iambiguous, no one is debating that everyone is compelled to do what they do as one more inherent component of nature’s material/phenomenal laws. The problem though is the fact that most lay people believe that having a choice IS free will. They do not consider choice without physical constraint as being unfree.

Yes, that is true. Choice is part of natural law because only one choice is possible (i.e., the choice that offers greater satisfaction) at any given moment in time, which is one more aspect of what could ever be. The significance of this understanding becomes apparent in Chapter Two.

That is true.

True, but again the significance of this becomes clear as it is shown how desire changes (i.e., the desire to strike a first blow of hurt) when the conditions of the environment change — as part of what could ever be.

They couldn’t. No one is saying they could have. That’s why it is being explained in a way that will help them understand these words [in a wholly determined universe].

This was anything but a general description encompassed in a world of words. This is not about defense. He was clarifying that saying “I did something of my own free will” is correct when it means "I did something of my own desire because I wanted to. It does not mean I did something because I was compelled to do it based on previous events that forced me to do it against my will. That is an important point because determinism, as it’s presently defined, implies that we are forced, against our will, to do what we do based on antecedent factors, when NOTHING has the power to make us to anything against our will. We have absolute control over this.

[i] The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.[/i]

Volition is something we as humans have, but this does not grant us free will. I hope you’re really listening to what I’m saying because people often half listen just so they can respond with their ideas without ever taking the necessary time to understand the other person’s perspective.

That is true. I am only saying for the purposes of this discussion because oftentimes a discussion gets sidetracked. I didn’t want that to happen.

i haven’t read the book because i don’t believe anything more can be said on the matter. the metaphysical subject of freewill was resolved centuries ago, and since then philosophers have only restated the matter in their own unique way… though none of this was really necessary. a quicker way would be to point those interested toward classic philosophers like hume, spinoza and nietzsche… and more modern philosophers like wittgenstein, chisholm, taylor and frankfurt. of course one can write their own book, and i don’t doubt that it would sell somewhere, but there’s really nothing new to be said in this matter, fortunately or unfortunately (whichever you prefer).

if i may point out here, forms of compatibilism or ‘soft determinism’ usually get their currency from distorting and/or importing into otherwise ordinary terms certain hidden premises which aren’t made explicit. in the above instance, you’re implying that the ‘will’ and the ‘we’ are somehow free from the causal constraints that the body is subject to. this would be to introduce a cartesian substance that is not subject to the same natural processes that the body, in which it exists, is subject to. your version of compatibilism dissolves when you realize that there is no such agency that is causally exempt from the forces that order everything else in nature. once you realize there is no ‘we’ in the sense of there being an ‘I’ that acts upon the body rather than through it - or i should say ‘as it’ -, whether or not a ‘we’ has ‘absolute control’ is a nonsensical question. there are not two separate entities working together here; it’s not the ‘self’ and the self’s ‘body’. it’s not the agency and the thing the agency acts upon. rather there is a single ontological substance, if you will, acting simpliciter.

and yet, we cannot get around the problem of having to decide in praxis. built into this causal chain of events is that peculiar situation involving our neurology… that lapse of time in which manifold processes are not brought to the foreground in consciousness. it’s this peculiar detail in nature that gives rise to the illusion. you all know this already.

but now let’s be clear. even though there is no freewill, we’d be mistaken to use the word ‘determine’ as an alternative. as you’ll see (in the below quote), the meaning of this word in the various ways we’ve learned to use it and make sense out of it, cannot be counted on to describe the process without yielding confusions. we are finally forced to say that things ‘just happen’, and continue living and interacting with people as if we really did have freewill. what then is the function of the lie of freewill? i call it the most recent form of moral subterfuge; it serves no other purpose than as a means for giving praise or placing blame, depending on whether or not we find a person agreeable or not. in this way it is a form of control and/or manipulation. it solicits admiration from those who we favor with praise, and fear/guilt from those who we reprimand with blame. you could even say that the degree with which a person uses these means is proportionate to their power and understanding. the weaker and more confused a person is, the more they rely on these means to understand their valuing of others. one who truly understood the truth (a spinoza, for instance… an almost impossible height) would have nothing but praise for everything, since they recognize the perfect order of nature in its totality; that things must happen as they do and could not happen any other way. this of course does not render one into a passive stoic who resigns into quietism. one still ‘wills’, only they no longer blame, no longer dread, no longer fear. as i said, an almost impossible ‘level’ of wisdom to reach. what spinoza said was ‘as difficult as it was rare.’

Determinism
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:43 pm

promethean75 wrote:
i haven’t read the book because i don’t believe anything more can be said on the matter.

Just because you believe nothing more can be said on the matter doesn’t make it so. Why sell yourself short?

promethean75 wrote:
… the metaphysical subject of freewill was resolved centuries ago,

No it wasn’t. It has yet to be resolved.

promethean75 wrote:
… and since then philosophers have only restated the matter in their own unique way… though none of this was really necessary. a quicker way would be to point those interested toward classic philosophers like hume, spinoza and nietzsche… and more modern philosophers like wittgenstein, chisholm, taylor and frankfurt. of course one can write their own book, and i don’t doubt that it would sell somewhere, but there’s really nothing new to be said in this matter, fortunately or unfortunately (whichever you prefer).

[i]So you believe these philosophers had the last word on the subject? :confused:

Determinism, as it’s presently defined, implies that we are forced, against our will, to do what we do based on antecedent events, when NOTHING has the power to make us to anything against our will. We have absolute control over this.[/i]

promethean75 wrote:
if i may point out here, forms of compatibilism or ‘soft determinism’ usually get their currency from distorting and/or importing into otherwise ordinary terms certain hidden premises which aren’t made explicit. in the above instance, you’re implying that the ‘will’ and the ‘we’ are somehow free from the causal constraints that the body is subject to.

That’s not what I said. I said most lay people, when they think of free will, believe that’s what they have if there are no external constraints (such as a gun to their head). This is how compatibilists define free will also.

promethean75 wrote:
this would be to introduce a cartesian substance that is not subject to the same natural processes that the body, in which it exists, is subject to. your version of compatibilism dissolves when you realize that there is no such agency that is causally exempt from the forces that order everything else in nature.

Compatibilism doesn’t dissolve because there’s no agency; it dissolves because it’s contradictory. It’s a semantic shift in order to justify the dishing out of just desert. You could not have read what I posted because I never said that we are causally exempt from the forces that order everything in nature. What I did say is that nothing can make us do anything against our will, if we don’t want to do something. Conversely, I said that our choices can only go in one direction, which is WHY will is not free. If it was free, we could choose either/or, but that would make a mockery of contemplation, which is for the sole purpose of deciding which choice, under our particular circumstances, is preferable.

promethean75 wrote:
once you realize there is no ‘we’ in the sense of there being an ‘I’ that acts upon the body rather than through it - or i should say ‘as it’ -, whether or not a ‘we’ has ‘absolute control’ is a nonsensical quest.

It is anything but a nonsensical quest. It is the most important quest of all time because it has the power to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, as part of our development. At this juncture, it is important to clarify what is meant by responsibility. With your reasoning someone could say "I wasn’t responsible for shooting that person because there is no “I”;, ontologically speaking, I’m just part of a causal chain. Nature did what it wanted through me, but not of my own accord. Do you see a problem with this reasoning? Regardless of the reason for my pulling the trigger, the responsibility for making the choice (not the moral responsibility which invokes blame) was mine because nothing has the power to force me to do what I prefer not to do. Can you please sit with this for a moment before telling me I’m wrong? You have no conception at this point why this distinction is important.

promethean75 wrote:
there are not two separate entities working together here; it’s not the ‘self’ and the self’s ‘body’. it’s not the agency and the thing the agency acts upon. rather there is a single ontological substance, if you will, acting simpliciter.

The conventional definition implies that we are puppets on a string where we are forced to do what the software program (or natural law) tells us we must. But this is a false conception because the software program cannot make us do anything we don’t want to do since the agent (the “I”, the self) must give consent before an action takes place. The fact that there’s agency and the thing the agency acts upon does not mean two separate entities exist. It just means that the agent is not a passive recipient to whatever unfolds without any say in the matter. But …(and here it is again) the choice of the agent not to perform an action is also part of our alignment with nature’s law because this is an inherent attribute of man. We have absolute control to say no to an action (nothing can make us do anything against our will; you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink), and no control over what we find preferable since we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and only one choice is possible at any given moment in time.

prometheus75 wrote:
and yet, we cannot get around the problem of having to decide in praxis. built into this causal chain of events is that peculiar situation involving our neurology… that lapse of time in which manifold processes are not brought to the foreground in consciousness. it’s this peculiar detail in nature that gives rise to the illusion. you all know this already.

Even though neuroscience tells us that things are going on below our conscious awareness, the choices we make (even if we’re not sure of all the underlying reasons that we choose something) are done with our conscious awareness. Exceptions could be deep hypnosis where one is being controlled by another person’s suggestion, but even here, I wonder if one would do something egregious and against his moral underpinnings.

prometheus75 wrote:
but now let’s be clear. even though there is no freewill, we’d be mistaken to use the word ‘determine’ as an alternative. as you’ll see (in the below quote), the meaning of this word in the various ways we’ve learned to use it and make sense out of it, cannot be counted on to describe the process without yielding confusions. we are finally forced to say that things ‘just happen’, and continue living and interacting with people as if we really did have freewill. what then is the function of the lie of freewill? i call it the most recent form of moral subterfuge; it serves no other purpose than as a means for giving praise or placing blame, depending on whether or not we find a person agreeable or not.

Very true. Blame and praise are opposite sides of the coin.

prometheus75 wrote:
in this way it is a form of control and/or manipulation. it solicits admiration from those who we favor with praise, and fear/guilt from those who we reprimand with blame. you could even say that the degree with which a person uses these means is proportionate to their power and understanding. the weaker and more confused a person is, the more they rely on these means to understand their valuing of others. one who truly understood the truth (a spinoza, for instance… an almost impossible height) would have nothing but praise for everything, since they recognize the perfect order of nature in its totality; that things must happen as they do and could not happen any other way. this of course does not render one into a passive stoic who resigns into quietism. one still ‘wills’, only they no longer blame, no longer dread, no longer fear. as i said, an almost impossible ‘level’ of wisdom to reach. what spinoza said was ‘as difficult as it was rare.’

[i]Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of
good and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around
quite a bit but did not know how to slay the fiery dragon (the great
impasse of blame), so he pretended it wasn’t even there. He stated,
“We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when seen in total
perspective,” and he rejected the principle of an eye for an eye. Will
Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s philosophy,
although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was
humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He
also went in and looked around very thoroughly and, he too, saw the
fiery dragon but unlike Spinoza he made no pretense of its
non-existence. He just didn’t know how to overcome the beast but
refused to agree with what common sense told him to deny.

The
implications really need no further clarification as to why free will is
in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other philosophers, ever
discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free because they never
unlocked the second door which leads to my discovery. The belief in
free will was compelled to remain in power until the present time
because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was true, nor
could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an impossible
feat. Is it any wonder that Johnston didn’t want to get into this
matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond the
vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so difficult
to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated? [/i]

It is true that confusion arises due to definition only. There can be no meeting of the minds when everyone has a different definition of what determinism and free will mean. Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect accurately what is going on in reality. For example, we are not denied a will in determinism. Moreover, the knowledge I am presenting is not prescriptive. It does not say we must choose so and so because determinism prescribed that this must be so. It is descriptive ONLY. It is also not anthropomorphic because we’re not attributing man made characteristics to laws of nature; we are part of the laws of nature. I’m not sure if my response will satisfy Rosa’s take on the misuse of words because that is the crux of the problem but not in the way she’s describing. I’m hoping that people will be interested in a more accurate definition of determinism. This correct definition, and the corollary that follows, reconciles determinism with moral responsibility. Will is not denied us, it’s just not a free will. By keeping the will intact, it removes the alienating nature of traditional thought that has confused the free will/determinism debate up until the present day.

Yes, but in a wholly determined universe, these lay people believe only that which they were ever able to believe. That is where we always seem to get stuck. Why? Because we were never able to not get stuck. If everything is “unfree” that would certainly include this exchange.

Again, unless there is another way to think about all this that I keep missing.

This part:

When you speak of greater satisfaction here it is [to me] as one who believes in autonomy thinks of it. I chose this because in weighing what would bring me greater satisfaction, I freely picked that instead of something else. You speak of desires changing as though they change as they do of our own volition. From my frame of mind, however, thinking and feeling are interchangable in a wholly determined universe.

This part:

It is being explained to them in the only way it was ever going to be explained to them. And they react to the explanation in the only way they were ever sble too. It’s not like they were ever free to grasp your explanation if they do not grasp it.

In other words, everything that we think, feel, say and do is inherently intertwined of necessity in the unfolding material universe.

EVERYthing.

But if you could never not want to…?

And if our “will” is but one more of nature’s dominoes toppling over [necessarily] into the choices we make in any particular context…?

And, from my frame of mind, even given some measure of autonomy, the “will” is embedded in the existential contraption that intertwines dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in the is/ought world. A world where value judgments collide all the time.

This makes sense to him, to you. To me though [in a wholly determined universe] it does not.

Either Ghandi’s choices in the world back then might have been other than what they were…and history been changed…or they were always going to be what they were and history unfolded only as it ever could have.

Admittedly, I may well be unable to grasp this point, but like the point above, it makes no sense to me in a wholly determined universe. Either the folks here – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghrai … oner_abuse – were choosing and behaving of their own volition and history may well have been different, or there was never a way in which history here could have unfolded other than the way it did.

What we want to do under torture would seem [to me] to be no less what we could only ever have wanted to do if “I” here is embedded in a wholly determined universe. Just as the one inflicting the torture could not have chosen not to inflict it.

What freaks people out about this is the idea that no one can ever be held morally responsible for something they could never have not done. But they are, in turn, freaked out only because they could never have not been freaked out.

I’m less keen on definitions then on the extent to which any particular definition is brought down to earth. Our consent [regarding anything we think, feel, say, do] is either embedded in some measure of autonomy, volition, free will etc., or it is wholly in sync with a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

This makes sense to me only to the extent that, in seeking greater satisfaction, I was able to choose not to think as I do. Because in thinking like this it brings me anything but a feeling of being satisfied.

Our brains would appear to be [up to now] matter able to become conscious of itself as matter having evolved over time given the evolution of life on earth. Life somehow having evolved from mindless matter. How then is mindful matter different from mindless matter? That’s always been the gist of it here. Are human brains able to choose differently from those acts of nature that appear to be completely mindless?

Well, we don’t fully grasp that. But, in the interim, dominoes topple over only as they were ever able to and we think, feel, say and do things only as we were/are/will ever be able to.

Here, however, you make a distinction that I am not able to grasp given the assumption that we are in turn necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe.

But: Could you have ever chosen not to tell me this point? Could I ever reacted to it [over and over again] other than as I did/do/will?

Ultimate control? Or any control at all?

Then…

Rocks don’t think. We do. But, as with the rocks, we are on a trek into the future only as it is ever able to be.

Our capacity to think generates [psychologically] the illusion of freedom. That rocks don’t have this capacity distinguishes them from us. But our brain is no less “choosing” to ski down the mountain than a rock is “choosing” to tumble down it in a landslide.

In a determined universe.

How then are we not “for all practical purposes” the equivalent of nature’s dominoes/puppets? We think ourselves into believing that we are choosing freely to ski down the mountain. But nature knows better.

Thus…

Sorry, but I’m still completely lost here in regard to what you are trying to convey. Either you are free to make another attempt to explain it, and I am free to get it this time, or “whatever choice [either of us selects]…is what could never not have been made”.

volition: the faculty or power of using one’s will.

So, is that “faculty and power” autonomous or not?

And, as for “really listening” to what you’re saying, there are some folks who tell you this, but what they mean is, “if you were really listening to me, you would agree with me.”

yeeeeah, i dunno about all that. i think rather that because whoever wrote that was personally terrified of the consequences morality was exposed to by the truth of determinism, that they thought spinoza came to the conclusion of determinism because he wanted to free us from blame, rather than vice-versa. spinoza did not set out to prove determinism because he found blame unsettling. rather he came logically to the conslusion of determinism and then noticed that this conclusion removes blame.

in a way spinoza stands frozen before this great epihany just like biggy does… who keeps pressing the point that you’re not going to squeeze in there any ‘free volition’, no matter how sophisticated your argument appears.

now whether or not you know it, you (peacegirl) are on to something extraordinary… something that is a precursor to a major shift in world politics. we agreed elsewhere (indirectly and across forums) that the abolishment of the freewill illusion in fact makes man more responsible in that he has to take responsibility for his environment as an externalist; someone who recognizes more clearly than ever before in history, that people are entirely conditioned by their environments. this kind of concession would radically change the basis of positive law, especially, because in dismissing mental states and processes as irrelevant - as behaviorism rightly does - it places focus on the operant conditioning that contributes to criminal behavior. this would literally be like a renaissance in the social sciences and would change everything.

but this step is centuries down the road. today the courts are still arguing such nonsense as ‘yeah but he knew what he did was wrong.’ but what do they mean ‘wrong’? ‘illegal’, or ‘wrong’ in an imperative sense? the world today still believes in morality because it believes in freewill, and it believes in freewill because of philosophy. as long as these illusions still exist, those in power will make no effort to accept responsibility for controlling environments and instead continue to exploit the opportunity to make a business out of the criminal justice system.

i may have said too much or not enough here, i’m not sure. but you can get a feel for what i’m implying with something along the lines of what lenin said: capitalism deserves every bit of the crime it gets. what he means is that the excessive nature of the freedoms in a capitalist/consumerism, coupled with that nonsensical doctrine of freewill, produces an environment in which those who do not take responsibility for controlling such excessive freedoms, end up turning around and blaming the criminals that result from their negligence to do so. but the sinister genius of capitalism turns even this into an advantage. it produces its criminals and then makes a business out of its criminal justice systems. it creates a problem it can then make money off of; a strong market for the state and privately owned prison systems. reason #254 why capitalism is a joke.

Hi promethean
Then Lenin and you are opposed. He says Capitalism “deserves” - is culpable for causing - the crime it gets.

Or is it that man has no free will but Capitalism, as some kind of entity, does?

The notion of guilt and culpability increases in strength under your words.

But what is gratifyingly made clear is the meaning of “free will”. It is, in your discourse, the ability to attribute value judgments.
Per you, such judgments are per definition untrue. As there is no free will.

Your judgments of Capitalism as being wrong are your free will. And thus dont exist.

Which is interesting and believable.

On the other hand let’s keep space open for the notion that the power to make value judgments does exist, as a prerequisite for life.

These persectives can then decide between them which one is right.

And such culpable problems, are the kind pitting categorical authority against Hegel’s notion of the Absolute.
This is exactly why the commies outlawed religion In favor for the control of the state. After that presumptive synthetic unity, before the judgement, or populous cohesive agreement, the so called national will became the slavery by masters.
Who wouldn’t be unhappy to share a return to a new paternity?

Of course Lenin was Russian, not English, for whom Marx’ formula was intended.

Sorry duplicate

Sorry duplicate

Here is Ambiguous citing Strawson in this forum:

“Strawson himself was optimistic that compatibilism could reconcile determinism with moral obligation and responsibility.” He accepted the facts of determinism. He felt that determinism was true. But he was concerned to salvage the reality of our attitudes even for libertarians, whom he described as pessimists about determinism."

May be there’in lies hidden poignancy.

Correct!!! There is no choice that could have been made but the choice that WAS made. Why are you trying to convince me when I know this is true? =;

The domino analogy is problematic because it presupposes the agent is nonexistent.

The reason you’re having a problem is because you are relinquishing the agent altogether, are you not? I don’t think you think you are, but actually I think you are not taking into consideration that choices are made not by antecedent events that force a chess move; they are choices made in the present based on what a person is considering.

Obviously Gandhi’s choice was wholly determined, so where is your disagreement? He chose [in the direction of what gave him greater satisfaction among the alternatives available to him] to be killed rather than to give up his fight for freedom. Where does any of this comment dispute “a wholly determined universe?”

We either have free will or we don’t. Just because our world is developing and different choices are made at different times in history that are different from what we would choose now, does not alter the FACT that we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of our lives. I will state one last time, who is arguing with you iambiguous that everything unfolds as it could only ever be? #-o

History is what it is. It could not have been any different. The problem you’re having is you’re belief that I’m trying to change what could never be. That’s not what I’m doing. I’m just stating a simple comment that if a person doesn’t want to do something, nothing but nothing can make him do it. That’s it. Please take in what I’m saying because it doesn’t conflict with anything you’re saying, but it’s an important point as you will see if we get to move forward.

Yes, you’re right. The author said this in Chapter One, which you didn’t read because you don’t think it’s worth your time.

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.

I agree. They had to be freaked out but that doesn’t mean they have to continue to be freaked out out once they understand the true meaning of determinism and the amazing knowledge that lies behind that heremetically sealed door.

Of course minds can change according to new information. That being said, everything is being played out as it has to be, but that doesn’t mean war has to continue, hate has to continue, poverty has to continue, crime has to continue, once we are given the knowledge how to prevent these occurrences from continuing.

War seems
to be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can only
be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark
between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human
life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a
sociological inevitability.
Another reason that war is viewed as an
unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to
suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or
have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.
The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his
mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who
dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and
unfounded.

No conflict here.

You are satisfied to be here otherwise you wouldn’t be here. You are able to choose not to answer me, not to engage, not to argue, not to debate, etc. You have absolute control over walking away, and there is nothing I could do to convince you otherwise, if your mind is made up. Nothing has the power to make you do what you don’t want to do, for over this you have absolute control, but this does not make your will free. I don’t know if you grasp this or not.

Humans are able to think and ponder and ruminate. In this respect humans differ from other species. Call it whatever you want. Bottom line: We are developing and we are progressing as we have always done from the beginning of time. Eventually this new world is going to become a reality not because of anything I’m saying, but because this is the law of our nature.

Just don’t leave out the agent.

The word “embedded” is misleading for it assumes, ONCE AGAIN, we, as agents have no say in what we choose.

Nothing up to this very instant could have been done differently.

We don’t have ultimate control. We have control only in the sense that nothing prior to the present moment could force us to do anything against our will. No domino, so to speak, can force us to choose something we don’t want to choose. Obviously in a situation where we were stuck on a train track and the train was coming, we would be hit like dominoes falling down one after the other. But that’s not the same issue.

So is this about you’re wanting to be right at all costs, or is this about trying to understand what this discovery has to offer before telling me I’m wrong? :-k

The faculty of using one’s will to make a choice from our present position that has grown uncomfortable to the next position we are now standing on does not in any way, shape, or form grant us freedom of the will where choice is free from our environment, genetics, and predispositions.

Compatibilism does not increase moral responsibility. It justifies blame and punishment which satisfies the status quo of our present penal and justice system. In so many words, it states that if a person is of sound mind, when given a choice that is not constrained by physical force, he can [freely] choose not to do harm to anyone. What I am presenting is not about reconciling free will with determinism, because there is no free will. Being able to say “no” to an action does not mean we have free will because the choice not to do it, is still within the purview of determinism.

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.

If compatibility justified blame, rather then increase moral responsibility then
Strawson’s paraphrased words here may be proper at this juncture:

In his landmark essay, ‘Freedom and Resentment,’ P. F. Strawson (1962) sets out to adjudicate the dispute between those compatibilists who hold a consequentialist view of responsibility and those incompatibilists who hold the merit-based view.[9] Both are wrong, Strawson believes, because they distort the concept of moral responsibility by sharing the prevailing assumption sketched above — the assumption that holding persons responsible rests upon a theoretical judgment of their being responsible. According to Strawson, the attitudes expressed in holding persons morally responsible are varieties of a wide range of attitudes deriving from our participation in personal relationships, e.g., resentment, indignation, hurt feelings, anger, gratitude, reciprocal love, and forgiveness. The function of these attitudes is to express “…how much we actually mind, how much it matters to us, whether the actions of other people—and particularly some other people—reflect attitudes towards us of good will, affection, or esteem on the one hand or contempt,-.

Contemp may breed resentment, and this is the limit to where positivism can lead us.

On the other hand, the positivist approach lends to the judgement accorded thusly: and again return to him:

"sets out to adjudicate the dispute between those compatibilists who hold a consequentialist view of responsibility and those incompatibilists who hold the merit-based view.[9] Both are wrong, Strawson believes, because they distort the concept of moral responsibility by sharing the prevailing assumption sketched above — the assumption that holding persons responsible rests upon a theoretical judgment of their being responsible. "

The above justifies a positive approach, in some affinity with those, who are not in agreement with the idea that moral judgements can be settled on theoretical grounds, such as Kant, and even Marx. For if they were, then the famous synthesis would need to be based an a-priori synthetic base, (prior to the judgement)
This is cleverly denied by all positivist, and perhaps rightly so.

As a result, cupuld compatibility be excluded as manifested in resentment, or should they remain even as a contingent apparatus in measuring an assumeable degree of human will, to resist determination?

I’m not at all sure I’m making sense, but I’d be happy to rephrase if so desired.

Ill bump this to be sure.

ah i see what you’re doing. you’re asking how a determinist could blame a certain economic system for producing conflicts between people who don’t have the freewill to not produce those conflicts. indeed, there is a bit of an impasse here so long as a critique attempts to proceed on moral grounds. the only way around this problem is to replace the premise with a kind of hedonistic imperative and evoke a utilitarian point of view on the matter; we say despite whether or not capitalism is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ according to [insert favorite ethical theory], it produces a grossly disproportionate hedonic calculus in practice. and since ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ are states which are absolutely certain and free from the interrogating finger of philosophy - ‘how can you be sure you’re experiencing pleasure or pain’ is a question only and idiot philosopher would ask - the degree to which these states exist is the thing that should be brought into question when examining an economic system. so because capitalism produces a hedonistic calculus which results in a greater amount of pain and suffering in a majority, in exchange for a proprotionately smaller amount of pleasure and success for a minority, one would have to set the premise that the pleasure of the few over the majority is justified. but how can one do that? such a justification would be a value statement, a moral statement, and have absolutely no grounds other than as a simple emotivistic expression; the capitalist says ‘capitalism is good because X’, and this only means ‘i like it’. there is no quality ‘goodness’ out there in the world which would vindicate capitalism of its disproportionate calculus. and yet at the same time, one can neither say the majority should experience less pain and suffering, as that kind of claim would fall under the same terms.

it simply comes down to this simple question; why would a majority allow capitalism to persist when it creates this disproportion. again, we aren’t attacking or defending capitalism on the merits of it’s being either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in principle. we are looking at its material affects. we are asking why there are more empty houses than there are homeless people. we are asking why so many people die every day when there is sufficient aid and resources to keep them alive. we are asking why people are starving when there is so much surplus of food in the world that half of it spoils before it is ever used. we are asking why we willingly allow the cyclic crashes of the market to occur every so many years because of the accumulation of dead capital made stagnant. we are asking why so much money is being spent on military expenditures for countries to defend themselves against neighboring countries… all of which will eventually end up becoming economically interdependent, any fucking way.

but you must understand that there will never be agreement between the two warring classes that are involved in this silly nonsense. the capitalist is not concerned with any of these problems, while the worker most certainly is. and it is up to the working classes to resolve these ridiculous matters and change the calculus.

you might say that my approach here is like an amoral utilitarianism founded on a hedonistic imperative. i have simplified the problem and brought it out of the philosophical sophistry and haze that has so clouded the world for centuries. the atheistic randian capitalist says ‘there is nothing stopping me, nor can there be’… to which i reply ‘there is nothing stopping me either, nor will there be. now what do we do, mr. galt?’

and with that, 2000 years of philosophy does an enormous u-turn and arrives right back at thrasymachus. might is right. philosophical ‘reasons’ come after the fact, apropos to whatever sophistry one employs to defend their place of power.

whether ‘free’ or not, the gravity of the values of the working classes is enough to set the movement in motion without needing to justify it on any moral or ethical grounds. this amounts to the working class saying to the capitalist; 'that you are not free to do otherwise is irrelevant, as you are still a big fucking hemorrhoid in the asshole of the world. we don’t need to ‘blame’ you for anything. what is to ‘blame’ is neither here nor there and was never a question. the working classes don’t do metaphysics. that’s a philosopher’s nonsense.

The discovery to which this thread is dedicated solves the economic problem as it does many other aspects of human relation. I will post the Preface here in the hope that it will create some interest. Misplaced skepticism is a real problem for anyone who offers something that lies beyond the status quo. For the atheists among us, please understand that the word God was used only as a symbol for the laws that govern our universe. People are very prickly about this and will even refuse to read just because of this one word. Very unfortunate.

[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

PREFACE

My dear friends, relations, and people throughout the earth, the
purpose of this book is to clarify knowledge that must be brought to
light as quickly as possible because it can prevent what nobody wants
— a nuclear holocaust. With the world in turmoil and on the
threshold of an atomic explosion which could be started accidentally
and could very well destroy all civilization, I am announcing a
scientific discovery that will make war an absolute impossibility and
revolutionize the life of man entirely for his benefit.

Due to a
fantastic breakthrough, to the discovery of a natural, psychological law
that was hermetically sealed behind a logical theory that 98% of
mankind holds true, every bit of hurt that exists in human relations
can be virtually wiped from the face of the earth by something so
superior to punishment, as a deterrent, that people the world over will
be prevented from committing those very acts of evil for which blame
and punishment were previously necessary. Laugh if you will but your
smile of incredulity will be wiped from your face once you begin to
read the text chapter by chapter of which the first two are most
fundamental.

It is important to know that this book does not contain a theory
but an undeniable equation that can be scientifically proven. It has
no biases, prejudices or ulterior motives — its only concern is in
revealing facts about the nature of man never before understood.
Furthermore, so as to prevent jumping to conclusions, this book has
nothing whatever to do with communism, socialism, capitalism,
government, or religion; only with the removal of inaccurate facts that
have been passed along from generation to generation in the guise of
genuine knowledge.

There are those who may be blinded by this
mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived
so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a
semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or
don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can
be clarified in such a manner that they will be compelled to say, “Now
I understand and agree.”

I am about to demonstrate, in a manner our
world’s leading scientists will be unable to deny, not only that the
mankind system is just as harmonious as the solar system despite all
the evil and ignorance that ever existed, but that the inception of the
Golden Age cannot commence until the knowledge pertaining to this
law is accurately understood. What is about to be revealed is
unprecedented. Soon enough everyone will know, without
reservation, that mankind is on the threshold of a NEW WORLD
prophesied in the Bible that must come to pass out of absolute
necessity when this natural law is stamped by the exact sciences with
the brevet of truth.

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read
thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the
table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner.
Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could
appear like a fairy tale otherwise the statement that truth is stranger
than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by
yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical
relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be
discouraged because what follows will help you understand it much
better the second time around.

This book was written in a dialogue
format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make
these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is
a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing
important points and extending the principles in a more cohesive
fashion, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand
it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace reading
many things over and over again. When you have fully grasped the
full significance and magnitude of this work, and further realize there
has never been and will never be another like it because of what is
undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the
problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery?
Would you like to see that the mankind system has been obeying an
invariable law just as mathematically harmonious as that which
inheres in the solar system; a law that allowed a prophesy to be made
thousands of years ago and verified in the 20 century? Would you
like to learn, though this book has nothing whatever to do with
religion or philosophy, that your faith in God will finally be rewarded
with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly deliver us from all evil?

If
you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic transition to a new
way of life which must come about the moment this discovery is
thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not judge what you are
about to read in terms of your present knowledge but do everything in
your power to understand what is written by following the
mathematical relations implicitly expressed throughout. Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark…the hour is getting late.

[/i]

I have an intuitive understanding that is sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that will reinforce a kind of epistemic compatibility, which in turn will reveal two kinds of architecture , as the paradigm model, - which in turn will pose fear to the majority and optimism to maybe a few per cent.

That may be caused by the level of presumption becoming totally indecipherable to the majority , very near to the absolute sense.

If this approach trangresses on the basis of any kind of compatibility, then Peace Girl , i move for You to start, notwithstanding the above suggestion.

What do you even mean: “Sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that, it will.” And what intuitive understanding do you have?