Determinism

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?

In terms of what You may have in mind, meaning, a reinforcement of the power of the intuitive understanding of the ‘should’ of the transcending quality. You indicated more slant toward the quantitative reach for a hypothetical goal: with which I’m in 100 % agreement, (and now it is a sorry historical fact that the bilateral U.S.-USSR agreement has been broken) the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war, and at this point our fear coincides with more than occasional glances at the doomsday clock.

The link, is what matters, descriptively, perspectivelly, or politically . The triad that has been warned by neo-national socialists are almost identical with the one posed earlier in the years proceeding World War.II, not.overtly , but is systemically reducible. The term escapes me , and will introduce it , once I find it.

The above is intuitive and real, vis. more so, than merely stating that the symbol of that message is hardening
rather, reifying into more graspable notions.

Maybe that is why the unprecedented moves by a U.S. President to travel for meetings with a relatively insignificant political leader.

Somehow the feeling that this the direction overshadows the current one , that the military-industrial complex is taking.

The link during the cold war had created the hot line between presidents, and we have really little knowledge of the difference between the seeming cozy friendliness between Putin and Trump, which appears to again contraindicate the breakage of real political and military agreements of cooperation.

Again having no top secret credentials , one can merely guess where ‘real’ facts lie, and such absence of reality for most people, devolve real approximations into the realm of the symbolic or even lower. At this lowest source, if.focused, energy is magnified.

Living in a sociological pan-optic world, has been pointed out to be a.form of.paternalism, and in line with most post modern views, re-igniting the availability of needs by people as credible as Bergson et al.

Thank you for your response, but I’m not sure where this fits in to my previous post, other than to say that the doomsday clock is ticking, and that our intuition is trying to warn us of this impending doom. That’s why the knowledge I am presenting is so timely.

Of what though? Of everything that we think, feel, say and do?

If so, what does that seem to suggest then about this very exchange that we are having? What is not compelled here — even though no one has a gun to our head demanding that we type these particular words.

And how is the law of greater satisfaction not in turn just another inherent component of the laws of matter?

I’m lost again. How is their reaction to this “more careful clarification” not in turn on par with them having been deceived before? They were either always going to be helped by it or they weren’t.

And around and around we go…

My words are repetitive because in a wholly determined universe they were never able not to be repetitive. Moving or not moving “forward” is in turn either embedded or not embedded in the laws of matter. What is “GIVEN!” is either everything that I think, feel, say or do, or there is in fact some measure of autonomy eked out by “I” when mindless matter reconfigured into the mindful matter embodied in the human brain.

In fact, when I stress that…

You respond…

But then you seem to qualify that…

…and I fail to grasp it. The movement from lesser to greater satisfaction is no less encompassed in everything. But human psychology has evolved such that “I” is able to convince itself that it is freely choosing to move as it does. Just as, in my dreams, I am convinced that I am calling the shots when in fact it is really only my brain creating everything in this dream world. And me in it.

Basically we’re on the same page. I was only adding a qualification which is significant. It doesn’t change the fact that what we do, say, feel, and think are not of our own free will. It just means that nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will. That’s what the standard definition of determinism implies, which then clouds who is responsible for an action. If the agent isn’t responsible for pulling the trigger, who is? It doesn’t mean he’s to blame; it just means he is the one that pulled the trigger. That’s all I wanted to establish.

You’re absolutely right, we are compelled to be here because we want to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction. If we didn’t want to be here, we would choose NOT to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction. Whatever choice we make when comparing options is in this direction because we cannot go in a direction that would give us less satisfaction than what a more satisfying option would offer, given our individual perspective.

It isn’t any different than just another inherent component of the laws of matter. What you need to bear in mind is that the agent (the I, the self, the decision maker) is responsible for making his decisions because nothing other than the agent can force a choice on him without his permission. In other words, he can’t say "my heredity made me do it, my history made me do it, my environment made me do it, my synapses made me do it, because nothing has the power to make him do anything he, AS THE DECISION MAKER, DOESN’T WANT TO DO. You will see why this is important, and it doesn’t conflict with the laws of matter.

Who is saying anything could be any different? But I’m hoping that with further clarification people will want to learn more to see how this law of our nature plays out hypothetically and eventually realistically.

You are right. You have chosen to keep repeating yourself in the direction of greater satisfaction. Whether you have to repeat yourself again is up to you because before you do something, you have a choice to repeat or not to repeat. Once you make the choice, it could never have been otherwise.

You talk about autonomy as if being able to do, think, say, and feel cannot be done without libertarian free will. This is why clarifying terms is so important. Autonomy, as I understand it, doesn’t give me free will. It just means I am making my own decisions. You are making a false distinction between mindless matter (the domino effect where we have no say in what we choose because there’s no will at all) and autonomy that gives us the ability to make choices. This rift has caused a problem in the free will/determinism debate for millennium. There is no contradiction if we use the term “free” in a conversation as long as it’s qualified to mean there is no physical constraint. IOW, there is nothing wrong with saying “I did this of my own free will” when it is understood to mean, "I did this ‘of my own desire’ because I wanted to. It doesn’t mean we are free to move in the direction of less or [dis]satisfaction (which would go against the laws of our nature). Again, once a choice is made in the direction of greater satisfaction [than what the present position offers], it could not have been otherwise.

Hmmm, I see why we’re having problems. Do you think you could justify yourself by saying, your brain or neurons made you pull the trigger? You as the agent didn’t give the consent? That’s why the author wrote that NOTHING BUT NOTHING can make you do anything you don’t give consent to, or anything against your will to do. This is very very important to understand before I can move forward.