New Discovery

“Not choosing” is also a choice. It’s the third option in the given example.

My hope is that we could beyond the debate over free will. We don’t have free will but that does not mean prior events are responsible for our choices, as the standard definition of determinism often implies. That’s inaccurate which creates a false dichotomy and why compatibilism came about, which is also inaccurate. I tried to explain the reason man does not have free will, according to the author of Decline and Fall of All Evil. His definition is spot on. I understand that it’s unusual for someone to actually come online and make serious claims, but that’s exactly what I’m doing, which is why I titled this thread as I did.

Well, sure. I was pointing out the absurdity of his argument. This equibalanced human who simply stops, like a robot in an old film faced with a paradox. And not choosing does nto mean there likes were equal. It could mean anything.

But his post seemed to be arguing that we always choose and this shows that even with equal desires we can still choose. But there is no way to know this. Perhaps when we choose between to options it shows that we had a preference for one that was stronger. When we don’t it shows that we have a determined default not to choose but to go and do other things.

His scenario is impossible to show actually exists and does nto contradict determinism.

If you really believe you are not free, then you should also realize that there would be no way for you to know if your reasons for thinking you are are 1) rational 2) univerally applicable. You might simply be compelled to think your arguments made sense and applied also to other people by qualia.

Some people roll dice because that is an aspect to their personality, not because they have the freedom of choice to do so… we’re bound by who we are and I wouldn’t have it any other way. What we learn shapes our picking. We only have freedom to pick from the choices available based on preference/personality, we don’t get any and every choice, which does that not inhibit what “freedom” means? If someone rolls a dice they let the dice pick for them, that’s not free will, it is just another method of making a choice based off of belief and randomness. There is a difference between having no freedom at all and being able to shape yourself freely and fully, we’re caught in the middle just like we are with chaos and order, existence is the balancing of duality. For the most part we pick what is to our greater satisfaction, if one does not make a choice is that too not apart of their personality? That’s a form of pessimism, not choosing in fear of making the “wrong” choice. If these weren’t traits of personality, decision making and being then why have, opportunists, realists, pessimists and optimists?

As far as I can tell you are disagreeing with the person I was disagreeing with. Not exactly the same way I was, but what you are saying does not contradict what I wrote.

You are misappropriating the definition of “free” in this context. No one is saying that it isn’t better to have more choices. Regardless of having very few choices available to you, or 100 choices, does not negate the direction you must travel which, based on your heredity and environment, COMPELS you to choose the best possible option of the choices under consideration.

Regardless of the perception for believing in free will it is a superficial feeling yet our entire justice system is based on the belief that we could have done otherwise. Once it is recognized by science that man does not have free will (which is already occurring) we need to follow this truth to see wherever it leads, which this author has done. That’s what this discovery is about. Through the extension of the knowledge that man has no free will and is therefore not to blame, we are able to make leaps and bounds in progress as it relates to war, crime, conflicting goods, politics, government, and poverty worldwide.

I feel it is mainly just a mis-use of semantics to be honest. It’s like a house, we’re “free” to go into our bedroom sure, the house is the way it is due to personality, we pick based off personality and satisfaction, the house is our limited choice in which room we may sleep in, can you go over to your neighbors house and sleep in his room? Without a consequence? A (lower satisfaction), so if so bound by choice in multiple aspects, where does “free” come into play? You decide to sleep on your couch versus your bed, why? A preference.

Ultimately I am on the side of a will not being free, but still having a will to choose based on preference. Just one bound to unique diversity of being, being stemming from environment, genetics and what is or what was.

And that '‘best’ choice brings in the obvious conflict between objective/subjective criteria, as a method of differentiating the preformance with the performance.
In fact, the choice it’self presents the very basis of the arguability of determination. The best choice may not be on a level course, for that reason, infecting the plane of argument with the reasoning of the choice.

Here the best choice can only be thought in terms of what is reasonable, what is available, even of performance which can not adequately adequately be divorced from the preformance.

For these reasons and for other issues of affordability, capacity , the -best choice may never be completely gotten at, and here I so agree with Iambig’s arguments.

Usually freedom is merely an assertion, such as, ‘at the time, I thought it was the beat option’ But, does that take away freedom in a general sense, even if the apparent and objective notion of it have not been differentiated?

Therefore heredity and the environment can not be interpreted as
in inter/interpersonal indexe in appraising the continuum of freedom, determination and validation.

For instance the abandonment of drastic psychiatric methods such as psycho-surgery, reduced to chemically induced drugging ; invalidated psychoanalysis on the political ground by ‘democratic shifts’, wherein, the methodology has contributed to the entropic nature of that political shift.

Philosophy itself has reacted to the psychological diffusion, by the phenenological reductive epoche, seeking an eidectic transcendental reduction.

Can freedom be found in a assumptive
epoche of existential despair per and through role playing and gesturing? Seeing Zizek lecture, such an affect may be inferred. Does the modern philosophy not.convey this sense for the sensible? And revert, perhaps with undo, but understandable ostentation to a performative transcendance?

I think the notion of a psychology of.philosophy is apt here, this being a philosophy forum, and is applicable.

That’s correct! We are bound by our genetics and environment (which is very diverse) pushing us in the direction of greater satisfaction. That does not mean we are always satisfied by the limited options we have been given. Right now, I am just trying to establish the invariable law that man’s will is not free since we are never given a “free” choice. If people can accept the undeniable proof given by this author, even temporarily, I can move forward to show why this knowledge matters.

Well I am open for new ideas of why, when, how, what, who and where for near if not all things involving wisdom to fill in more holes, correlate things further.

That’s correct! We are bound by our genetics and environment (which is very diverse) pushing us in the direction of greater satisfaction. That does not mean we are always satisfied by the limited options we have been given. Right now, I am just trying to establish the invariable law that man’s will is not free since we are never given a “free” choice. If people can accept the undeniable proof given by this author, even temporarily, I can move forward to show why this knowledge matters.

Peace girl:

By primarily trying to establish inner/outer balance, will reduce the negatively determining factors, which methodically do not override the description of how this may happen.
Man is and never was absolutely determined , his dreams as an unconscious measure do appear to form cohesive and compatible faith for more participation in his life, that he may will this in the future as well.

It’s disturbing to me that people who claim to be truth seekers refuse to read the first three chapters of the book. I understand that it’s difficult to decipher the genuine from the fraudulent but that should not be a reason to close one’s mind. It also amazes me how some people have criticized the writing style which has nothing to do with the accuracy of the content. Talk about discouraging. This discovery was made in 1959 and has never been given a careful analysis.

As the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, is extended, the choice between two or more goods rather than the lesser of two or more evils will be readily available to everyone without anyone being hurt as a result of this fantastic change.

Such a situation does halt a deterministic system permanently. It does even halt you temporarily.

Only in the way you are defining determinism. If we are compelled to move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position (which is the movement of all life), then taking longer to decide which choice is the most preferable, or not choosing either because you can’t decide, or choosing something entirely different are all movements in the same direction, which is why man’s will is not free. The slightest reflex action to scratching an itch are also movements toward a more satisfying position than what the previous position offers. Greater satisfaction does not always involve making choices. Animals don’t hem and haw over a choice the way humans do, yet all of their movements are also away from a position that has grown uncomfortable which pushes them toward a new position. For example, a bird prunes himself on a branch, and then takes off flying. This is not always a conscious movement but it is the movement that all life takes. Another example is when you change positions while sleeping. Suddenly it is no longer comfortable laying on your back which compels you to turn to your side.

A deterministic system always get one state of affair and return one state of affair. Its behavior can be explain in term of a function. Here we are dealing with at least two state of affairs, options, and we could only have one option, choice, at the end. This situation cannot be resolve by a deterministic system unless you have a higher tendency toward one option. You however have the same tendency toward options in my thought experiment. Therefore such a situation cannot be resolved by a deterministic system.

Here we are not talking about from moving a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position. We are discussing a situation that requires a free decision.