New Discovery

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.

That halt or “pause” is due to an embedded discomfort in humanities psyche for treading or pondering the unknown. Especially if decision is involved that could determine the future of which could result in drastic effect/affect.

The issue today in the world is we have people not willing to educate the self in understanding the complexity of which is nature. It’s easier to know and agree then turn around and be a hypocrite on the matter. Understanding is the only way of which we may make the best choice.

That is not the case in my thought experiment. I simplify the situation as far as I could. You are however right that we also halt when we are dealing with unknown outcomes in our decision. Regardless, a deterministic system can neither resolve my thought experiment nor the situation you mentioned.

There is no such thing as a"free" decision because we are not free to choose what we prefer less when what we prefer more is available. Even if it is a situation that requires one to choose between two equally preferable options does not make it a free decision. The decision made, even if you say eenie meanie miney mo, is a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. Even if you close your eyes and circle 10 times to help you make your decision, this also is not a free choice.

[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil

It is true that nothing in the past

can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ 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. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature.
Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly.
[/i]

Of course you can choose the option you prefer less. Just try it now.

You can’t do it, even if the motive for your choice is not immediately obvious.