New Discovery

It’s not a matter of convincing me. It’s either true or i’t’s not true. You aren’t giving me your own example. Be specific.

I can give you many examples. Suppose that you like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla one. I challenge you that you can choose vanilla ice cream. Can’t you choose vanilla ice cream?

  1. You’re not free.

  2. You wish you were free.

  3. When somebody tells you they are free, then you deny it, and claim it’s not possible.

Sounds like there’s no hope for you.

You may choose the lesser of an option, but the option is still limited genetically. We have limits from the beginning, not mere making a choice and boom free will exists or doesn’t. This isn’t how “free will” works, if there are any restrictions at all then that goes against the very meaning of freedom. One is only able to choose to an extent, there are limits. You guys can argue about lesser and more value all you want but have clearly missed the point of what free will implies. If I was free I’d be able to choose what I like, don’t like, who I am, what I am but that isn’t the case. We don’t shape us, we are shaped, this is what kills “free will” from the beginning. There is no choosing freely between options because you are a collection of reactions of which was lead to where you are now, so how is that having free will when choice itself is limited. Literally, choosing is limited.

If I were to choose a lesser it would be for good reason, such as it being what I need instead of what I want, this requires logical thought.

Of course you can choose vanilla ice cream if you want to. What you normally would choose has changed in your effort to prove that you can eat what you like less, which at that moment is giving you greater satisfaction. This was answered in chapter one when someone thought he could prove that he could move in the direction of dissatisfaction by eating an apple that he was allergic to and normally wouldn’t eat.

That is why choice is an illusion because we have no say as to who we are genetically or the environment we were born into. All of the factors that make us who we are determine our preferences, in the direction of greater satisfaction. There is no free will anywhere to be found, but the problem that has perplexed philosophers down through the ages has to do with the implications of this position, for our entire civilization rests on the belief in moral responsibility.

Well morality is innate, it is the understanding of good and evil that is lacked that creates the issues that exist. We are responsible to a degree, there is no doubt about that, for one can attempt to shape self when one begins to become conscious of the unconscious, this also is a choice in which is for greater subconscious satisfaction. We typically blame dogs for the bite instead of the humans who create the environment in which breeds the fear/causation of them biting, this example applies to humanity and any living individual. This is avoiding ‘moral responsibility’ by both ignorance or willful ignorance, by not understanding environment and the ‘ripple effect’ of idea and actions, this is where “karma, guilt, judgement, luck, demons, angels, blessings” all stem from, the returning of the ripple effect/affect of which ones actions/ideas have on reality, law of attraction.

We /know/ what good and evil are, not everyone understands them and this leads to a hypocritical action/response, conflict between an action based upon good/evil and what one knows and understands about them.

I agree that the little whisper that tells us we should not do something is our conscience beckoning to us to change course. But the word morality brings a lot of baggage with it. What is right for someone may be wrong for others, therefore the word itself is not an objective truth.

But if our will is not free, how can we be held MORALLY responsible? Obviously if I ran a red light and hit someone, I am responsible for that action as the agent who slammed on the accelerator. This is an important distinction because responsibility increases with this knowledge, just the opposite of what most philosophers believe if they told people their will is not free.

Compatibilism says we are “free” to choose other than what we chose if we were not constrained by external force or illness, therefore we are morally responsible and are therefore subject to punitive action. That goes right back to the status quo of blame and punishment. It is a version of reality that does not exist because their definition of “free” is a contrivance to make it appear that free will and determinism can co-exist. Punishment is the only deterrent we have right now, but what if we could prevent the desire to hurt others without the need for threats of punishment? Wouldn’t that be something you would want to know about?

Again to simplify things structurally, to reduce definitive conclusions on basis of meaning, lets go back to the pleasure principle whereby our sequencing of desired compatibility between our willful self chosen acts and the determined choices subscribe toward an equanimity.

Sometimes pleasure as from which arise the inxreasing building blocks of civilisation , may actually counter the solidity , utility, and even the coherent functional cohesion of future progress.

And many examples abound in that scenario, but for the sale of brevity will illustrate upon request.

Is a negative outcome of that underlying choice, based on a determined set of variables as well?
That that question has been raised and solved as well, philosophically, psychologically and morally as well, there is no doubt.

Therefore , apart from a dissection of the meaning of ‘pleasure’ is there any other way for coping with this issue?

It gets more basic than the pleasure principle. Moreover, willful self-chosen acts ARE Synonymous with determined choices. I’m not sure where equanimity comes into play if self-chosen acts are determined based on greater satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with desiring what is pleasurable, but in the new world willful self-chosen acts of pleasure would never step beyond the boundary of someone else’s right to pleasure as well. Until you understand how this natural law and the corollary to it, changes human relation for the better, your questions will be premature.

To repeat, pleasure is not synonymous with greater satisfaction. I gave an example where someone may find greater satisfaction in saving someone at his own peril. People throughout history have sacrificed their personal pleasure for something bigger than themselves.

Part of the ability to make choices is the ability to change course if an unexpected negative outcome results from said choice. We are constantly reevaluating our options based on new information. This discovery is revolutionary in that we can change the environment where the underlying determined variables that compel us to hurt others in order to survive are no longer necessary. In other words, it would be a much better world if we didn’t have to choose between outcomes that are both negative rather than both positive.

But you don’t want to prove that you have free will since that gives you less satisfaction.

obviously we have quite a few philosophers here who are positively livid with excitement and very passionate about this subject. i’m watching it unfold very nicely, i think, even as the discussion follows the usual patterns of reasoning which lead directly into the classic linguistic confusions that are produced wherever and whenever this old beast rears its ugly head. now normally one would encourage philosophers to ‘work it out for themselves’, do their own leg-work, and eventually get there on their own (although this runs the risk of permitting the slackers to fall behind). so sometimes we want to give them a little push and show them the way, especially if the path has already been blazed by those who preceded us.

it is therefore with much gratitude for the masters that came before us, that i present to you perhaps the single most splendiferous attempt to unravel this peculiar philosophical puzzle, ever witnessed before in history. but a small sacrifice will be made; you must commission the assistance of your wallet for a small fee of $7. this $7 will buy you 48 hrs of time… and it will be the best 48 hrs you ever bought.

you should reason thus: is it more reasonable to spend seven dollars and resolve the matter in 48 hrs, or spend nothing and talk in circles for three weeks. shirley your time is more important than that, but i’d not call you shirely unless you were absolutely shir about the importance of the venture you are about to take.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd … checkout=1

I don’t want to prove that we have free will because there is no way I could prove this. We cannot go back in time, undo what has already been done, to show that we could have chosen otherwise, which is required for proof. Obviously, you believe that two options that are equal in value halt the deterministic process. That is incorrect. There does not have to be a leaning in one direction to prove determinism. Whatever option is chosen is the option that had to be chosen. Having to choose between two identical options would be like choosing between two identical apples (as close to identical as any two apples could be with the naked eye) . What difference would it make which apple I chose? It would not matter one bit. Choice usually involves meaningful differences, which involves contemplation to decide one’s preference based on the advantages and disadvantages of the choices under consideration. If there are two equally liked choices, it would still be like choosing between two identical choices unless a preference for one over the other came into view. Sometimes not having to choose either is the preferable choice. There is no halting of our constant movement toward greater satisfaction. Each moment offers a new set of possibilities, but only one choice can be made from moment to moment which must be in this direction. This IS an invariable law.

It is correct. A deterministic system as I mentioned before takes one state of affair and return another state of affair, what produces a chain of causality. In here, when a decision is involved, we are dealing with two states of affair, two chains of causality, which only one can be chosen. A deterministic system cannot deal with such a situation. You can. Therefore you are not deterministic or are free.

You are defining determinism incorrectly. Nothing from the past (or any antecedent event) necessarily spits out an output like a software program. We don’t have free will based on the accurate definition I gave. No wonder you are in opposition. I would be too if I held onto the conventional definition, which turns us into automatons. :open_mouth: Just remember that definitions mean nothing unless they reflect what is actually going on in the real world.


Part of the ability to make choices is the ability to change course if an unexpected negative outcome results from said choice. We are constantly reevaluating our options based on new information. This discovery is revolutionary in that we can change the environment where the underlying determined variables that compel us to hurt others in order to survive are no longer necessary. In other words, it would be a much better world if we didn’t have to choose between outcomes that are both negative rather than both positive.


Yes, however, such corrective choice in respect to a negative, is still prone to the determined chain of causal derivitives from which the latest negative choice emerges. So would that imply a determined course with occasions of undetermined causal links?

To my mind , this would connect the noted onto-philosophical and psycho- variable parts of the argument , as more tentatively a posterior then a-priori, while at the same time, reinforcing the hypothetical assertability of its functional utility.

Which is Bahman’s (construct of States).


We don’t have free will based on the accurate definition I gave. No wonder you are in opposition. I would be too if I held onto the conventional definition, which turns us into automatons. :open_mouth:

Then, if You could , what is Your definition again, of free will, for those of is who missed that point?

Thanks Peace girl

What is your definition of determinism?

This is exactly the issue which makes compatibility objectionable in part, via: questions focusing on defining the underlying gaps which separate the casual links which define constructed ideas with indefinite casual chains of referential meaning.

This is why I stray from a positive defining modus operans toward the reductive ontology of which its base emerges from. Note I did not use ‘emerged’ for that would treat the casual chain contrary to its intended function.

[i]The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice, consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good. In this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
[/i]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4[/youtube]