New Discovery

[bahman]

Based off of preference.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.


By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Just because you like two items the same does not halt determinism and make you free. Just the quandary over which item to choose is also part of the deterministic process which is beyond control.

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

[peacegirl]

Based off of preference.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.


By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Just because you like two items the same does not halt determinism and make you free. Just the quandary over which item to choose is also part of the deterministic process which is beyond control.

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.

[bahman]

Based off of preference.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.


By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Just because you like two items the same does not halt determinism and make you free. Just the quandary over which item to choose is also part of the deterministic process which is beyond control.

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

Only in the way you are defining determinism.

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.

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.

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.

[Artimas]

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.

[bahman]

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.

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.

[peacegirl]

Based off of preference.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.


By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Just because you like two items the same does not halt determinism and make you free. Just the quandary over which item to choose is also part of the deterministic process which is beyond control.

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

Only in the way you are defining determinism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[bahman]

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.

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

[peacegirl]

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.

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.

[bahman]

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.

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.

I of course can do it. You can too. Of course no one can convince you if you decided to stay in state of permanent denial. That was bad decision, but you made it, as it is clear from your OP.

[peacegirl]

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.

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.

I of course can do it. You can too. Of course no one can convince you if you decided to stay in state of permanent denial. That was bad decision, but you made it, as it is clear from your OP.

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.

[bahman]

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.

I of course can do it. You can too. Of course no one can convince you if you decided to stay in state of permanent denial. That was bad decision, but you made it, as it is clear from your OP.

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?

[Urwrongx1000]

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.

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.

[Artimas]

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.

[peacegirl]

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.

[quote=“Bahman”]I of course can do it. You can too. Of course no one can convince you if you decided to stay in state of permanent denial. That was bad decision, but you made it, as it is clear from your OP.
[/quote]

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.

[quote=“Bahman”]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?[/quote]

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.

[peacegirl]

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.

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.

[Artimas]

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.

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.

[peacegirl]

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.

That is why free 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.

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.

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.

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?

[Meno_]

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?

[peacegirl]

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.l

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[bahman]

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.

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

[promethean75]

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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd ... checkout=1

[peacegirl]

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.

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

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.

[bahman]

Obviously, you believe that two options that are equal in value halt the deterministic process. That is incorrect.

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.

[peacegirl]

Obviously, you believe that two options that are equal in value halt the deterministic process. That is incorrect.

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. Just remember that definitions mean nothing unless they reflect what is actually going on in the real world.

[Meno_]

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.l

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

-------


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.
---------

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

Thanks Peace girl