New Discovery

That’s your point. My point is that your point may or may not have been expressed by you autonomously. And that your point about us not being matter is merely asserted by you as though in asserting it it becomes true. And [apparently] not just for you “in your head” but for all the rest of us too. Finally, that you are no doubt as unable to encompass reality as I am. Let alone to take it all the way back to an understanding of existence itself.

But what we need here is a particular context. What can or cannot really be known about it?

Same with this part:

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Same with this part…

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Instead, you merely have an “argument” to make. An argument consisting of words such that the manner in which you define and give them meaning is what…the default point of view in any discussion?

Bring your argument down to earth by situating it a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

Or: you were either able to point that out of your own free will or you were never able not to point that out in a determined universe.

Ah, but you have an “argument” to make that you express “free conscious decisions” regarding conflicting interest revolving around conflicting goods.

Okay, let’s bring that down to earth. Choose a context in which interests might come into conflict and note your own moral assessment regarding the right thing to do.

I think we should first agree on my argument about existence of free will. I can only answer to your above question latter. Here is the argument for your convenience: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

You keep bringing up two options that you like equally, as if this somehow proves free will. Are you joking? You are no more free than the man in the moon. You are just not sure which direction to go, but the choice that you make is still in the direction of greater satisfaction. You may choose neither, choose both, choose one by closing your eyes, or by saying eenie meenie miney mo, etc. We still are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction based on the options available. You don’t know what you’re talking about bahman.

I know what I am talking about. The is no direction of greater satisfaction when options are equality liked. I have been in situation that I like two options equally or in a situation when the fate of options were unclear. You cannot find a deterministic system which can resolve such a situation.

By the way, I am still waiting for a definition of determinism.

[quote=“bahman”]

]

[quote=“bahman” I know what I am talking about.[/quote]
No you don’t.

Of course there is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. I gave you three possible options. The choice that is made when in such a dilemma is also in the direction of greater satisfaction even if you choose neither option. Life itself cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a choice offering “greater” satisfaction is available. This IS an invariable law and it cannot be broken just because there are two choices of equal value. Often we break the tie by finding something in one of the choices that would offer us a greater bang for our buck, so to speak.

I just gave it again. It is the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction which can only take us in one direction from moment to moment. Just remember only one possible choice can be made each moment of time, and it has to be the one that offers what one believes to be the best option under his particular set of circumstances. If you want a more detailed explanation you can go to page 45 in the book: Decline and Fall of All Evil. The fact that will is not free is not my opinion. I know how difficult it is for people who want to believe they have free will to learn that they don’t, but this does not mean we are forced to do anything against our will by some deterministic system. It also does not mean that this knowledge would give us a perfect excuse to be less responsible. It does just the opposite but I don’t think I’ll have the chance to explain since I cannot get past this obstacle.

declineandfallofallevil.com/ … 3H6CBNX8HI

[quote=“peacegirl”]

[quote=“bahman”]

I am talking about options which are equally liked. You are saying that you eventually find a solution for it. The options are not liked equally if you can find a preference in one of them.

How a system which can only move in one direction from moment to moment can resolve a situation with two options, two chains of causality, to a situation with one option, one chain of causality?

There cannot be two chains of causality since only one choice can be made at any given moment in time. If I choose milk over juice, I could not have chosen juice over milk at that exact same moment. IOW, the option chosen could not have been otherwise (I think the phrase “chain of causality” is problematic if not qualified) given the available choices at my disposal.

The point is that two chains of causality cannot turn into one chain of causality in a deterministic system. One chain of causality coincidentally vanishes at the point of decision?

What is at your disposal?

There is only one chain of causality in a deterministic system because only one of the potential chains was ever a real possibility. If two choices could be made simultaneously then you could say there are two chains of causality but this cannot be done. Choice only gives one possibility. That is why free will is an illusion since you were never free to choose A once B was chosen. IOW, if choice B gives you greater satisfaction under the circumstances, you are not free to choose A. You are not free because whatever choice you make or not make IS the only choice that could ever have been made. Determinism is compelling you to make a choice (even when both choices are of equal value) whether it’s to choose one or the other, or neither. To pick one or not to pick one is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with saying you are free to make this choice or that choice (no one has a gun to your head), but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. No movement from here (point A) to there (point B) gives you any free choice whatsoever.

The choices that you are considering, however limited or unlimited they may be. If it’s an important decision, you may take more time to gather information that will help you to make the best choice possible. If it’s a choice that doesn’t require much thought, you may use the information you already have without doing further research. You need to bear in mind that every movement from point A to point B is in the direction of greater satisfaction. I gave the example of changing position while you’re sleeping. Suddenly you have become uncomfortable so for greater satisfaction you turn on your back, relieving the discomfort. You have gone from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, which is the movement of all life. Animals move in the same way but they don’t have the ability to contemplate options like we do.

There is no such a thing as potential chain of causality. Moreover, do you have any reason that why one chain of causality always vanishes at the point that decision is made? Why does what we always want correlated with the actual, no the potential, chain of causality? Can you describe these within determinism?

why do i keep cringing when i see the title of this thread? because this ain’t no ‘new discovery’ PEACEGIRL. ‘determinism’ is not new news, dammit! we cannot educate the world with badly produced re-runs. our educational institutions are already over-multifarious. we need homogenized schools of learning. where’s guide? he’ll tell you all about it.

it’s time to work, guide. front and center, buddy. and NO THESAURUS.

You damn chain of causality! :mrgreen:

I don’t know.

I realize that.

What’s wrong with multifarious? Homogenized sounds scary. I haven’t begun to explain the knowledge that lies locked behind the door of determinism. Determinism is not the discovery, which I’ve said all along. It’s the gateway.

Huh? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I want to actually bring the discussion down to earth. While you seem content only to keep it up in the clouds.

You don’t name the two options. You don’t situate them in any particular context. You don’t demonstrate how “choosing” begets free will.

You simply “argue” that it is so.

Right. There are only options. It’s a potential choice which would then lead to the chain of causality that could never not have been chosen.

The potential chain of causality vanishes once a decision is made because it is no longer a viable choice. It’s illusory. What we want is what we choose. period. The alternative was never an option because it gave less satisfaction than the option actually chosen. Choice always comes from the ability to select, not something forced upon us, which most people think of when it comes to determinism. The problem with the present definition is that we believe that we are caused to do what we do even without our permission. That is false because nothing can force us to do what we ourselves don’t permit. If we don’t straighten this out, nothing will be solved not because it can’t but because the standard definition is misleading.

Bahman actually did give a situation that he believed gave us free will. He stated that two options of equal value would give a person free will because there was no leaning in one particular direction, therefore we are free. I disputed that by giving examples to show that even when two options are equally desired, this in no way grants us free will. I don’t know what he understood.

I don’t want to keep my argument in sky. I want it as simple as possible so everybody can understand it.

Do you want example? Suppose you want to buy chocolate or ice cream.

Now suppose that you want ice cream more that chocolate but you don’t want to get fat so you think that chocolate is somehow is better for you. At the end you fall in a situation that both options have the same weight when you consider all circumstances. So you are trapped because you don’t know what to choose.

You are simply not bounded with what choices and your preferences are when you make free decision. In this argument, I however use a situation when a deterministic system cannot resolve. We however can resolve such a situation. Therefore we are not determined. A thing however is either determined or is free. Therefore we are free.

I hope things is more clear now.

Double post.

This is so hard because everyone is going by a definition of determinism that makes free will, as its opposite, unavoidable. But the problem is not that determinism is false, but the definition is misleading. Determinism does not necessarily force a particular response, like a computer program. If people refuse to try to understand why the conventional definition is not completely accurate, there will be no progress, not because this author was wrong, but because his demonstration is falling on deaf ears. Would you take more time to listen if he was a well-known philosopher? :-k

It is human tendency to not appreciate what they have until it’s gone, then they attempt to delve deeper into understanding them when gone, while trying to add their own twist to truth.

The context must be defined first, semantics, if one is to debate this subject clearly. Must define words and use simile to express them. Whomever first goes back on the definition that is agreed upon in debate is the one who must accept the other as truth, it is a backing into a corner. I am curious as to whether both exist, just in different levels or of different elements. The mind could be an element of itself and the binding is to physical manifestation/objectivity.