## New Discovery

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

### Re: New Discovery

peacegirl wrote:
bahman wrote: Of course one can make dissatisfying decision.

One can make a dissatisfying decision when the options are all dissatisfying. That is called the lesser of two or more evils. But if there is a choice between a good over an evil, you would have no choice but to choose good. Of course, good and evil are relative terms.

I can choose evil over good. I think everybody can.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.

bahman

Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

### Re: New Discovery

bahman wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
bahman wrote: Of course one can make dissatisfying decision.

One can make a dissatisfying decision when the options are all dissatisfying. That is called the lesser of two or more evils. But if there is a choice between a good over an evil, you would have no choice but to choose good. Of course, good and evil are relative terms.

I can choose evil over good. I think everybody can.

Evil and good are relative terms. What others think of as evil, you may think of as good. That is why good and evil are relative terms. You may desire to shoot someone before they shoot you. In this case, shooting them first is good.
Last edited by peacegirl on Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner

peacegirl
Philosopher

Posts: 1412
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: New Discovery

peacegirl wrote:
bahman wrote:
peacegirl wrote:One can make a dissatisfying decision when the options are all dissatisfying. That is called the lesser of two or more evils. But if there is a choice between a good over an evil, you would have no choice but to choose good. Of course, good and evil are relative terms.

I can choose evil over good. I think everybody can.

You can choose evil by causing someone pain (evil), if it gives you greater satisfaction.

I just pinch my self hard now and it was not satisfactory. I knew that it wouldn't.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.

bahman

Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

### Re: New Discovery

peacegirl wrote:
bahman wrote:
peacegirl wrote:One can make a dissatisfying decision when the options are all dissatisfying. That is called the lesser of two or more evils. But if there is a choice between a good over an evil, you would have no choice but to choose good. Of course, good and evil are relative terms.

bahman wrote: I can choose evil over good. I think everybody can.

You can choose evil by causing someone pain (evil), if it gives you greater satisfaction.

I just pinch my self hard now and it was not satisfactory. I knew that it wouldn't.

Just now it gave you greater satisfaction to pinch yourself in an attempt to prove that it was not satisfactory. But it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment. Therefore, it did not prove what you think it did. Under any other circumstance it would not have given you greater satisfaction to pinch yourself.
﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner

peacegirl
Philosopher

Posts: 1412
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: New Discovery

peacegirl wrote:Just now it gave you greater satisfaction to pinch yourself in an attempt to prove that it was not satisfactory. But it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment. Therefore, it did not prove what you think it did. Under any other circumstance it would not have given you greater satisfaction to pinch yourself.

No, I was not really thinking about having more satisfaction by proving that I am right. I believe that you can imagine such a situation.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.

bahman

Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

### Re: New Discovery

bahman wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Just now it gave you greater satisfaction to pinch yourself in an attempt to prove that it was not satisfactory. But it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment. Therefore, it did not prove what you think it did. Under any other circumstance it would not have given you greater satisfaction to pinch yourself.

No, I was not really thinking about having more satisfaction by proving that I am right. I believe that you can imagine such a situation.

You may get great satisfaction by trying to prove that you're right, but you will never be able to prove it because you aren't right. You can imagine being right all you want. When you see what this law can do to benefit our world, you will be happy.
﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner

peacegirl
Philosopher

Posts: 1412
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: New Discovery

bahman wrote:He simply doesn't explain how and why such an illusion could possibly exist if everything is mechanically calculable?

but an explanation for the existence of the illusion is not necessary to logically deduce that there can't be freewill. in other words we don't need to know why the peculiar phenomena of 'consciousness', through which the ilusion occurs, evolved in this evolutionary process, to be able to definitively say that freewill can't exist. these two arguments do not depend on each other.

artimas wrote:Without it there would be no evolution

but 'consciousness' is only a relatively new evolutionary feature. if what you are claiming is true, evolution wouldn't have started until man became conscious... which is patently absurd.

bahman wrote:You didn't explain why the potential chain of causality vanishes at the point of decision when options are equally liked. In another word, what is the deterministic mechanism that terminates one of the chain exactly at the point of decision? You simply skip the problem by saying that a decision is made.

there is no 'deterministic mechanism that terminates' because the causal process is seamless. the same natural 'laws' that work to affect the behavior of the electro-chemical activities that occur in your brain to make your volition possible, continue to work regardless of what kind of volition will result. 'choosing' to raise your right arm instead of your left does not suspend or terminate this causal process.
promethean75
Thinker

Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: New Discovery

promethean75 wrote:
bahman wrote:He simply doesn't explain how and why such an illusion could possibly exist if everything is mechanically calculable?

but an explanation for the existence of the illusion is not necessary to logically deduce that there can't be freewill. in other words we don't need to know why the peculiar phenomena of 'consciousness', through which the ilusion occurs, evolved in this evolutionary process, to be able to definitively say that freewill can't exist. these two arguments do not depend on each other.

The point is that if everything is mechanically calculable then there was no need for conscious decision since everything simply could follow an instruction, what we assign to blind matter.

promethean75 wrote:
bahman wrote:You didn't explain why the potential chain of causality vanishes at the point of decision when options are equally liked. In another word, what is the deterministic mechanism that terminates one of the chain exactly at the point of decision? You simply skip the problem by saying that a decision is made.

there is no 'deterministic mechanism that terminates' because the causal process is seamless. the same natural 'laws' that work to affect the behavior of the electro-chemical activities that occur in your brain to make your volition possible, continue to work regardless of what kind of volition will result. 'choosing' to raise your right arm instead of your left does not suspend or terminate this causal process.

Materialists believe that consciousness is the result of matter activity, process (the process is the result of following an instruction). Therefore any conscious activity vanishes if only if at least one process stops in the brain.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.

bahman

Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

### Re: New Discovery

The point is that if everything is mechanically calculable then there was no need for conscious decision since everything simply could follow an instruction, what we assign to blind matter.

i see how that point might seem curious, but you have to think of 'conscious decision' as something superimposed after the fact... as a part of the instruction given by the software being run by the hardware. consciousness isn't part of another program that interacts with the program that is our body. it's rather the last stage of a series of neurological protocols being advanced by a single set of instructions, you might say. the biggest problem the thesis of freewill is faced with is essentially ontological in nature. the thesis has to reconcile how some individual thing (e.g., the 'will') can exist in space/time along with everything else, and yet not be subjected to the same causal forces as everything else. and not just that, but also, at the same time, be able to apply it's own causal forces on things in space/time. so for instance, you would say that your arm didn't raise because of the causality affecting everything else in the universe. no, this was a special case/kind of causality. here, it was the 'bahman' causal force that raised the arm... and the bahman can do this because the bahman isn't like anything else in the universe, and is therefore free of the causal forces that affect everything else.

starting to see the absurdity of the thesis of freewill?

here's some searle for yas:

promethean75
Thinker

Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: New Discovery

Free will is just like the split beam experiment, where the observer changes the results.

Another way I try to explain this:

Are constrictions a bad thing? Not indicative of free will. Say that I want to smoke cigarettes forever...

I need a body with a mouth, good lungs, cigarettes and a lighter... all constrictions. But not a single one that my aspect of freewill is bothered by.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 8319
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: New Discovery

promethean75 wrote:
The point is that if everything is mechanically calculable then there was no need for conscious decision since everything simply could follow an instruction, what we assign to blind matter.

i see how that point might seem curious, but you have to think of 'conscious decision' as something superimposed after the fact... as a part of the instruction given by the software being run by the hardware. consciousness isn't part of another program that interacts with the program that is our body. it's rather the last stage of a series of neurological protocols being advanced by a single set of instructions, you might say. the biggest problem the thesis of freewill is faced with is essentially ontological in nature. the thesis has to reconcile how some individual thing (e.g., the 'will') can exist in space/time along with everything else, and yet not be subjected to the same causal forces as everything else. and not just that, but also, at the same time, be able to apply it's own causal forces on things in space/time. so for instance, you would say that your arm didn't raise because of the causality affecting everything else in the universe. no, this was a special case/kind of causality. here, it was the 'bahman' causal force that raised the arm... and the bahman can do this because the bahman isn't like anything else in the universe, and is therefore free of the causal forces that affect everything else.

starting to see the absurdity of the thesis of freewill?

Yes, that is the problem. That is why I don't believe in materialism. You can start your own chain of causality, as I started to write after I decide, proceed further and stop whenever you want. You are simply uncaused cause/mind.
promethean75 wrote:here's some searle for yas:

Thanks for sharing the link. I will listen to it shortly.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.

bahman

Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

### Re: New Discovery

promethean75 wrote:
The point is that if everything is mechanically calculable then there was no need for conscious decision since everything simply could follow an instruction, what we assign to blind matter.

i see how that point might seem curious, but you have to think of 'conscious decision' as something superimposed after the fact... as a part of the instruction given by the software being run by the hardware. consciousness isn't part of another program that interacts with the program that is our body. it's rather the last stage of a series of neurological protocols being advanced by a single set of instructions, you might say. the biggest problem the thesis of freewill is faced with is essentially ontological in nature. the thesis has to reconcile how some individual thing (e.g., the 'will') can exist in space/time along with everything else, and yet not be subjected to the same causal forces as everything else. and not just that, but also, at the same time, be able to apply it's own causal forces on things in space/time. so for instance, you would say that your arm didn't raise because of the causality affecting everything else in the universe. no, this was a special case/kind of causality. here, it was the 'bahman' causal force that raised the arm... and the bahman can do this because the bahman isn't like anything else in the universe, and is therefore free of the causal forces that affect everything else.

starting to see the absurdity of the thesis of freewill?

here's some searle for yas:

One of the reasons there has been so little progress in the free will/determinism debate is the issue of moral responsibility. If will is not free our entire penal system would collapse, for it is based on the idea that a person could have done otherwise (he could have chosen not to shoot that person) and therefore he can be punished for his wrongdoing. It is also assumed that if threats of punishment were not used as a deterrent, there would be more criminal acts. But this is false. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, it can be clearly seen that responsibility increases with this new understanding, not decreases. This is something that has confused philosophers down through the ages for if will is not free, we cannot hold anyone responsible for what they do. The question then becomes: How is it possible not to blame and punish the terrible acts of crime that have ruined lives? The solution, however, becomes crystal clear as we see how the problem is resolved in the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If anyone is interested in reading the first three chapters, please let me know. I will post the link again.
﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner

peacegirl
Philosopher

Posts: 1412
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: New Discovery

As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, it can be clearly seen that responsibility increases with this new understanding, not decreases.

outstanding, peacegirl.

this knowledge draws our attention more to the environment in which people are conditioned, rather than casually ignoring it and letting it develop in 'any ol' direction' it wants. but there's a reason why there is so much opposition to the state and its controlling hand. you say:

This is something that has confused philosophers down through the ages for if will is not free, we cannot hold anyone responsible for what they do.

believe it or not, most of them aren't confused about the implications. they (the status quo or 'ruling ideology') actually purposely deny the non-existence of freewill because without the belief in freewill, they'd have a more difficult time keeping people in check and under control. that, and the criminal justice system is a multi-billion dollar industry; they need criminals to make money, so they would therefore pay little attention to environmental conditioning and the excessive freedoms of capitalist/consumerist society that create the criminal class.

oh hells yeah, there's a loooong history involved in the manufactured lie of freewill... and it all began with the bright idea; how do i control someone without having to physically touch them. ah, i create in them a conscience, and teach them that doing the things that threaten my control over them, are 'immoral'. thus began the revolt of the master class against the working class. priests, kings, capitalists... all of em. the great architects of the lie.

The solution, however, becomes crystal clear as we see how the problem is resolved in the book Decline and Fall of All Evil

c'mon, man... don't make me read the book. the last time i read a whole book, i was in solitary confinement, and i don't plan on going back. besides, nobody reads books today. we get the cliff notes through google. just tell me bro. gimme a synopsis.
promethean75
Thinker

Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: New Discovery

promethean75 wrote:
As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, it can be clearly seen that responsibility increases with this new understanding, not decreases.

outstanding, peacegirl.

this knowledge draws our attention more to the environment in which people are conditioned, rather than casually ignoring it and letting it develop in 'any ol' direction' it wants. but there's a reason why there is so much opposition to the state and its controlling hand. you say:

This is something that has confused philosophers down through the ages for if will is not free, we cannot hold anyone responsible for what they do.

promethean75 wrote:believe it or not, most of them aren't confused about the implications. they (the status quo or 'ruling ideology') actually purposely deny the non-existence of freewill because without the belief in freewill, they'd have a more difficult time keeping people in check and under control. that, and the criminal justice system is a multi-billion dollar industry; they need criminals to make money, so they would therefore pay little attention to environmental conditioning and the excessive freedoms of capitalist/consumerist society that create the criminal class.

oh hells yeah, there's a loooong history involved in the manufactured lie of freewill... and it all began with the bright idea; how do i control someone without having to physically touch them. ah, i create in them a conscience, and teach them that doing the things that threaten my control over them, are 'immoral'. thus began the revolt of the master class against the working class. priests, kings, capitalists... all of em. the great architects of the lie.

That all may be true, but things developed as they had to. I do want to clarify something. Man did not create conscience. But man can manipulate conscience to make a person feel guilty even if they are not doing anybody harm. This knowledge is only removing behaviors that are a concrete hurt to another, not something created to gain control.

The solution, however, becomes crystal clear as we see how the problem is resolved in the book Decline and Fall of All Evil

c'mon, man... don't make me read the book. the last time i read a whole book, i was in solitary confinement,

Promethean75 wrote:and i don't plan on going back. besides, nobody reads books today. we get the cliff notes through google. just tell me bro. gimme a synopsis.

Srsly bro, if this knowledge is an actual discovery, wouldn't it be worth your time to read a few pages in sequence? I mean, I'm sure you had to read the books of well-known philosophers, if that was your major. A cliff note is like a soundbite; it won't do this knowledge justice. You can skip chapter One (it would be helpful to read it again, especially pages 53 to the end of the chapter). Chapter Two is where the discovery is explained. Chapter Three shows how the principle would work in a real life situation. All I ask is that you take your time and don't rush to judgment, as many are inclined to do.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... JqSUSGT6bY
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner

peacegirl
Philosopher

Posts: 1412
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: New Discovery

I mean, I'm sure you had to read the books of well-known philosophers, if that was your major.

my major in school was falling asleep... then after dropping out of the eleventh grade, i majored in hanging drywall.

is that you take your time and don't rush to judgment, as most people are inclined to do.

alright, but it better not be a mile long pdf.
promethean75
Thinker

Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: New Discovery

promethean75 wrote:
I mean, I'm sure you had to read the books of well-known philosophers, if that was your major.

my major in school was falling asleep... then after dropping out of the eleventh grade, i majored in hanging drywall.

There's nothing wrong with hanging drywall. It's an honest living!!

is that you take your time and don't rush to judgment, as most people are inclined to do.

promethean75 wrote:alright, but it better not be a mile long pdf.

Some people tell me it's a little long-winded. It's not a mile long. It's a half mile.
﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner

peacegirl
Philosopher

Posts: 1412
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: New Discovery

There's nothing wrong with hanging drywall. It's an honest living!!

uhhhh.... yeah, um... well, that's not the whole truth, peacegirl.

i've done two terrible things in my life which i will never forgive myself for. one is peeing in the shower when i was thirteen, and the other is exploiting workers who i employed as a subcontractor. there. i said it.

i was getting $2 a board and paying my hangers$10 an hour. they could hang 50 boards in an hour... which means i was making $80 for every hour they worked, for free. so i've got a pretty checkered past and have done some bad stuff... stuff i'm not at all proud of, peacegirl. but before you go judging me i want you to know i've changed and sworn an oath to never do those things again. promethean75 Thinker Posts: 870 Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm ### Re: New Discovery promethean75 wrote: There's nothing wrong with hanging drywall. It's an honest living!! uhhhh.... yeah, um... well, that's not the whole truth, peacegirl. i've done two terrible things in my life which i will never forgive myself for. one is peeing in the shower when i was thirteen, and the other is exploiting workers who i employed as a subcontractor. there. i said it. i was getting$2 a board and paying my hangers $10 an hour. they could hang 50 boards in an hour... which means i was making$80 for every hour they worked, for free.

so i've got a pretty checkered past and have done some bad stuff... stuff i'm not at all proud of, peacegirl. but before you go judging me i want you to know i've changed and sworn an oath to never do those things again.

Whether you’re making this up or not, who is judging you?
﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner

peacegirl
Philosopher

Posts: 1412
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: New Discovery

We've got to work on your sense of humor, PG.
promethean75
Thinker

Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: New Discovery

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Why is hurting others not also subsumed in all of the choices that you could never not make in a determined universe?

All the wars, crimes, accidents, inequalities have been part of man's development but that does not mean these things have to continue once we find better ways.

Okay, but how is all of this not in turn necessarily subsumed in a determined universe? From my frame of mind, what you seem to be distinguishing in regards to "I" here is the difference between having a compelled "choice" in a determined universe and having a free choice in a universe in which human autonomy exists.

What becomes paramount for you is being able to use the word "choice".

The same behaviors will unfold only as they were ever able to, but once we "choose" to "find" these new ways, nature will then be in sync with the future as you imagine it. It is still as though our conscious minds are the driving force behind nature's laws and not the other way around.

Hence:

If someone is doing something to you that do not want them to do, how is them doing it and you not wanting them to do it not also necessarily embedded in the laws of matter unfolding only as they must?

peacegirl wrote: That is true.

How then is it not also true of our "finding" those "better ways"? And that's before we get to the part where, with respect to any particular set of conflicting goods, we arrive at conflicting assessments of what constitutes a better or a worse future.

For example, is the future better under capitalism or socialism? Ask the folks in these camps to explain what it means to "move in the direction of greater satisfaction".

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, once you accept that the universe and all that is in it [including "I"] is matter unfolding in sync with its own laws, how does anyone or anything "escape" what simply is?

peacegirl wrote: It certainly can keep you more relaxed.

And this is basically the charge hurled at the determinists by the free will libertarians among us: determinism is just a frame of mind that allows the losers among us to accept their fate as beyond their control.

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, I still grasp in turn that "I" may well have some capacity to choose freely. It is just not accomplished in a way that is fully understood by either science or philosophy. Or, for others, by theology.

peacegirl wrote: We can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, therefore free will is an illusion although a persistent one.

Again, you assert this as though those who do argue for some measure of autonomy are just plain wrong. They must be wrong because you must be right. But all of this is "proven" only by the assumptions that you make in your arguments. Unlike the physicists and neuroscientists, you [and the author] don't seem to offer the sort of evidence that is subject [empirically] to experimention, prediction and replication by others.

peacegirl wrote:It is true that some ideas grow and are believed to be big truths. But...you have to separate the chaff from the wheat. Is it possible that this discovery is more than an personal truth? You are skeptical, which is fine, but you believe based on the odds that this can only be what you described in your 7 stages. I ask you to please contain your skepticism and give this knowledge half a chance. Is that asking too much?

iambiguous wrote:But: in separating the chaff from the wheat, is this not too just the illusion of choosing to do so freely?

peacegirl wrote: I never said any choice was free. You are the one doubting determinism.

You "choose" to separate the wheat from the chaff here only as you were compelled to by the laws of nature...and I'm the one who doubts determinism?

iambiguous wrote:And you ask me to contain my skepticism as [from my point of view] someone who believes in free will would. As though of my own volition, I can choose to step back, rethink the arguments, and then choose to see things as you do. Instead, in a determined universe, I am only "choosing" to do these things.

peacegirl wrote: Of your own volition, you can choose to step back, rethink arguments, and possibly see things more clearly but only if you desire to do so.

Back again to that. My desire.

Perhaps an understanding of that is embedded in this...

"You may notice that there are so to say two levels of free will. On one hand you can do anything you will – and this is undeniably the freedom of mind – on the other hand however you can’t change your will." Arthur Schopenhauer

If you are not able to desire other than that which the laws of nature compels your brain to propel you to desire then what you "choose" is only free nominally.

The psychological illusion of freedom that is no less inherently embedded in the laws of matter.

peacegirl wrote: Your choice to rethink arguments does not mean you have free will. Your definition of these terms is different than mine which is why we don't see eye to eye.

But how are the definitions that we "choose"/"desire" not in turn subsumed in nature unfolding autonomically per the laws of matter?

peacegirl wrote: To repeat: You are given the ability to choose, but it's not a FREE choice because of the reasons given.

Think about this. Who or what gives us this ability not to make a FREE choice? God? Nature? "I"?

We don't know. That ever and always goes back to the explanation for existence itself.

peacegirl wrote: The choice you make is the choice that could never not have been made, but that does not mean determinism forced a choice on you like bowling pins being knocked down.

This still makes no sense to me. If the human brain is compelled to invent the game of bowling in a wholly determined universe, it seems at best we can point out that the brain reconfigured into "I" had "chose" to invent it unlike the pins that had no "choice" in falling down.

Nothing was ever able to be other than what it must be but at least "I" am not a mindless bowling pin or domino.

peacegirl wrote: IOW, you can't say, "due to my lack of free will my causal chain made me speed up in a school zone. It was already embedded in the laws of matter that I run over a child." That's not how determinism works.

If I can't say it, it was only because I was compelled never to say it. The child will be run over only because the laws of matter set into motion a sequence of cause and effect such that the child was never not going to be run over.

That's how I imagine determinism working "for all practical purposes" out in the world of human interactions.

But I'm the first to admit my understanding of it may well be wrong.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 30972
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: New Discovery

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
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.

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.

What options in what context?

Consider:

Jane is pregnant. She doesn't want to be.
Jean is pregnant. She doesn't want to be.
Jane lives in a place where abortion is strictly illegal.
Jean lives in a place where under certain circumstances it is legal.

Now, how is his point illustrated in these two contexts?

Both women are faced with the same options: to abort or not to abort. They both share equally the desire to abort.

Then there are those in the pro-life movement who share a desire to argue that the only truly moral option for both women is to give birth. One insist in turn that abortion is a sin against God.

Then there are the legal authorities set up to deal with Jane if she chooses to abort her baby.

Then there are those in the pro choice camp insisting that women must be free to control their own bodies; and that Jane's unborn embryo is not even really a human being.

Now, in a determined universe how are the individuals in these scenarios not compelled to "choose" only that which is necessarily in sync with the laws of nature?

And, in Bahman's free-will universe, what is the "right thing to do"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 30972
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: New Discovery

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

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

Indeed, that's why those more content to exchange intellectual contraptions stay up in the clouds. As soon as they bring their "world of words" down to earth the actual problematic nature of human interactions begins to complicate the extent to which their definitions and meaning can be demonstrated to be the objective truth.

iambiguous wrote:You don't name the two options.

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

Suppose in a wholly determined universe in sync with the laws of matter, the human brain, in being just more matter, compels any particular "I" to choose one over the other? And then, further, is able to compel "I" to believe that she has actually chosen of her own volition to choose one rather than the other.

How do we determine definitively which is actually the case?

After all, in a dream you could choose one over the other and it is entirely the product of the chemical and neurological interactions in the brain.

iambiguous wrote:You don't situate them in any particular context.

bahman wrote: 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.

Again, in a wholly determined universe, how is anything that you want not only what you are compelled to want? How is the feeling of being "trapped" not in turn wholly in sync with nature's way?

Then [in my view] it's straight back up into the clouds:

bahman wrote: 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.

What on earth does this mean?

As with choosing chocolate or ice cream above, your point is reasonable only to the extent that someone shares the definition and meaning that you give to the words used in the argument.

For all you know a wholly determined universe compelled you to define them only as you ever could have.

Or, sure, maybe not.

But how is this to finally be pinned down? Intellectually in arguments or experimentally in probing brains actually functioning?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 30972
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: New Discovery

peacegirl wrote:
One of the reasons there has been so little progress in the free will/determinism debate is the issue of moral responsibility. If will is not free our entire penal system would collapse, for it is based on the idea that a person could have done otherwise (he could have chosen not to shoot that person) and therefore he can be punished for his wrongdoing.

How could a penal system either collapse or not collapse other than as it was ever compelled to be given a human history that could never be other then what nature compels it to be as well?

Human morality is just another set of dominoes that came into existence naturally as a result of mindless matter evolving in life on earth evolving into the human brain evolving into human consciousness evolving into "I" compelled to believe that it is choosing freely to distinguish right from wrong so that the penal system compelled into existence can unfold only as it was ever going to.

Determinism either encompasses all matter or human consciousness [encased in the human brain] is demonstrated to be a very different kind of matter.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

Wrong because I had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but I chose not to instead.

Given some measure of autonomy.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 30972
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: New Discovery

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
One of the reasons there has been so little progress in the free will/determinism debate is the issue of moral responsibility. If will is not free our entire penal system would collapse, for it is based on the idea that a person could have done otherwise (he could have chosen not to shoot that person) and therefore he can be punished for his wrongdoing.

How could a penal system either collapse or not collapse other than as it was ever compelled to be given a human history that could never be other then what nature compels it to be as well?

You are back to saying the same thing that you cannot not keep saying obviously. Your comment has been well taken.

iambiguous wrote:Human morality is just another set of dominoes that came into existence naturally as a result of mindless matter evolving in life on earth evolving into the human brain evolving into human consciousness evolving into "I" compelled to believe that it is choosing freely to distinguish right from wrong so that the penal system compelled into existence can unfold only as it was ever going to.

Everything came into existence out of necessity. We are instructed, by our nature, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction which is also part of nature's design.

iambiguous wrote:Determinism either encompasses all matter or human consciousness [encased in the human brain] is demonstrated to be a very different kind of matter.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

Determinism does not swallow up choice. It allows for choice, although never free. Everything comes from the brain as part of matter, including our choices. Where does autonomy (or free will) enter into it?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

iambiguous wrote:Wrong because I had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but I chose not to instead.

Given some measure of autonomy.

You had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but "capacity" does not mean you could have chosen to think about all this differently. Your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice. You had no free will or autonomy to choose other than what you chose.
﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner

peacegirl
Philosopher

Posts: 1412
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: New Discovery

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:You don't name the two options.

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

Suppose in a wholly determined universe in sync with the laws of matter, the human brain, in being just more matter, compels any particular "I" to choose one over the other? And then, further, is able to compel "I" to believe that she has actually chosen of her own volition to choose one rather than the other.

How do we determine definitively which is actually the case?

Both are valid. We decide and then act. We however observe fantastic correlation between what we want and what we get. Therefore we deduce that we are correct with our observation.

iambiguous wrote:After all, in a dream you could choose one over the other and it is entirely the product of the chemical and neurological interactions in the brain.

Dream is the result of subconscious mind activity. Conscious mind sometimes are informed about a dream.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:You don't situate them in any particular context.

bahman wrote: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.

Again, in a wholly determined universe, how is anything that you want not only what you are compelled to want? How is the feeling of being "trapped" not in turn wholly in sync with nature's way?

We are partially free to do what we want in a deterministic world. I can raise my body whenever I want.

iambiguous wrote:Then [in my view] it's straight back up into the clouds:

I don't think so. Please let me know if things I said is clear.

iambiguous wrote:
bahman wrote: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.

What on earth does this mean?

As with choosing chocolate or ice cream above, your point is reasonable only to the extent that someone shares the definition and meaning that you give to the words used in the argument.

I showed that our free decision does not depend what options are. That to me is very definition of free will.

iambiguous wrote:For all you know a wholly determined universe compelled you to define them only as you ever could have.

Or, sure, maybe not.

But how is this to finally be pinned down? Intellectually in arguments or experimentally in probing brains actually functioning?

We are sure that world is deterministic. We however are free to move freely in such a deterministic world. We are different from world.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.

bahman

Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

PreviousNext