New Discovery

It is absolutely rational to qualify your words when you say “you did something of your own free will” to actually mean you did something because you wanted to in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is the truth and that which gave you no free will at all, in the final analysis. You can argue until the cows come home, but the truth is the truth is the truth and cannot be argued away by logic. :-$

No free will involved before you decided to do whatever you wanted to ?
Then how did you actually come to make that decision in the first place ?

You are free to decide which just means you are free to contemplate. But once you make the decision, it could never have been otherwise. [i]

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.

[/i]

You cannot deny the existence of capriciousness and doubt and ambivalence

I’m not sure why you believe these emotions prove free will.

They can cause a decision to be changed at any time which demonstrates free will
Though they can also prevent one from being made which demonstrates no free will
So sometimes it can be exercised and sometimes not depending on the circumstances

If you’ve been following this thread you would know what I’m going to say. Determinism does not mean your actions are preset before you make a decision, as if to say that you must choose a particular option that has already been prescribed for you without your consent. You could change your mind all the way up to the second you make a choice. This happens to me when I’m driving. I’m not sure if I want to go to the store and fight the crowds at that time, or go home and go the next day. I am hemming and hawing until I have to make a choice because the turn to the store is coming up. Whatever choice I make is in the direction of greater satisfaction rendering the other choice, AT THAT MOMENT, an impossibility, which is why will is not free. Again, don’t misunderstand me. You can say I chose this option, of my own free will, which only means that nothing forced you, against your will, to make a particular choice. I say this expression a lot, but it must be qualified which I tried to do. It does not mean I actually had the ability to have chosen otherwise which is what freedom of the will means. It’s amazing to me how many crazy definitions people use to try to prove free will, omitting the actual definition of what this actually refers to.

Which just takes me straight back to this: “If the immutable laws of nature are behind every single interaction between matter – that which I understand a determined universe to be” – then the author’s discovery/principles, like my reaction to them, is settled law. The law of nature. You want me to be without the free will it takes to entertain these relationships only as you do, yet somehow I am still the one responsible for spouting mumbo-jumbo intead.

And then [compelled by nature as we always are] around and around we go:

Well, why don’t you tap nature’s immutable laws of matter on the shoulder, and inquire as to why I am not understanding this.

My point is this: that what any of us care about here in our determined part of the universe is only that which nature compells us to care about. Unless you reside in an autonomous part of the unviverse in which you really do get to weigh these behaviors and choose of your own free will to react as you do.

You speak [over and over again] of my “willingness” to do things…just as the free will folks would. And I’m still utterly mystified as to how this “works” for you in your head. Something about “once you choose something” it can never be changed. As though that isn’t how it would work even in an autonomous universe. The point isn’t whether a choice made is locked in, it’s whether it was ever really a choice at all. Or only a “choice” embedded in the illusion of freedom that nature has somehow made possible having evolved [as matter] into the profound mystery that is human consciousness itself.

Yes, that’s how I construe “I” as an existential contraption in an is/ought world in which human autonomy exist in some measure. In a determined universe however both your ability and my ability and the ability of all others is wholly a function of nature’s laws.

The assumption that human wants, desires, sense of satisfaction etc., are in turn compelled by nature.

Everything though…from something being thought of as cool to the price of eggs…is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of nature.

Everything that is except the manner in which you seem convinced that the author has discovered something about nature that, what, even nature is in for a surprise regarding? In other words, although human interactions going back to the caves has revolved around all manner of terrible pain and suffering, that will all be a thing of the past once men and women are somehow compelled to embrace his principles and nature itself is then somehow compelled toward “peace and prosperity”.

Indeed, everything that anyone brings up on this thread that is not wholly in sync with your own “intellectual contraption” conclusions, is irrelevant. None of us are compelled to not doubt that.

Over and again: In your own rendition of “no free will” it is vital to be able to make that distinction between good and evil. We have no free will, but: But that revolves around the fact that once we make a choice to be either good or evil that can never change.

Whatever that means.

Whereas, from my own understanding of determinism, good and evil reflect only the embodiment of a human mind able to convince itself psychologically that the behaviors we are ever compelled to “choose”, are still understood by us “in our head” as though we really were free to choose good instead of evil.

There can be no real substantive/existential good and evil because all of our “choices” can only ever be in sync with that which nature compels us to think, feel, say and do.

Thus:

What I wouldn’t give to be inside your head just long enough to understand this sort of thinking as you do. No free will but somehow evil is conquered by the principles that, in lacking free will himself, the author was compelled to discover.

Different in that matter seems capable of evolving in truly astounding ways down through the ages. Ways we still do not fully understand. It’s like the hard guys explaining how in the early universe there was hydrogen. Then helium. Then gigantic stars exploding and creating all the other elelments. And all these other elements evolved over billions of years into things like human brains and shifting tectonic plates.

But: what still applies are the laws of matter. Brains or tectonic plates or dinner plates. Matters does only what it it compelled to.

Yes, matter as human consciousness is a very, very different kind of matter. You, however, possess one of those conscious minds able to think itself into believing it understands all of this. Not only here and now, but into the future.

My own conscious mind however was compelled to go in a different direction. But only up to here and now.

Earthquakes don’t “choose” to create the environment that actually brings them into existence. And nature might one day actually compel us to “choose” to prevent them.

But if won’t be because we could have chosen autonomously not to prevent them and, of our own volition, freely decided to prevent them instead. Not given the manner in which I understand choice here in a determined universe.

And think about this part. There are actually folks who profit from earthquakes. Things fall apart and they are paid to rebuild them.

I don’t really know where to start here. You make all of these assumptions about what constitutes “progressive” behavior, and then merely assume that after folks in the future are compelled by nature to embrace the author’s own political prejudices – now called principles – nature itself will finally “get it” and reconfigure all its old compulsions into the new ones.

From my frame of mind, this yanks objectivism up into a whole other category.

No, we are basically agreeing to disagree [so far] about how nature and its laws “work” insofar as we acquire these preferences and wants and degrees of satisfation. From my frame of mind these things are no less embodied autonomically. The human brain here is like the human heart or lungs or liver or kidneys. It’s an organ that is in sync with the evolution of matter into life into consciousness.

I am less in nature than I am a part of nature. It’s just the most mindboggling part of all. After all, how the fuck did matter manage to accomplish this?!! Most insist it is God of course. But I don’t believe in God. But I don’t know if I don’t believe in Him only because I was never actually able to choose freely to believe in Him.

That’s fine if nature compels me to stop using it as an excuse. Or if nature compels you to understand that “for all practical purposes” there really is no difference.

Exactly. Well, at least until you attempt to explain how, when you take this “general description” out of your head, it is implicated in the actual choices/“choices” that we make.

Consequently…

Tell that to nature. And then have nature explain this…

…to me. It’s like hearing something that I would say myself!

Only its meaning being basically the opposite of what I think I mean myself here and now.

The true mystery regarding how matter evolves into human brains able to confront human interactions self-consciously is, in my mind, an intellectual contraption that is preventing you from showing any real interest in this discovery. And I realize your way of responding is all it could ever be.

Even if what you’re saying is mumbo jumbo or not, you can’t help yourself.

It’s not up to me. I’m not even disagreeing with the fact that nature’s immutable laws are immutable. But you refuse to understand that nature (as described as a separate entity, not you as nature) cannot force a choice on you. Only when you permit a choice to be made, CAN IT BE MADE. Nature can’t say, "No iambiguous, that choice is not in the plan. You MUST make this choice.

You still don’t get it. YOU (the “I” that gets to choose) does not mean you are separate from the immutable laws of nature that compel you to choose what you MUST choose in the direction of greater satisfaction.

It depends how you interpret the word choice. We are able to contemplate options, which many call choice, but our choice is never free because we can only go in one direction; therefore it is an illusion.

Everything is a function of nature’s laws because we are part of these laws. You cannot separate them. The “I” or self that separates us from each other does not mean we can’t make choices, which is consistent with nature’s law of greater satisfaction.

All of human wants, desires, sense of satisfaction, etc, are compelled by nature. The only thing I’m trying to get you to see is that nature does not cause you to do anything, as if nature is something outside of yourself with a software program already set before you make a choice. For example, you chose to run a red light therefore you are responsible for stepping on the accelerator. Nature (as a separate from you) did not make you push on the accelerator. Therefore, who is responsible for pushing on the accelerator? YOU ARE, not in a blameworthy way, but YOU ARE responsible because you performed the action. IOW, you can’t shift your responsibility to nature by saying nature made you step on the accelerator even though you didn’t want to. You did it because this was your desire at that moment. This is important because although will is not free, nothing can make or force us to do anything we ourselves do not want to do.

Once again, you talk about nature as if it’s something apart from ourselves. Of course nature, or ourselves, as part of nature, are compelled to want and desire what we have no control over. But the most important thing I am trying to express is that we are given the ability to agree to what we want; to give permission to what we want. Nature, as it appears from your posts, cannot make you choose an option that you don’t want. Therefore, you cannot say nature made me choose to hurt someone. No, you hurt someone not because nature made you do it but because you wanted to, in the direction of what gave you greater satisfaction. You and me know this person couldn’t help himself, but we also know that nothing made him choose this option if he didn’t want to, because nothing can do that.

Nature going all the way back only means life could not have unfolded any other way.

Why something occurs is less important than asking how something occurs. Have you ever heard the expression: Y is a crooked letter? :-k

It’s important to focus on good and evil (hurt) because that’s the issue iambiguous. Compatibilists and libertarians are not interested in what you chose for breakfast. They are interested in what you did that they believe you didn’t have to do, and that involves doing something that society considers a wrongdoing.

I agree. We are not free to choose good over evil if evil is what we prefer for reasons that may not be understood by psychologists. Free will is the illusion and that is why compatibilism doesn’t fly.

That is true, but if we can veer in a different direction creating the desire (but still in the direction of greater satisfaction) to choose what is not evil (hurt) and prefer choosing good (not hurting anyone), that is a very good thing.

Evil is still around because people still prefer evil, for whatever reason. The only way peace can come about is if people don’t prefer evil in preference to good.

What can I say? The author was compelled to make this discovery, not of his own free will, and by discovering this law and showing what occurs when applied globally, all evil (war, crime, poverty, etc.) can be eliminated.

All the author did was to show where the knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this means, as we apply the principles that follow, can prevent the conflicts that lead to war and crime.

I agree with you. When I use the phrase I did this of my own volition or of my own free will, which I’ve stated numerous times, it only means I did something of my own desire because that was my choice (in the direction of greater satisfaction), but it does not mean “I actually chose anything of my own free will” in the sense that I could have chosen otherwise.

That is true, but if we can find a way to prevent earthquakes, we don’t allow them to occur just to keep people in business. In the new world, no one will be hurt economically if they lose their job. Many jobs are going to be displaced because there won’t be a need for them.

No one decides which behaviors are allowed and which ones are not. Is that what you’re asking?

These are not the author’s ideas that are made up of opinions and prejudices. This is a natural law, but no one has taken this knowledge far enough to see where it leads us.

I’ve said this more than once: there is no standard of behavior except this hurting of others.

There is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong
in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is
removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another, then
whatever value existed in asking for and giving advice has been
permanently done away with.

It is true that what we do is in sync with nature’s laws just as the heart and lungs, but to say that nature compelled you to do something is misleading. Nature compelled you to desire such and such, which is true. Your desire involves your permission to do such and such. IOW, your permission to perform an action means you are responsible for performing said action. It does not mean you are morally responsible (that’s not what I’m referring to) because we know you couldn’t help yourself since your will is not free. Let me know when we can move on, if you so desire. This thread is getting stale.

It doesn’t matter for the purposes of this knowledge why we came to be the way we are. What matters is how we can use knowledge to better our world in ways that are hard to imagine. But you should never be that extremely skeptical that you refuse to listen.

Your nature is compelling you not to see the difference. There is no difference in the sense that we are compelled to do what we do. The only difference is that you are responsible for what you do, because nothing can compel you to do what you don’t want to do. It’s as simple as that.

People can believe anything they want. They can even believe that one plus one is three until they begin to build a bridge based on bad math and it collapses. If people know for a fact that will is not free and the benefits that can be derived from this knowledge, they will want to apply it to our world because we cannot choose what is worse for ourselves when the truth is known. There is nothing wrong with saying I did something of my own volition, AS LONG AS IT IS QUALIFIED IAMBIGUOUS. It does not mean I did something of my own free will, because there is no such thing.

I am asking YOU, not nature, to please be a better investigator rather than fight me tooth and nail, so that I can explain the two-sided equation. The knowledge that man does not have free will IS NOT THE DISCOVERY, it is the gateway to the discovery.

That’s why defining terms is so important. We’re probably on the same page and don’t even know it. :laughing:

But not your intellectual contraption regarding both the discovery and my reaction to it. Or the author’s intellectual contrapion that encompasses the discovery itself.

Even though regarding any and all discoveries and reactions our responses are all they could ever be. No free will here [for anyone] but that doesn’t make my own intellectual contraption any less the real culprit.

Thus:

Clearly then you are compelled to make sense of this in a way that I am still compelled to be mystified regarding how you actually do so.

Exactly. It’s up to nature having evolved into my brain to “choose” to make this quip and your brain having to “choose” to react to it only as you must. We just don’t know how the laws of matter evolving into life evolving into human consciousness actually does accomplish this. If all matter here is in fact determined.

Or: Only when nature’s immutable laws of matter permits my brain to not refuse to understand will all of this become clearer to me.

And nature doesn’t say anything. It simply unfolds only as it must based on whatever the final explanation might be going back to the final explanation for existence itself.

And how am “I” not inextricably intertwined in nature or of nature itself?

Also: I still lack the free will to not “dont get it” too. Right? Just as I still lack the free will to choose which direction “I” is compelled to go in order to be in sync with what nature compels ny greater satisfaction to be.

Which [necessarily] brings me back around to this:

But that depends on whether or not nature’s immutable laws compel me to interpret it only as I must. In other words, whether in fact my choice here is or is not just the psychological illusion of actual autonomous freedom.

Again: You or someone else here either will or will not be compelled to reconfigure these words such that I am then compelled to understand how nature compelling all these things is different from nature causing them.

I’m responsible for flooring the accelerator because I wanted to. And I wanted to because [for whatever reason] it reflected my greater sense of satisfaction at the time. And nature compelled all of this. But that’s different from nature causing it all to happen. Why? Because, unlike the acclerator, unable to “choose” to be floored, I can “choose” to floor it. And in “choosing” this I may well be wholly in sync with nature’s laws of matter… but somehow there is a “break” here between me and nature.

Thus, from my point of view, it is you who somehow construe “I” as being apart from nature. Given my own understanding of determinism, the human brain is just the latest [and seemingly most extraordinary] manifestation of nature itself.

I still don’t know exactly how this is all understood by compatibilists, but the libertarians that I have bumped into over the years are interested only in insisting that we do have the freedom to choose what we have for breakfast. And, in turn, that we are free to choose for ourselves what society must prescribe as good behavior because we are free in turn to choose to base that on reason. Their own of course. Only, unlike me, they don’t call this taking an existential leap to particular sets of political prejudices rooted in dasein.

Then [for me] the question becomes this: Am I actually any more free to choose my own moral narrative?

Which always takes me back to the gap between what I think is true “here and now” and all that can be known [must be known] about existence itself to order to know if in fact I can freely choose to decide this for myself.

The part you just shrug off as not irrelevant to the stuff we do here on planet Earth. Or, rather, so it still seems to me.

We both agree. Until we get to the part about the things that we “prefer”. Here [for me] they are just another necessary component of “I” embodied in consciousness necessarily embodied in a brain that is necessarily the embodiment of the laws of matter having unfolded necessarily into the evolution of life here on Earth.

For you, however, those preferences are the embodiment of nature in a way I am still unable to grasp. And presumably because nature compels me still not to grasp it.

This part:

“That is true, but…” But, somehow, the part after the “but”, is seen by you as more reasonable than my own rendition of the inherent relationship between nature, wants, satisfactions, and “I”.

With neither of us really able to go much beyond these intellectual contraptions embedded existentially in dasein rather than in any actual substantive proof we can offer to those still straddling the fence.

Me being one of them myself.

Thus:

The reason they still prefer it is because nature compels them to. Just as nature compelled the human brain to create this psychological state whereby some are able to convince themselves that good and evil are actually embedded in behaviors that we freely choose. And it’s only because nature compels them to think like this that they are able to believe in turn that good and evil are not just illusions embedded in the laws of matter having evolved into brains into minds able to make this distinction.

For you everything revolves around how we “decide” things that mindless matter is not able to. Even if those decisions result in matter unfolding just the way it unfolds in interactions between mindless matter: only as it must. Thus…

But…

Then around and around we go. But where we stop everyone knows. After all, they could not have freely chosen not to.

Of course it matters why. If we don’t know why something exists rather than nothing and at all, and why it exists as it does and not some other way, how can we realistically ascribe meaning to our own lives?

How can the “purpose of this knowledge” not be profoundly entangled in this most fundamental inquiry? That our “I” does in fact exist seems about as close as any of us are now able to get to grappling with what we think we know about all the rest. But to just shrug off all the rest becasue the whole point seems to revolve around the comfort and consolation the author’s “progressive” future provides you is something that I am not able to just shrug off myself.

I think it is basically the heart and the soul of this “discovery” for you. In other words, what its existence is able to sustain psychologically “in your head” insofar as it anchors your own “I” to some grand and optimistic vision of the human condition. If less now than in the future.

I see it more or less as your own rendition of God and religion.

No, not if the laws of matter embedded in the human brain compel them to want to believe only what they must.

Yes, but in the either/or world the laws of matter compel only one reality for all of us. The crucial distinction here [for me] is in comparing the building of that bridge with attempts to understand if the will to build it is or is not free.

The bridge either stays up or for those who insist that 1 + 1 = 3, it will never be built in the first place. But where is the equivalent of this proof in regards to the determinism debate. Where is the solid argument/hard evidence that is the equivalent of the standing bridge?

Do you call genuine discoveries intellectual contraptions?

Maybe that wasn’t the right word to use because for the most part you are making sense. It’s just that sometimes it feels like you are using the phrase “being in sync with the laws of matter” to keep the discussion stuck. I get frustrated. I know both of us are only responding as we must.

mumbo jumbo - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
vocabulary.com/dictionary/mumbo jumbo
Mumbo jumbo is something that’s meaningless or confusing but pretends to make sense

I am only trying to show that where man is concerned, his will is not free. The rest is superfluous for the purpose of this discussion. When you say that nature made you do it the implication is that you really didn’t want to do it but nature forced you to do it. This is a big deal because it’s leading to confusion in this longstanding debate, and as long as there is, there will be no reconciliation of the two opposing principles of doing something of one’s own accord, and doing something not of one’s own free will. These two camps, when reconciled, have the power to change our world for the better.

Nature’s immutable laws permits your brain to do what it does, but again you are sidetracking your responsibility by saying the laws made you do something but only if you wanted to. The laws of matter (or nature) that we are all part of direct our brains to have certain preferences based on many factors including our upbringing, our education, our background, our genetics, our capacities, our interests, our experiences, etc., but you (the self that encloses your brain) is the one making the choice therefore YOU are responsible for that choice. The only reason this debate is important is due to the ramifications that follow.

You are intertwined. Who said otherwise? We are part of the causal chain but the word “cause” is creating great confusion which goes back to the definition of determinism that most people use. Nothing causes you to do what you do, you simply find greater satisfaction from one moment to the next, and when there are meaningful options it appears that you are free to choose either/or, but in reality, you are not. You MUST choose the one that offers you, based on your analysis, the best choice in your eyes, but you are not caused to do anything if it’s not your choice to do. Language can cause confusion but it’s so important to get it right.

Right. You don’t have the free will to not “not get it” but you could get it later if the laws of your nature compel you to want to get it.

True. All I am saying is that nothing can make you do anything you don’t want to do. This ability to resist what you don’t want to do is also in the direction of greater satisfaction so there is no contradiction here.

[i]“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but for
the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented: “You may be satisfied but I’m not.
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — as you just mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be
made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free?
And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just
pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction.[/i]

We have a choice the moment we contemplate two or more options, but a free choice is an illusion because we can only one possible option can be actualized. They are not of equal value therefore, once a choice is made, the other option was never a possibility.

How can you be free if you could never do otherwise? But that doesn’t mean your fate is set in stone where you do nothing because of the belief that you can’t do anything to change your fate.

The two words are very similar but they have to be used in context. If I say, “he caused the accident” what I mean is that he was compelled to drive 60 mph.
in a 30 mph road in the rain. But if I say nature caused him to do what he did, I am shifting the responsibility for the accident to nature, unless you are meaning that his heredity and environment were such that he was compelled to make that choice, of his own free will or volition, because he wanted to. Please don’t get confused how I use the word free will. The author used the phrase “he was compelled, of his own free will (or volition)” throughout the book to mean, he did something because he wanted to, but this in no way means his will was free. That’s why these terms have to be clarified.

There is no break at all. It’s okay to say nature made you do it if you qualify it by saying what you just said. You chose to floor the accelerator because you wanted to, and this choice to speed up rather than slow down (now that it’s been made) could not have been otherwise.

It really is. And it’s even more amazing how these two principles come together to create a new environmental condition which affects behavior.

That is true. But we can prevent the desire to be evil. What I mean by evil is a hurt to another that he doesn’t want done to himself. Obviously good and bad are relative terms. What you might consider good for you, I might consider bad.

They decide what is a free choice, and what is not, so they can hold people responsible for what society judges to be wrong. What they are saying is if you didn’t reason the way society expects you to reason, you are to be found guilty and punished. Compatibilists are no different. They are only trying to make it appear that free will and determinism are compatible when they aren’t. They are opposites.

Of course you are not free to choose your own moral narrative, although there is a standard of right and wrong when it comes to hurting others. This is the exciting part because when the environmental conditions change (and there are many changes that must come about for this new world to become a reality), the laws of our nature will compel everyone to desire (in the direction of greater satisfaction) what does not hurt others.

We don’t have to fill this gap about knowing all that can be known about existence itself in order to know that this law of our nature, when put into practice, will prove empirically that we have no choice in the matter of hurting or not hurting others, or gaining at their expense. If will was free we could choose to hurt others under any condition, but that’s not possible.

Preference is the embodiment of our nature. There really is no distinction. But preference is part of the human condition so when I say “we prefer this over that”, this description is accurate. We are the ones doing the deliberating, the preferring, and the choosing, therefore WE are responsible for making those choices. I am not referring to moral responsibility. How can we be held morally responsible when we could not help ourselves?

That is true when seen in total perspective.

[i]Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of
good and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around
quite a bit but did not know how to slay the fiery dragon (the great
impasse of blame), so he pretended it wasn’t even there. He stated,
“We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when seen in total
perspective,” and he rejected the principle of an eye for an eye. Will
Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s philosophy,
although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was
humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He
also went in and looked around very thoroughly and, he too, saw the
fiery dragon but unlike Spinoza he made no pretense of its
non-existence. He just didn’t know how to overcome the beast but
refused to agree with what common sense told him to deny. The
implications really need no further clarification as to why free will is
in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other philosophers, ever
discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free because they never
unlocked the second door which leads to my discovery. The belief in
free will was compelled to remain in power until the present time
because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was true, nor
could anyone slay the fiery dragon (the impasse of blame) which
seemed like an impossible feat.

Christ also received
incursions of thought from this same principle which compelled him
to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the
cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in
the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them
when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what
they were doing and he could not stop them even by turning the other
cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible
for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly
that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.
But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to
forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible
for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in
total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for
understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and
reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep
an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you
how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.[/i]

That is because you don’t yet see how this paradigm shift can alter one’s wants and satisfactions to doing only those things which hurt no one.

That is true. Everything up to now was necessary, even those who believed we are free to choose good over evil, and are therefore deserving of punishment if the wrong choice is made. It is quite paradoxical that giving up control actually creates more control.

The author uses God throughout the book but he doesn’t mean a personal God. It really doesn’t matter whether you do or you don’t believe in any design to the universe or a personal God. What matters is that this law of our nature can prevent what blame and punishment could not accomplish.

Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout
the book and conclude that this is a religious work. Perhaps the ‘G’
word even makes them want to shut down and disconnect from what
is being said. This would be unfortunate. As you carefully read the
text you will see that the word God (often referred to as ‘He’) is simply
a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter; it just doesn’t apply to this discussion. I’m trying to stay on track.

This book is not religious. Now you are making assumptions about the author, which isn’t fair.

Nothing is out of nature’s loop, but we now have knowledge that can help our world and still be within nature’s loop. just like all discoveries that advance our world can do.

Let me clarify: People have the choice to believe or not to believe, but obviously what they want to believe and therefore what they choose to believe is not of their own free will.

The will to build is where desire comes from which is also part of our nature. To want or desire to do something is what will is, but whatever we do, it is never free.

I was only using that example to show that when we learn the truth (scientifically speaking), humanity progresses. I haven’t gotten into the two-sided equation yet, which is the bringing together of the two principles in Chapter One; that man’s will is not free and that nothing can make man do what he makes up his mind not to do. This brings us to Chapter Two, if you’re interested.

Peacegirl,

In my thread on freewill, I made this argument:

viewtopic.php?p=2728904#p2728904

I appreciate your invitation, but I have to decline because there is no possible way you can prove freedom of the will since it requires you to do the impossible, which is to go back in time, undo what you have already done, to PROVE that at that exact moment in time you could have chosen otherwise. After all, freedom of the will means the freedom to choose all options equally. But if you don’t understand the true meaning of determinism, you may feel threatened by it unnecessarily. It does not mean denying the self or abdicating responsibility. It increases it!

Hi peacegirl

AD wrote:

peacegirl wrote:

No, it was meant for this one.

This is true in part. At the same time, peacegirl, might you admit that we have more choices than we actually take the time to “see”? We need to learn to think “out of the box”.

Which term “freedom of will” or “self-determined”?
Show me how I am using the term{s} incorrectly?

Why not? It seems to me that it takes a lot of self-determination and autonomy (free will to me) to make the conscious choice to think and to guide one’s actions in a certain way and to carry that out in order to survive. You are assuming that because these people were imprisoned in a concentration camp, that they had no free will and no freedom of choice.

I am not sure what you mean here by “greater satisfaction”. Their choices to move around and to have a normal life were certainly of such restraint but that for me still does not take away from their decision to exercise Free Will or Freedom of Will to live the best life which they were able to considering the life which was imposed on them.

Have you ever heard of the saying: “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade”?
We have the capacity to change our perception and to make that lemonade and to drink it. That is our Self exercising free will transcending being “bound”.

You do not see free will. I do see free will but of course the degree to which it can be free is based on situations/circumstances, the INDIVIDUALS (no screaming here :wink: ) and their histories involved and their determination to see their selves as autonomous human beings (to a certain degree) who have the capacity to act in their own best interests to survive, to struggle and/or to transcend their circumstances. That to me is free will and freedom.

You did say “will being completely free”. So does this mean that you can see will as being somewhat free?

“Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.”
― Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

[b]“When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.”

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”[/b]

I am with him. Can there be the “potential” for free will here?

There you go. It seems to me that with that statement you are admitting that there can be and is free will. Those who experience “internal imprisonment” might not be able to experience or “come to” the realization of freedom of will" because every action of theirs would be tainted by some kind of influence.

But what of those “in the same boat” who do eventually see that they can be free?

Yes, that would be the case for many or for some BUT what about all of those others who had it just as bad and managed to not only turn their lives around but managed to completely change them? What might that be based on? What was the “motivating” factor" there?

Carl Jung said: “Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do.”

Now, can you read this and see or at least intuit that there can be free will/freedom involved here or do you simply see the words “must do” and interpret/find them to mean that we are always pre-determined and at the whim of something or someone with regard to our actions and choices?

We really are not born as tabula rasas ~~ we certainly are not ~~ but we do evolve as a process and come to a consciousness of mind where we are able to be/become self-determined entities capable of creating our own personal freedom through exercising conscious free will all through our personal journeys.

I am not an absolutist. I can see where our minds, our wills and our beings are not always free but at the same time I can also “see” a world where people do “consciously” exercise their wills to come to freedom and to make their own choices and decisions. Does taking action based on the stark reality of necessity cancel out the reality of free will or that of our personal freedom to act?

I must apologize for the redundancy of those words free will, personal freedom, et cetera. Anyway, what in this universe is not redundant? lol Wel, perhaps that which we have yet to discover.

Peace

Your argument about time travel has always been a straw man argument.

Compatibilists have no problem stating “in order for me to smoke a cigarette, a cigarette must exist”

A compatibalist likewise has no issue stating that “in order for me to exist, time travel can’t change me”

This isn’t rocket science here.

I gave you a real debate with that link there and you avoided it, and just keep attacking straw men. You’re actually not interested in any truth whatsoever in your own thread on your own topic.

That may be true, and learning what those choices are may give people greater opportunity, but how does this challenge the fact that will is not free?

These people had a burning desire and the determination that it took to survive, but they didn’t do it of their own free will. All of the factors that made them who they are allowed them to get through the nightmare. None of this was done of their own free will. Self-determined means they had free will, according to the dictionary definition. This is false because no one has free will.

[i]self-determined
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.
self-de·ter·mi·na·tion (sĕlf′dĭ-tûr′mə-nā′shən)
n.

  1. Determination of one’s own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will.
  2. Freedom of the people of a given area to determine their own political status; independence.[/i]

I didn’t say they had no choice. And of the choices available, most are made consciously. What does this have to do with free will? Their choices were limited but they were able to think positively and gather as many resources as they could to try to beat the odds, but none of this was done of their own free will. They moved in this direction out of necessity and their desire to self-preserve, which was in the direction of greater satisfaction.

This is important to understand.

[i]Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves.

The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a
discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did
what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this
demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not
be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.
[/i]

If you want to use the term “free will” to mean that they still chose to do whatever they could in spite of the restraints, to stay alive, that is perfectly fine. What it does not mean is that, given their circumstances, they could have done differently than what they did. Some people whose genetics, personality, fears, confidence level before being taken captive were not as strong, did not allow them to make the same choices that kept the others alive, and they died as a result. But in both cases, they chose what they were only able to choose given their circumstances.

Of course I have heard of the saying. We have the capacity to make lemonade out of lemons only if we are given that capacity. Some don’t have it, and cannot transcend hardship. If they could transcend being bound, you would think they would, but many cannot for reasons that we may not be aware of.

The fact that you say “that to me is free will” shows me that you don’t understand that this is not an opinion. Either we have free will or we don’t. We can’t have both because they are opposites. It is wonderful to be able to overcome adversity. The only thing I’m trying to explain is that whatever a person chooses, is in actuality not done of his own free will. He does what he can to make his life better if he is able. But that doesn’t mean he is any freer (or that he could do otherwise) than a person who can’t make his life better, for whatever reason. Both are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given their particular circumstances. Once again, the confusion over the meaning of terms is problematic. I see it over and over again.

I’ve said this before that it’s okay to say I did this of my own free will, if it means I did something because I wanted to, but this doesn’t mean your will is free in the sense that you could have done otherwise.

I think what he meant by that is that human beings can overcome many atrocities, and that we can stand up to our oppressors. He can also be encouraged not to give in or give up, which may help him to fight the good fight, but this does not mean he has ultimate control or can pull himself up by the bootstraps if he does not have the wherewithal to do so. As individuals we are doing the best we can given our life circumstances, which only means given the hand we’ve been dealt we try to make the best choice we can (in the direction of greater satisfaction), even if to others it is the worst choice.

I’m only trying to define determinism in a way that reconciles what we do “of our own accord” with the fact that our will is not free so that I can show how this changes our world for the better. People often think determinism would reduce them to robots (which it doesn’t), and why they resist the truth. Determinism hasn’t shown how to overcome the problem of moral responsibility, which is what I’m trying to show.

That was a misunderstanding.

We can aspire to this kind of freedom, but this realization is also a product of influence and training therefore this is not free will. But…the way you are using the term is fine. Who wouldn’t want to be free from negative influences and from being internally imprisoned by earlier conditioning resulting in lack of confidence and low self-esteem? :-k

I think the differences could be due to many things such as the will to turn one’s life around (which is not the same for everyone if they don’t have hope for a better life), a good support system, having economic opportunity, finding a sense of purpose that gives a person a reason to turn his life around, believing that one’s life matters, etc.

Doing that which you must do is not free will. It’s the compulsion to do that which you have no choice not doing.

Determinism does not mean that our choices are pre-determined by something external. This is what I’ve been trying to explain. This would mean we must make a particular choice because it’s been preset, even if that’s not what we want our choice to be. That’s not how it works. We have the final word as to what choices we permit and which one’s we don’t.

I think we agree with each other but we’re using the term “free” to mean different things. Language confusion especially with a topic as deep as this one, can be a problem.

We are often able to make our own decisions, but what we do of our own free will, or what philosophers often call free will, is not free will in actuality (even though it feels free) because we are compelled to move in only one direction; the direction of greater satisfaction which only offers us one possibility each and every moment of time.

No need to apologize. I’m glad you stopped by. :slight_smile: Maybe you will desire to read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If you request it, I’ll post it for you.

If discoveries made by anyone are but necessary components of nature’s immutable laws of matter embodied in the human brain, then calling them genuine is just another manifestation of this in turn.

You seem [at least to me] intent always on making the “choice” to discover something [anything] as somehow being “outside” of that which nature compels of all matter.

However conscious matter is not fully understood by anyone such that they can demonstrate definitively what and how and why it is. Let alone being able to fully explain matter that becomes self-conscious.

In my view, You merely take these subjective leaps into your own intellectual contraptions and insist that by asserting what you believe is true, this makes it true.

You acknowledge that you have no free will in accomplishing this, but your own no free will still gets us closer to the whole truth than my no free will. Or the no free will of anyone who refuses to “define” free will and determinism exactly as you do.

No, the conflict revolves around whether I was ever able not to make points that you concluded were mumbo jimbo, and whether you were ever able not to now conclude that I couldn’t help myself.

It’s either all necessarily intertwined in the only possible reality or autonomy on some level does exist and it may be possible to distinguish which frame of mind here is in fact more reasonable.

Again, however, it’s not a question of the right word or the wrong word, but of whether or not you were free to choose one word over another. If you are not then any word you choose is the right word becasue it is the only word you were ever able to “choose”.

The discussion is inherently stuck given the manner in which I construe the existential relationship between a determined universe and “I” as in fact an essential relationship wholly embodied in the laws of nature.

Thus [as I see it]:

And I’m just trying suggest that in a determined universe you are not free to note this, but only compelled by nature to note it. And nothing can ever really be superflous if intrinsically it is entirely natural.

And what can possibly be “outside” of nature? Certainly not your brain or my brain. Certainly not the entirety of this exchange that they are creating.

This seems by far to be the biggest stumbling block between us. The part about nature, the laws of matter, my brain, “I”, what “I” want, and the “satisfaction” it brings to “me”. From my frame, what I want to choose, what I think to choose and what I do choose are all an inextricable manifestions of the same immutable reality. There’s nothing to reconcile here. There is only the brute facticity of what is. At least, in my view, in a No God world.

You insist on giving the mindful “I” more significance in toppling over the mindless domino. Why? Because the mindless domino doesn’t choose, doesn’t want, doesn’t have a sense of satisfaction. BUT: “I” am no less compelled by nature to topple the domino than the domino is compelled to fall.

Back again to this: That is what I am compelled to argue too! “Get it” or “not get it” – past, present, future – nature is behind it all. But: What is behind nature?

Then the author is there to cling to his definitions. Then repetively nature brings us back to this part in the exchange:

In other words, nothing new here. Unless of course we can finally pin down once and for all the defintion of “fate”. In sync with the definition of “choice” “want” “satisfaction” “reason” “cause” etc.

Then down to earth. The part where we in fact choose to do something:

Yeah, that’s what I am assuming as well. Only I am also assuming that there may well be a break – a break embedded in the understanding of mindul matter we are not able to fully grasp yet. There may well be autonomy in our interactions. Unlike you, I don’t claim to know everything here.

Or: I wanted to only because my brain is hard wired by the laws of nature nature to want to.

If only [so far] “in your head”.

We can prevent it if nature compels us to prevent it. And you speak of this “progressive” future as though the part where some consider abortion to be the political right of women [abortion a good thing] and others consider birth to be the natural right of the unborn [abortion a bad thing], just dissolves as somehow nature compels our descendants to grasp and to act on the principles embedded in the author’s “discovery”.

And the fact that nature compels you to gain comfort and consolation from this doesn’t make it any less…what exactly?

Apparently there is this universal “standard” for differentiating right from wrong behavior and it just so happens to be entirely in sync with human behaviors in the author’s own “peace and prosperity” future.

In the past some thought this revolved around one or another God, or one or another political ideology, or one or another moral obligation rooted deontologically in one or another rational assessment of the human condition or of nature.

Instead, it all really comes down to the author’s “discovery” about the future?

Or: Compelled by nature, “[w]e are the ones doing the deliberating, the preferring, and the choosing, therefore WE are responsible for making those choices.”

That is why in a wholly determined universe some people are compelled by nature to hold others responsible for behaviors that they are not in fact free to choose. Just as the one holding them responsible is not free to do that. Nothing is not in sync with the laws of matter. Including this exchange of course.

Again, I suspect that only being inside your head and having the capacity to understand this as you do, will bridge this gap between us. The gap that revolves around the actual existential implications of this being true for human interactions.

Up to now…

But “now” is different. “Now” we actually have more control over…over what exactly? How are the choices we are compelled to make here and now any different in a determined universe from the choices we were compelled to make yesterday and will be compelled to make tomorrow? The difference in my view is how you are able to reconfigure the physcial world that you live in into the reality you have been compelled to construct in your head. Out of definitions and intellectual contraptions is what I am compelled to believe.

Assertions that you are no less able to actually demonstrate than I am mine.

Still, from my own “frame of mind”…

But how does any of this really address the point that I am making? Spinozian or not, God is no less part of the mystery that is matter evolving into life, evolving into brains, evolving into minds making choices that may or may not be autonomous.

Okay, explain how understanding why there is something instead of nothing, and this something instead of something else, isn’t profoundly relevant to the purposes of this discussion?

Come on, we are on this teeny tiny “track” on this unimaginably teeny tiny planet in a humdrum galaxy embedded in a universe that consists of billions more in what may well be but one of an infinite number of other universes. And that’s all shrugged away?

You can’t seriously believe this other than as a psychological need to make it all disappear in defending the author’s discovery. Or so it certainly seems to me. But given my own understanding of determinism you are off the hook because there was never the possibilty of you not believing it.

Or: People are compelled by nature to believe that they have an actual choice to believe or not to believe something but that is only a necessary component of the human brain able to create and then to sustain this psychological illusion of an actual choice.

I couldn’t have said it better myself!!

But, again:

I readily acknolwedge that I don’t have one for my own point of view.

That is not true iambiguous. Everything that has happened or ever will happen is the only way it could happen. But where is the intellectual contraption? That we do what we must? Is that it?

Huh? I am not demonstrating the what and how and why of conscious matter, so it’s not relevant.

This is totally your intellectual contraption not mine. Don’t you think I’m well aware that asserting something that I believe is true doesn’t make it true? But that’s not what I’m doing. =;

No one has free will, but some people get closer to truth than others. As I said, a person can argue that one plus one is three but you cannot tell me he’s closer to the truth, or equal in truth value to the person who says that one plus one is two. If someone defines free will and determinism different than the author by saying that the laws of matter are causing a person, without his consent, to do what they do, THEY ARE WRONG. That does not mean they could help themselves. Obviously, they couldn’t because their will is not free.

That’s not the point. We already know you couldn’t help yourself, so why do you keep repeating it? How can anyone move forward in a discussion that keeps going back to the premise that both participants are in agreement with? I have said autonomy is an okay word to use if you mean without involvement from others. But this does not mean we are free from the antecedent events that lead us to making the choice that offers us the greater satisfaction.

autonomy: In developmental psychology and moral, political, and bioethical philosophy, autonomy is the capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision. Autonomous organizations or institutions are independent or self-governing

There you go again. This is not the issue because we already know that. Repeat repeat repeat. That’s why we’re getting nowhere. No, it’s not the most important thing because it’s an established foundational principle that man’s will is not free, according to the demonstration I gave. Even if you believe there could be an element of free will, you really need to put it aside so we can move forward. It’s like the mathematical principle of 1+1=2 is the basis that allows a bridge to be built but you keep saying that this is not important. You don’t seem interested that building the bridge which will help us to get from one place to another, create jobs, and help us develop. You just want to understand mystery as to why 1+1 is 2. Who cares as long as we can build the damn bridge. #-o

They are just two sides of the same coin, but it is important to clarify that necessity in determinism does not mean that you don’t have a choice. That’s false. It’s just not a free choice. As long as you mean the “I” or self gets to choose (which is an attribute of man due to his ability to contemplate), we’re on the same page.

I am compelled due to my preference which is always in the direction of greater satisfaction that my desire is forced (or compelled) to take.

That is true, but in order to move forward you need to make the effort not to keep going back to the premise that we are part of nature’s immutable laws. I explain it by saying we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. You are right now moving in this direction by being more satisfied to post here than not. If you lose interest, you will stop posting in the direction of greater satisfaction.

But you are still choosing iambiguous. You are still permitting or forbidding your choices to either be actualized or not. You are making it seem as if you’re not a participant but are the victim of nature’s vicissitudes in whatever way the wind carries you.

There is a difference, not in the sense that you are no less compelled by the laws of nature to topple the domino, but that you have to give consent to topple over the domino in order for the domino to fall. Obviously, the consenting of toppling the domino, once you make this decision, is not of your own free will. We know that so don’t repeat it.

You are changing topics again. It doesn’t matter what or who is behind it all. You can ask this question until the cows come home. A more important question is if the claims are true and this discovery can change our world for the better, it needs to be brought to light sooner rather than later.

The author said that the word ‘choice’ is misleading because embedded in the word is the word “free”. That’s how free will is defined conventionally; we have a choice therefore will is free. WRONG.

[i]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.

Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point…he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable,while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or
bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is
remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case present
alternatives that affect choice.

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.” [/i]

Fate is not synonymous with determinism because it implies that regardless of what you do, your destiny is sealed. That is obviously not true. If your child was running into traffic would you say, too bad that the car is going to hit him because it’s already predestined, so I won’t try to save him? You can use the word fate to mean once you do everything you can to make a situation better, and it doesn’t turn out, you can then say it was fate ordained.

You are in sync but, once again, by saying nature’s law MADE you step on the accelerator is misleading because nothing outside of YOU made you choose this. Stop putting the blame on nature as if you’re a helpless creature going along with nature’s software program that you have no input in. Recognize that nature is YOU; you cannot distinguish nature as a separate entity, which is how you make it sound. Obviously looking back nothing could have been otherwise but our decisions, based on contingent events happening in the here and now, does not grant you free will in any sense of the word. Nature isn’t separate from you, but that’s how you’re making it sound. “I couldn’t help myself because nature made me do it.” See what I mean? This is the problem with language as a tool since it always needs clarification when discussing topics that require people to be using the same definition.

There is no break whatsoever. It would be a contradiction to BE able to choose otherwise and NOT to be able to choose otherwise. It has to be one or the other. I don’t claim to know everything here, but I may actually know more about this knowledge than you do, and because of that I am more sure that there is no break than you are. :wink:

You are hardwired by the laws of nature to desire choosing that which brings you greater satisfaction any time there are meaningful differences under consideration.

No, it’s not just in my head. It’s in a 600 page book. :laughing:

Once you understand that no one can tell another what to do, the right of the mother gets preference, but the irony here is twofold: people will have better incomes and will not desire aborting in the majority of cases. Rape will be a thing of the past. Lastly, you mocked his discovery regarding death. When you understand the reality that we’re born and again and again, abortion (even if it takes place rarely) will not have the same moral angst that it once brought. You have a mindset that’s difficult to engage because you believe strongly in your worldview. As a result, you immediately superimpose your thought system regarding conflict onto this discovery as if these issues can’t be solved. You are wrong.

It does bring me comfort but that does not mean it’s wrong just because it brings me comfort. This is a ridiculous syllogism.

If a discovery is comforting it has to be wrong.
The discovery brings me comfort.
Therefore the discovery is wrong.
:laughing:

Differentiating right from wrong is basically differentiating between what is a hurt to another and what is not. Obviously abortion is one of those gray areas where a fetus doesn’t have a say, so it must be the mother’s choice. Once again, abortion will gradually decline because people will be married in the new world (not in the conventional way) and their children will be wanted. Please stop jumping the gun, okay?

Interestingly, there is no moral obligation to do anything in the new world. This is not another political or moral ideology that must be obeyed. You’re off the beaten track. =;

You are making it sound like the author’s discovery is self serving; an ego trip. He took no credit whatsoever. How could he have if man’s will is not free? This discovery is about the laws of our nature that the author observed after years and years of reading and studying human behavior.

Keep trying and hopefully nature will allow you to get it.

In a wholly determined universe nothing could be otherwise, which means that if we see something of interest that propels us to question what this is about IN THE DIRECTION OF WHAT GIVES US GREATER SATISFACTION, that is what we will be compelled to do.

Only time will tell whether he was right.

We have no control other than our ability to refrain from “nature” forcing us to do something we don’t want to do.

Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. That is why the conventional definition of determinism regarding “cause” is misleading. If we don’t get an accurate picture of what determinism means, we will never be able to reconcile doing of one’s own accord with the fact that man’s will is not free. This is the key to peace on earth. Wouldn’t you be interested to know how peace could become a reality? Can’t you contain your skepticism just a little bit?

This discussion is not about God. Give it up!!! :confused:

What the hell? Why is the sky blue? Why is the grass green? Why do birds chirp? Why are there so many species? Why do we wonder whether God exists?
Why Why Why? What do any of these questions have to do with what I’m sharing?

God, if you’re there we need your help!!! [-o< 8-[

Yayyyy, I AGREE! Can we move on? :-"

But then…you backpaddle by saying you’re not sure if there is a gap where free will could exist. No, it can’t unless your delusional.

Do you really want to learn more? Then why are you so adamant that this author is not the real deal? How could a bridge be built without the raw material (1+1=2) to build the bridge without it crumbling? The same holds true here, we need to have a solid basis for communication in order to move forward. If you can accept that will is not free notwithstanding, then we can move forward so I can show you how the bridge of peace can be built. Game?

Huh? I am not demonstrating the what and how and why of conscious matter, so it’s not a prerequisite to understanding this knowledge.

This is totally your intellectual contraption not mine. Don’t you think I’m well aware that asserting something that I believe is true doesn’t make it true? But that’s not what I’m doing. =;

No one has free will, but some people get closer to truth than others. As I said, a person can argue that one plus one is three but you cannot tell me he’s closer to the truth, or equal in truth value to the person who says that one plus one is two. If someone defines free will and determinism different than the author by saying that the laws of matter are causing a person, without his consent, to do what they do, THEY ARE WRONG. That does not mean they could help themselves. Obviously, they couldn’t because their will is not free.

That’s not the point. We already know you couldn’t help yourself, so why do you keep repeating it? How can anyone move forward in a discussion that keeps going back to the premise when both participants are in agreement? I have said autonomy is an okay word to use if you mean without involvement from others. But this does not mean we are free from the antecedent events that lead us to making the choice that offers us the greater satisfaction.

autonomy: In developmental psychology and moral, political, and bioethical philosophy, autonomy is the capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision. Autonomous organizations or institutions are independent or self-governing

There you go again. This is not the issue because we already know that. Repeat repeat repeat. That’s why we’re getting nowhere. No, it’s not the most important thing because the foundational principle that man’s will is not free, which was demonstrated, IS the first premise. Even if you believe there could be an element of free will, you really need to put it aside so we can move forward. It’s like the mathematical principle of 1+1=2 is the basis that allows a bridge to be built but you keep saying that this is not important. You don’t seem interested that building the bridge will help us to get from one place to another, create jobs, and help man progress. You just want to understand the mystery as to why 1+1 is 2, and who or what is behind it all. Who cares as long as we can build the damn bridge. #-o

They are just two sides of the same coin, but it is important to clarify that necessity in determinism does not mean that you don’t have a choice. That’s false. It’s just not a free choice. As long as you mean the “I” or self gets to choose (which is an attribute of man due to his ability to contemplate), we’re on the same page.

I am compelled due to my preference which is always in the direction of greater satisfaction that my desire is forced (or compelled) to take.

That is true, but in order to move forward you need to make the effort not to keep going back to the premise that we are part of nature’s immutable laws. I explain it by saying we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. You are right now moving in this direction by being more satisfied to post here than not. If you lose interest, you will stop posting in the direction of greater satisfaction.

But you are still choosing iambiguous. You are still permitting or forbidding your choices to either be actualized or not. You are making it seem as if you’re not a participant but are the victim of nature’s vicissitudes in whatever way the wind carries you.

There is a difference, not in the sense that you are no less compelled by the laws of nature to topple the domino, but that you have to give consent to topple over the domino in order for the domino to fall. Obviously, the consenting of toppling the domino, once you make this decision, is not of your own free will. We know that so don’t repeat it.

You are changing topics again. It doesn’t matter what or who is behind it all. You can ask this question until the cows come home. A more important question is if the claims are true and this discovery can change our world for the better, it needs to be brought to light sooner rather than later.

The author said that the word ‘choice’ is misleading because embedded in the word is the word “free”. That’s how free will is defined conventionally; we have a choice therefore will is free. WRONG.

[i]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.

Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point…he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable,while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or
bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is
remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case present
alternatives that affect choice.

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.” [/i]

Fate is not synonymous with determinism because it implies that regardless of what you do, your destiny is sealed. That is obviously not true. If your child was running into traffic would you say, too bad that the car is going to hit him because it’s already predestined, so I won’t try to save him? You can use the word fate to mean once you do everything you can to make a situation better, and it doesn’t turn out, you can then say it was fate ordained.

You are in sync but, once again, by saying nature’s law MADE you step on the accelerator is misleading because nothing outside of YOU made you choose this. Stop putting the blame on nature as if you’re a helpless creature going along with nature’s software program that you have no input in. Recognize that nature is YOU; you cannot distinguish nature as a separate entity, which is how you make it sound. Obviously looking back nothing could have been otherwise but our decisions, based on contingent events happening in the here and now, does not grant you free will in any sense of the word. Nature isn’t separate from you, but that’s how you’re making it sound. “I couldn’t help myself because nature made me do it.” See what I mean? This is the problem with language as a tool since it always needs clarification when discussing topics that require people to be using the same definition.

There is no break whatsoever. It would be a contradiction to BE able to choose otherwise and NOT to be able to choose otherwise. It has to be one or the other. I don’t claim to know everything here, but I may actually know more about this knowledge than you do, and because of that I am more sure that there is no break than you are. :wink:

You are hardwired by the laws of nature to desire choosing that which brings you greater satisfaction any time there are meaningful differences under consideration.

No, it’s not just in my head. It’s in a 600 page book. :laughing:

Once you understand that no one can tell another what to do, the right of the mother gets preference, but the irony here is twofold: people will have better incomes and will not desire aborting in the majority of cases. Rape will be a thing of the past. Lastly, you mocked his discovery regarding death. When you understand the reality that we’re born and again and again, abortion (even if it takes place rarely) will not have the same moral angst that it once brought. You have a mindset that’s difficult to engage because you believe strongly in your worldview. As a result, you immediately superimpose your thought system regarding conflict onto this discovery as if these issues can’t be solved. You are wrong.

It does bring me comfort but that does not mean it’s wrong just because it brings me comfort. This is a ridiculous syllogism.

If a discovery is comforting it has to be wrong.
The discovery brings me comfort.
Therefore the discovery is wrong.
:laughing:

Differentiating right from wrong is basically differentiating between what is a hurt to another and what is not. Obviously abortion is one of those gray areas where a fetus doesn’t have a say, so it must be the mother’s choice. Once again, abortion will gradually decline because people will be married in the new world (not in the conventional way) and their children will be wanted. Please stop jumping the gun, okay?

Interestingly, there is no moral obligation to do anything in the new world. This is not another political or moral ideology that must be obeyed. You’re off the beaten track. =;

You are making it sound like the author’s discovery is self serving; an ego trip. He took no credit whatsoever. How could he have if man’s will is not free? This discovery is about the laws of our nature that the author observed after years and years of reading and studying human behavior.

Keep trying and hopefully nature will allow you to get it.

In a wholly determined universe nothing could be otherwise, which means that if we see something of interest that propels us to question what this is about IN THE DIRECTION OF WHAT GIVES US GREATER SATISFACTION, that is what we will be compelled to do.

Only time will tell whether he was right.

We have no control other than our ability to refrain from “nature” forcing us to do something we don’t want to do.

Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. That is why the conventional definition of determinism regarding “cause” is misleading. If we don’t get an accurate picture of what determinism means, we will never be able to reconcile doing of one’s own accord with the fact that man’s will is not free. This is the key to peace on earth. Wouldn’t you be interested to know how peace could become a reality? Can’t you contain your skepticism just a little bit?

This discussion is not about God. Give it up!!! :confused:

What the hell? Why is the sky blue? Why is the grass green? Why do birds chirp? Why are there so many species? Why do we wonder whether God exists?
Why Why Why? What do any of these questions have to do with what I’m sharing?

God, if you’re there we need your help!!! [-o< 8-[

Yayyyy, I AGREE! Can we move on? :-"

But then…you backpaddle by saying you’re not sure if there is a gap where free will could exist. No, it can’t unless you change the definition of free will to try and make it appear compatible.

Do you really want to learn more? Then why are you so adamant that this author is not the real deal? How could a bridge be built without the raw material (1+1=2) to build the bridge without it crumbling? The same holds true here, we need to have a solid basis for communication in order to move forward. If you can accept that will is not free notwithstanding, then we can move forward so I can show you how the bridge of peace can be built. Game?
[/quote]

Huh? You are acknowledging that you are unable to fully explain and to demonstrate what and how and why conscious matter is and came to be. You don’t know why it is instead of not. You don’t know why it is what is and not something else. But this gigantic gap between the knowledge encompassed in your author’s discovery and all the knowledge there actually is to be known about these relationships is not something we should take into account when reacting to this discovery.

But the question [mine] is this: how are any intellectual assessments expressed by any human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter not in fact manifestations of whatever mechanical “contraption” nature itself is?

Sans God of course.

And, for objectivists of your ilk, getting closer to truth means getting closer to thinking that the truth itself is what you assert it to be. Not that you aren’t compelled by nature to do so. But for subjectivists of my ilk, the leaps we make to particular conclusions “here and now” are recognized to be in that gap between what we think we know and what in fact we don’t actually know about existence at all.

But here you are basically telling me that whether I tell you this or not I am not compelled by nature to tell you only what I must. Telling you or not telling you is beyond my autonomous control.

Who is able to judge right and wrong in a determined universe other than as they are compelled to by nature? I see you somehow putting the author over and above all this and being able to grasp nature in such a way that even nature itself is eventually compelled to be in sync with that which he construes to be “progressive” behaviors.

But that is my point: I keep repeating it because I do not possess the free will to stop repeating it. Why? Because nature compels me to keep repeating it. Just as nature compels you [in this exchange] to keep pointing out that to me.

Name a single word in this entire exchange that nature has not compelled either one of us to post. That we “choose” to in a way the computer technology used to create the words does not is always [seen by me to be] your default frame of mind here. But this is no less as nature compels it to be.

Or: autonomy as nature has compelled us to define it reflects the psychological illusion of accomplishing these things as though we possessed the will to do so of our own volition.

The “self” here governs only in strict accordance with the mechanical laws of matter that intertwine all of nature into one and only one necessary reality.

No, the reason we are not getting anywhere is that nature has yet to compel me to agree with your own intellectual contraptions embedded in your own definitions and word meaning. Unless of course it is because nature has not compelled you to agree with mine.

Note for us the clearest example of where this has been demonstrated. How has the author set up a set of circumstances in which he was able to show us beyond all doubt that man’s will is not free. What actual experiments did he conduct in regard particular chosen behaviors in a particular context such that others can replicate the same results.

And how would I do that unless and until nature compels me to?

No, I said that a bridge is not able to be built by engineers who insist they can ignore mathematical truths.

But that one of them might be compelled by nature to try to anyway. What is important however is the extent to which one is able to choose to build a bridge. Whether it stays up or not.

And what if in building a particular bridge the result increases the satisfaction of some and decreases it for others. Who gets to decide when building the bridge reflects real progress?

Right, like your preference toward a particular greater satisfaction is not in turn compelled by nature. Thus making the things you “choose” to sustain ever and always in sync only with what nature compels you to want and desire.

If I am “choosing” only what nature has necessarily propelled and then compelled me to, well, we clearly are compelled by nature to understand this differently. There are no “vicissitudes” in nature. There is only what must unfold because it cannot not unfold.

Human minds seeing interactions as vicissitudes is merely another manifestation of how the human brain is such extraordinary matter. But how and why is this the case? Nature compels me to think that I don’t know. As it compels you to think that you do.

Also, nature compels me to give my “consent” to all of this. But then nature compels you in turn to believe that having this “consent” is of vital importance.

Then this part…

I am compelled to make this decision. I have no free will not to make it. But it seems from your frame of mind that only after I make it does the “no free will” part kick in.

Then [once again] you “order” me to not repeat something that nature will either compel me to repeat of not. One of us is clearly being compelled to grasp this less reasonably than the other.

I’m sorry, but when you note things like this I can’t help but wonder if you are altogether there from the neck up. All of this is smply presposterous given the manner in which “I” construe determinism out in the “for all practical purposes” world of actual human interactions. I can only presume you are compelled to note things like this. Either because nature is literally in charge here or given some measure of autonomy your own particular “I” is utterly locked into believing what you do about the present begetting a future in sync with your author’s own political prejudices. Why? Because, in my view – compelled or not – that is how you attain a foundation for “I” psychologically; and then sustain a comforting and consoling frame of mind by believing it in a world filled with so many terrible things.

It’s like a religious person reconfiguring the horrors embedded in the “human condition” here and now into a salvation and a paradise there and then once God’s mysterious ways are finally understood.

But: From my frame of mind that becomes this: We have a “choice” the moment nature compels us to contemplate two or more options…

As long as we were never able to freely choose among the options, only one “choice” was ever going to be made.

Here again [to me] this mysterious, incomprehensible manner in which you insert this [to me] unexplained “break” between “I” and nature. “I” to me is just another necessary manifestation of a material nature unfolding only as it must. Mindful matter that cannot be fully grasped other than as you and the author are compelled to. Why? Because there is no true break between nature and your “selves”.

First there’s this:

And then this:

Which is exactly the opposite of how I make it sound.

I’m afraid another here will have to explain this more clearly to me. You seem to have tied your own arguments into knots. And I am simply unable to untangle them. And that’s just part of my nature in this exchange. So far.

But if nature compels me to make it sound that way, then how could I help but – naturally – to be in sync with that? And language is a tool of the human brain. And the human brain is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

And then those who argue that since it surely hurts the unborn to be literally shredded alive, to die, the living must be there to take that hurt away. It must be the unborn’s natural right to life that prevails. Ah, but that’s not in sync with your own political prejudice so you just “think” the unborn out of the equation and insist/assert that it must be the mother’s choice that counts. All the while admitting that throughout the entire sequence you were never able to freely choose any of this.

You untangle it all in your head by fitting it into the intellectual contraption that the author “discovered” to propel the abortion wars here and now into a “progressive” future. At least for the mothers, if not for the dead babies.

Then truly mind-boggling predictions like this one:

And, of course, in predicting this “peace and prosperity” future re abortion the author jumps no guns at all.

And speaking of guns how might the author come down on the issue of the 2nd Amendment in America’s “progressive future”?

Nothing could be otherwise except that somehow the manner in which you construe what we perceive “in our head” to be “in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction” does matter. Even though we are compelled to perceive, feel, experience this satisfaction as but another necessary adjunt of the laws of matter themselves.

I know. That’s the beauty of intellectual contration discoveries like his. He can always imagine this future being far enough down the road that he doesn’t have to be around if it doesn’t come true.

There are scientists and others who can answer questions of this sort. But what do all of those things/relationships share in common? The fact that they exist in an overarching reality that is intertwined in all of the components of existence itself. As though the things that you are sharing here don’t as well. Sure, convince yourself that all that you don’t know about existence is irrelveant to all that you do know. After all, all that you think you do know is [for now] the psychological foundation for all that comforts and consoles you.

And that, in my view, is the motherlode here. That, above all else, must be protected. You are just one of many right here in ILP who have concocted these general descriptions of the human condition out of the endless assumptions that they make about things they have no real capacity to demonstrate at all. In part because there are far, far, far more things that they don’t know about existence then they ever possibly could know.

Indeed, dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are the components of my own frame of mind when the discussions shift to “I” in the is/ought world. It’s just that my own intellectual contraption tends to rip “me” apart, to distress and depress me. My own frame of mind is unimaginably bleak. Both on this side of the grave and the other.

But that doesn’t make it seem no less reasonable to me. If only here and now.

And that makes my point go away?

You tell me: Can I? Or will I move on [from here] only as nature compels me to?

And then you don’t backpaddle, insisting that all I do here is only as I ever could have done unless I am compelled by nature to want to redefine free will to be in sync with your own. The difference is I am compelled to acknowledge my inability to demonstrate conclusively that my beliefs here are entirely in sync with a complete understanding of existence itself while nature compels you to dismiss all of that and cling to the author’s discovery as the new center of the universe.