With all due respect, this thread is probably not for you because you came in too late.
It’s fine to say you did something of your own free will if it means you had a choice (nothing was constraining you), but having a choice does not mean your will is actually free since you are compelled to move in a direction that you feel is the better choice in your eyes, not the worst.
I have said over and over that cause and effect doesn’t work when it comes to human choice. Nothing causes, so how can there be a direct effect?
You are misunderstanding the meaning of “greater satisfaction.” You are telling me I’m wrong because I have an attachment toward my idea. So if someone makes a genuine discovery, they can’t be right because they’re biased?
Your interpretation is incorrect because you have neglected to understand what he means by greater satisfaction.
Of course.
Obviously not because you would do those things.
Are you saying the only way we can gain wisdom is through war, crime,and poverty?
Once again, you have completely misunderstood what he meant by this word. How can I even begin to explain this knowledge when you didn’t understand the first premise? Satisfaction does not mean pleasure or doing only those things that are easy to come by. A person may find greater satisfaction pursuing a difficult task that takes much sacrifice. You find greater satisfaction being here at this moment than being somewhere else, or you wouldn’t be here.
That is not how the word “free will” is defined. Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances, we CHDO (could have done otherwise), which is false.
How we move about about this world is dependent on a combination of our genetics and environment. Environment plays a big role in how we interact with our world on a daily basis.
I can tell you jumped into this thread without a shred of understanding as to what it’s about.
If someone is suffering from hunger and steals from another, is he being immoral? IOW, if someone has been hurt, are they justified in striking back? Most children are constantly hurt by their parents, school, and society in general. Then when they explode in a murderous rage, we call them evil. It’s true that not everyone with a difficult background murders, because each person’s predispositions are different to a degree. These murderous rampages are just a symptom. Locking someone up (which may be necessary) doesn’t get to the root cause and is bound to happen again and again, which we are now seeing.
From my frame of mind what you are doing here is making nature the equivalent of the man holding a gun to your head. Nature becomes the “external” force giving you no choice but to choose what it compels you to do. But nature and you are one and the same from my point of view. The laws of nature compel you to “choose” only what you must. Without actually holding a gun to your head. In fact, you, the man with the gun and nature are all seamlessly [re the laws of matter] of but one necessary unfolding reality.
But how is this emotional state not in and of itself just another manifestation of nature embodied in your brain embodying the laws of matter.
Sure, but it still comes down to whether these flip-flops were ever actually something I was able to choose to make.
What if the alleged identifiable reason [not able to be substantiated by any of us] was embedded in the laws of matter? You change your mind at the last minute because [and only because] nature compelled you to.
Or: A libertarian would be compelled by nature to think you had a choice. His/her underlying belief system would be just like yours: entirely natural.
Exactly: Before, during and after a choice that you make, “I” is compelled by nature. You choose something precisely because nature has compelled you to desire to choose it.
Now it’s “repertoire”. Another word you were compelled to choose to confuse me. Thus moving this exchange along in the only possible direction it can go.
How can our reaction to anything not occur but only as it must if the changed conditions themselves occur only as they must?
Or: I am compelled by nature to only misunderstand.
Until you can explain to me how human contemplation before, during and after a choice to rob someone is not at one [from start to finish] with the laws of matter themselves you lose me.
Stealing to eat is not immoral because food is a necessity not a luxury
Striking back when attacked is only moral when self defence is needed
Parents and teachers are no longer allowed to hit children but in my day they were and both hit me
Evil is a way of separating the most immoral from everyone else although given the acts that it describes it is understandable why the term is used
But when it is tolerated by the masses even though it may be initially perpetrated by one individual it becomes more acceptable - it becomes banal
Most psychopaths probably dont murder as most non psychopaths dont too
But you are far more disposed towards it if you happen to be a psychopath
Sometimes it is not psychopathy but something else entirely - anger - jealousy - lust - greed - revenge
Unlike psychopathy these other traits exist within the general population so are impossible to contain
Or: Of course because of course you were compelled to be.
And Edison was in fact able to demonstrate that the things he invented/discovered were in fact in sync with the laws of matter.
But: How might he have gone about demonstrating that he was not compelled by nature to invent these things involving precisely the sequence of choices he made? That, in fact, he invented them of his own free will.
Right. Until we get to the “for all practical purposes” implications of that pertaining to an actual choice that she makes. Then this choice that the free will folks embrace becomes this “choice” that you advocate instead.
In other words, nature compels you not to demonstrate this at all. Instead, nature compels me to insist that this is just another example of you wiggling out of not noting an example of this.
Thus…
But then when I ask for the demonstration…
We get this…
Wiggle. Wiggle. Wiggle.
That’s how nature has compelled me to react.
Always and ever you insist that I must “choose” to read the book that [up until now] nature has in fact compelled me not to read!
On the other hand, one day nature may well compel you to “spoon feed” his demonstrations to me and “progress” will then have been compelled in turn.
And then this [again]:
My point summarily dismissed by something as substantiveless as this.
I am only compelled [once again] to ask why you avoid addressing this more in depth.
Or, if we do possess some measure of autonomy, not compelled. Just curious.
You must know that this is just more wiggling around addressing my point here. You’re only hope in my view is that you really are compelled by nature to respond here as you do.
You keep insisting that you are not an objectivist here. And I keep insisting that this is only because nature has compelled you to insist this. That in a wholly determined universe someone calling you an objectivist and you claiming not to be one is all necessarily embedded in our only possible reality.
Why don’t we just let nature decide which of us is more confused here.
Unless, of course, there is God and He created nature. That is, before He created us to be a part of it. Then things get particularly complicated. How can mere mortals ever have free will if an omniscient God knows everything? So, on top of being compelled by the laws of nature to do only what we must, we are compelled in turn by an omniscient God to do only what He already knows we must.
In any event, you insist here that you choose but it is not a real choice. Again, what on Earth can that possibly mean?
You know, for all practical purposes.
How? Why? Well, don’t expect that to be covered by the author. That part is inherently irrelevant to his discovery.
Note to others:
You think? Just an “off the wall” comment? Excused by her because, well, I couldn’t help but articulate it.
Which ironically is my point!
Nothing can be “off the wall” in nature if nature and its laws encompass everything there is.
Though my point here still being just an existential leap I have taken given what “here and now” I happen to believe going all the back to all the things I still don’t know about existence itself.
That’s just what objectivists do though. They clump together their own intellectual assumptions and definitions and say everything [that is important to them] is settled despite what may well be a staggering amount of knowledge that they don’t know about existence itself.
The idea being that as long as what they believe in their head is true sustains at least some measure of comfort and consolation, fuck all that other stuff. Their own particular “I” is grounded in one or another TOE. If that works, why not just let it keep on working.
As for shortening my posts, how have they ever not matched the length of yours?
Still, let’s at least pin this down, right?
Again, as though the length at which we “choose” to post here is not in turn only the length that nature has compelled us to post.
You’re right, in either situation the choice you make is a compulsion over which you have no control. The situation where the person is holding a gun to your head is obviously more dire, but the same law applies.
No one said it wasn’t iambiguous. Each and every moment we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. It gave me greater satisfaction to say I was bowing out based on my thought process at that moment. Each moment offers us a new set of alternatives.
You really didn’t have a choice since the word implies you could have done otherwise, which we know is impossible.
You may not know the reason. We often just do what our desires dictate us to do. There could be subconscious factors. It’s all part of the brain doing what it must.
Libertarians believe that you made a choice that you didn’t have to make because you were free to choose otherwise.
Correct.
I’m not sure why that would confuse you. We can only make choices based on the options that we have at our disposal. How can we choose what is not in our repertoire of options?
You are absolutely right. Our reaction to anything can only occur as it must. It’s all beyond our control.
Right, I’m just pointing it out as I must.
There is no difference. The only thing that changes is the input which alters the output in the direction of greater satisfaction.
This tells us that we are hurt in some way and feel justified in what we’re about to do.
Times are a changin. Punishment was often used to embarrass the student. Cruel!
But evil really is not evil when seen in total perspective, which means that no one is actually evil. They are doing what their nature dictates they must do. But even with this given, we can change the outcome if we are able to change the environment which created these individuals.
Somewhere along the line, the environment allowed the psychopathic personality to develop. A child isn’t born a psychopath but may have a predisposition for becoming one if it’s a perfect storm of nature and nurture, or lack thereof.
We can’t always predict who is going to act out their emotions, but in the new world anger, jealousy, lust, greed, revenge will be easily contained because they won’t exist within the general population.
This, too, can be demonstrated on a smaller scale, but if the principles are sound we could set up the Great Transition and based on the accuracy of the blueprint we would have no doubt it would work, just like we would know before a bridge was built that it would hold up, if the architecture was sound.
He could not have demonstrated that he was not compelled, because he was. But that wasn’t his discovery. It probably didn’t occur to him that he made his discoveries that were not made of his own free will.
This has nothing to do what the free will folks advocate. This isn’t about what anyone advocates.
The book is filled with examples. I’m not wiggling out of anything.
You believe the law of greater satisfaction is an assumption. It’s not. Neither is the fact that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do. Those are the two principles that lead to the two-sided equation, and both are sound. If they don’t understand the proof that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives, which is why man’s will is not free, it will be difficult for me to show them how this law works in real life.
I’m not wiggling.
Because, for whatever reason, you don’t want to.
The book needs to be read in a step by step fashion. Stepping out of the order in which it was written to explain a chapter without having a basic understanding of the first two, is problematic.
It has nothing to do with naivety, it has everything to do with astute observation. Again…
It’s not relevant. I know that one plus one is two. I don’t need to know if this math works in theoretical multiverses.
It’s irrelevant. Did Edison have to know about multiverses and what’s behind existence itself to make his discoveries? Maybe light bulbs wouldn’t work in another universe. So what.
It’s been proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that we don’t have free will.
Then I don’t understand your question.
That is what had to take place and I still say I’m not an objectivist. My response is all necessarily embedded in our only possible reality.
Nature can’t decide. We decide, as part of nature’s law.
True.
Having options, but only ever being able to pick one of them, renders all other options that were not picked an impossibility, thus proving that free choice (or free will) is an illusion.
To think that man has evolved into a species that is self-conscious and says “I” to distinguish himself from others yet still be in sync with nature’s deterministic law of greater satisfaction is quite amazing!
I’m not blaming you. I am not sure how these posts got so long (not anyone’s) but it’s taking up too much time. Maybe we can break them into two or three posts. It would be easier on the eyes.
My greater satisfaction is not a satisfaction for me.
It’s for you. So then what compels me? Talking about the same thing over and repeating the same points, is not satisfactory for me but it could be for you and it can be for others. There comes a point when repetition becomes NOT satisfactory, yet wisdom condemns one to its responsibilities. You think this isn’t true? Try doing the same thing for your entire life and tell me the grass doesn’t seem greener on the other side, this proves that your satisfaction talked about here, is -illusory-, temporary. And if you expect it then how can you be truly satisfied? Your argument has holes.
We don’t always pick a satisfactory path, it’s evident in society, people living miserable paths and then playing victim for it.
That definition of free will is not false, how is it false? Because it isn’t /your/ definition? Apparently it’s the agreed about definition because it’s on google, first page.
Ok and we choose environment, so what’s that say about us?
Nothing causes? What’s life, you know, that middle ground where we have a freedom to do what we wish or even what we don’t wish?
With all due respect, this thread is probably not for you because you came in too late.
It’s fine to say you did something of your own free will if it means you had a choice (nothing was constraining you), but having a choice does not mean your will is actually free since you are compelled to move in a direction that you feel is the better choice in your eyes, not the worst.
I have said over and over that cause and effect doesn’t work when it comes to human choice. Nothing causes, so how can there be a direct effect?
You are misunderstanding the meaning of “greater satisfaction.” You are telling me I’m wrong because I have an attachment toward my idea. So if someone makes a genuine discovery, they can’t be right because they’re biased?
Your interpretation is incorrect because you have neglected to understand what he means by greater satisfaction.
Of course.
Obviously not because you would do those things.
Are you saying the only way we can gain wisdom is through war, crime,and poverty?
Once again, you have completely misunderstood what he meant by this word. How can I even begin to explain this knowledge when you didn’t understand the first premise? Satisfaction does not mean pleasure or doing only those things that are easy to come by. A person may find greater satisfaction pursuing a difficult task that takes much sacrifice. You find greater satisfaction being here at this moment than being somewhere else, or you wouldn’t be here.
That is not how the word “free will” is defined. Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances, we CHDO (could have done otherwise), which is false.
How we move about about this world is dependent on a combination of our genetics and environment. Environment plays a big role in how we interact with our world on a daily basis.
Peacegirl: I can tell you jumped into this thread without a shred of understanding as to what it’s about.
Artimas: My greater satisfaction is not a satisfaction for me.
It’s for you. So then what compels me? Talking about the same thing over and repeating the same points, is not satisfactory for me but it could be for you and it can be for others. There comes a point when repetition becomes NOT satisfactory, yet wisdom condemns one to its responsibilities. You think this isn’t true? Try doing the same thing for your entire life and tell me the grass doesn’t seem greener on the other side, this proves that your satisfaction talked about here, is -illusory-, temporary. And if you expect it then how can you be truly satisfied? Your argument has holes.
Peacegirl: The term”greater satisfaction” does not mean you are always satisfied. You don’t understand what it means.
Artimas: We don’t always pick a satisfactory path, it’s evident in society, people living miserable paths and then playing victim for it.
Peacegirl: Do you think they are responsible for what they couldn’t help doing?
Artimas: That definition of free will is not false, how is it false? Because it isn’t /your/ definition?
Peacegirl: It is not my definition. It is the definition that is used in regard to the free will/determinism debate. The pressing question is: Could a person have done otherwise. The answer is a categorical no.
Artimas: Apparently it’s the agreed about definition because it’s on google, first page.
Peacegirl: Free will means being able to choose other than what was chosen. Libertarians say, you didn’t have to do that! You could have chosen otherwise, therefore you are morally responsible!
Artimas: Ok and we choose environment, so what’s that say about us?
Peacegirl: We are usually born into a particular environment. No choice at all.
Artimas: Nothing causes? What’s life, you know, that middle ground where we have a freedom to do what we wish or even what we don’t wish?
Peacegirl: It is true the more options we have, the freer we feel, but that type of freedom is unrelated to the freedom of will we don’t have. Using different definitions can really create problems in a debate.
what do you mean ‘what happens’? oh you mean how can i be motivated to act ‘toward greater satisfaction’ if i’m not particularly concerned about being ‘right’? okay, lemme give it a shot.
i don’t care if mercury is the closest planet to the sun, so i wouldn’t mind if i were wrong in believing it. this lack of caring is an expression of a motivation to act toward the greater satisfaction… the greater satisfaction here being the relief i experience in not feeling alarmed about believing and caring that mercury is closest to the sun, and incidentally being wrong about it. the lack of concern here is actually a gain of sorts. the position of mercury is one less thing i need to worry about being correct about.
on the other hand, i do care very much that the weather report is accurate because believing it, in the event that it turned out to be wrong, would prevent me from acting toward the greater satisfaction of being able to work.
in either case, both caring and not caring are implemented in the effort toward greater satisfaction.
one will willingly endure a degree of pain if they believe that in doing so, something will be gained that is worth the pain experienced. means justifying the ends stuff. so even here both subjecting oneself to, and avoiding, pain, is part of an effort toward greater satisfaction.
yeah nobody said the ‘toward greater satisfaction’ formula works only in physical terms, although i would argue that ultimately it must be reduced to physical terms once it is understood how the ‘mind’ works. even such crazy shit as kin altruism has biological explanations; e.g., a mother goes running into a burning building to save her kid. now there is no sign of immediate, physical gratification for the mother in something like this unless she is one helluva masochist. but it is still an act toward greater satisfaction. it satisfies by being qualified as the ‘right’ thing to do, given the nature of the mother’s beliefs, feelings, emotions, what have you. and if this isn’t enough, evolutionary psychologists would argue that this is a complex evolved behavior that serves the purpose of preserving some set of genes by sacrificing an old carrier for a younger carrier.
but you’ll note that even while this isn’t a strictly hedonistic imperative to act (serving to increase the immediate pleasure of the animal), it’s still reducible to the physical in that the structures and processes in place that influence the commission of such an act… and such an idea that the act is ‘good’… are not conceptual in content. that is to say, the desire and drive to commit such an act does not originate in the thought… rather the thought follows, post hoc, the effort toward greater satisfaction (which ‘activates’ conditioned behaviors, habits, desires, etc.), and then appears in consciousness as an illusory, voluntary choice after the fact.
what would it mean to have freewill, but not ‘absolute’ freewill? would it be something like a cat being a mammal, but not absolutely a mammal? see where this is going?
a philosopher loves nothing more than playing around with the word ‘absolute’ so he can avoid being pinned down, absolutely. and yet no matter what he does with the word, he ends up either at nonsense or contradiction.
if you hand one of these turkeys the law of identity, he’ll refuse to accept that A=A, but before he even finishes muttering his objection, he’s already employed the law six or seven times in his argument. one example:
‘yeah but everything changes so A is something else now’
let the value A = the proposition ‘everything changes’.
no if the law of identity isn’t true, i can disregard his argument, because it’s an absolute statement about the nature of reality. so if he’s right, he’s wrong.
but nevermind all that. it gets even more technical when you get into nominalism and the problem of universals and all that crazy shit.
but for the freewillist, who is not the illest, … what does he mean when he says ‘i’m free but not absolutely’?
if he means he’s free to stand up but not turn invisible, then he’s right. but wait, he’s not right, because ability has nothing to do with cause, with what compels one to exhibit an ability. wait didn’t we already do this argument? i swear we did somewhere. let me think. yeah we did. i remember now. okay, carry on then. if the freewillists, who are not the illest, didn’t get it the first time, they prolly won’t get it this time.
We are not outside of Nature but inside it - as everything is - so all our decisions are made from within
Its laws are therefore not something we have any control over so we have no choice but to follow them
There is nothing outside of Nature and anything that appears off the wall is due to us not understanding it very well
Everything within Nature has a perfectly rational explanation for it because that is how it works and it is all there is
This does not mean that everything will eventually be understood by us although knowledge does increase over time
Two people entirely independent of each other are faced with exactly the same choice between two options [ A / B ]
Person A chooses option A and Person B chooses option B - what this demonstrates is that both options can be chosen
And another time they can choose the alternative option so Person A chooses option B and Person B chooses option A
So this disproves your claim - twice - that when the circumstances are repeated the option chosen is always the same
I’d say that argument for “could have” is ridiculous. They are essentially confining the present possibilities as a one option because that’s what an individual may pick, so basically they’re saying it’s determined and the present moment of continuity and choice/options doesn’t matter squat diddly because you’re going to choose what you’re going to choose and they can tell you that from a point of after you have already chosen, what a weak pathetic argument. I could have said differently, in fact I typed it out here then rewrote something else. Nothing is set in stone until /after/ the choice is made of which doesn’t /have/ to be bound to satisfaction or a choosing a path of lesser resistance. And even after, it may still not be set in stone.
I think history disagrees with their assessment of “could have done otherwise” that’s like, the entire point of history too, to prevent repetition. Which that same history reveals a long struggle of getting to where we are now, yet now we can easily wave our fingers in the air and declare the present satisfying after the fact, just know you are happy dancing on a pile of bones.
You do realize that determinists think that different people do different things, right? You do realize that determinists realize that on different times, due to different causes being involved, the same person will do different things, and that none of this disproves determinism. All it does is point out that the specific entities involved at the specific moments in time are different. The causes are different, since we do not remain absolutely the same through time, nor are different people driven by the same set of internal and external causes.
I accept all that but was just demonstrating the fact that free will exists before a decision cannot be changed at all
Up until then one is free to change their mind as many times as they want to - regardless of whether or not they do
And wouldn’t all the reasons one would change one’s mind be causes from one’s personality and temperment and external factors? And wouldn’t these be only those that are present in that moment before the act/choice?
Why would you change your mind?
Whatever the answer is is causes that are present - no other causes are present. One choice. At least you have not said anything that shows why this is not the case.
Not if they don’t have any attachment to external factors and personality derives from environment as well as genes and we can choose environment… so what’s that say?
It means we can be what we want and who we want by choice and consistency. Acquired tastes do exist.
So you’re saying I can’t choose option B after I have chosen option A? People do it all the time if they get bored or regret option B.
Sometimes what is necessary, is not what is satisfactory and this is a fact.
I view people as clay, especially children. Can shape them into what you want or you can let them shape themself. So tell me, how can someone, a child, shape themself by choice if they lack the experience before hand? You going to say it’s all genetics? Really genetics just dictate advantages and disadvantages, they don’t make up the whole sum of personality, so if a child chooses an environment and that environment shapes their personality, is that not a choice that they made to freely shape themself?
And if everyone starts off ignorant, no matter what path you pick to go to and fro, you will learn something. And if learning grants more available possibilities/options through pain and an understanding/acceptance, then is that not deterministic will freeing itself by the use of cause and effect or it’s own system, to grant more availability? IF they choose an environment they did not like by became like that environment, they can /sever/ attachment and leave that environment to consistently work on themselves to become different by another environment. People do it all the time. I think you lot have boiled semantics down way too far and call it philosophy, to be completely honest.
And peacegirl keeps saying “he” as if greater satisfaction is not her own theory or idea but then dictates it’s not what it means, which is exactly what I am doing, except I am going off my own logic and reason and ideas… so could that not be considered appeal to authority?
But when I do this with the definition of freewill or religious text/mythology, I’m automatically wrong because i don’t appeal to any authority, right guys?
Punishment was often used to embarrass the student. Cruel!