New Discovery

Hi peacegirl

I understand that our thinking and our decisions are not free to a great extent. They can be bound up by all kinds of pre-determined realities but if you will begin with the letter A and proceed onward, can you not see that at some point in time along that journey, name your own letter, your thinking can and will eventually become based in reason and in what is the most practical outcome. From there, your OWN will takes over and all constraints melt away. What is left or may I say begun in that moment, is in a way, a tabula rasa of a human being.

Yes, I can of course agree with that - in part. The statement is obviously true but at the same time, there had to be some “defining” moments for some/many of them, moments when perhaps they experienced a particularly horrible scene (they all were) which made their “free” Self rise up thus motivating them to become more than “part and parcel” of who and what they were before, thereby becoming self-determined humans in the moment whose potential would become known in the future. I may not have expressed that well enough so that you would know what I mean.

I still think that you are throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Just like “love” to me is more a matter of “action”, not just feelings, resolute, self-determination based on right conscious reasoning followed by action becomes free will. That might not make any sense to you.

Putting that scenario aside, many do not make “conscious” choices. We make them on a whim, the ones which best suit our desire and our time-line, even though it is true that what we sow in haste, we shall reap at our leisure. When we have determined, through reflection and clear thinking what is the best possible outcome for something, that is exercising our free will, our autonomy.

Leaves which blow in the wind and are carried here and there are not actually free. Their movements are not based in conscious thinking or decision making for their survival. They are not autonomous. They do not have the will to go their own way or to come to a halt when they feel like it. They are not capable of feeling like it. They do not have consciousness, mind, spirits or hearts with which to guide their existence.

So, are you saying that these people in the concentration camps were no better than leaves blowing in the wind simply because they were imprisoned? Are you actually saying that at no time did they experience the inner power to transform their selves and to make the decision to see their selves as human beings exercising free will?

They were “consciously” moving in the direction of greater satisfaction…these were not random unconscious acts - they were “deliberate” - they knew or felt what it would pretty much take to survive. That does not speak to me of a lack of free will.
Yes, their lives were horribly in the hands of others but not necessarily their minds and their hearts. That is what determines the individual’s inner freedom and freedom of the will.

You would say that because of certain conditions and circumstance within a person’s life, there can be no free will. Every act has already been spoken for, decreed - like Judas Iscariot hanging himself because he felt that there was no other way, no other possible outcome. He could not envision otherwise but that does not mean that he could NOT if he had given himself the chance to re-think his options.

I would say that DESPITE these things, conditions and circumstances AND BECAUSE of these things, every act and decision performed can arise from a freedom of the will because so much had already been against the grain, in the tar pit, whatever. The way I look at it, the greater one’s will has been restrained and undermined, the greater the power to Will freedom, upheaval and transcendence and to act on that.
History has shown that as much as it has shown the other.


[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]

How close either of us is to the truth I cannot say for sure. But I DO see both in a way as our own opinion, our own subjective thinking or perception. Many of us perceive things in one way and many of us in other ways. This is why I think that philosophy may never get to the end of this question. Is it supposed to? How can you be absolutely sure about this? Much in philosophy is supposition and theory, no?

Why not? Human beings are highly complex creatures. Some of us see with tunnel vision and others with a more panoramic vision. Some of us have the ability to hold to separate thoughts about something in our minds at the same time and then come to the conclusion after investigation, whatever, that both can be part of the same truth.

Do you see opposites - as in light and dark, night and day, hot and cold, wet and dry, good and evil, joy and pain, et cetera? Or are you of one mind who gathers them into Oneness, wholeness. #-o That may not be a good example insofar as free will or not free will.

Perhaps what philosophy needs to do then is to completely drop the word “free” from the situation. lol I think that I am only kidding here.

The fact that he is able to transcend what the other person cannot shows me that there is more a sense of freedom and will power motivating him. This person made a conscious decision based on reflection and what is it Nietzsche said - turning everything upside down, inside out, this way and that way. Free will takes over in these instances - at least to me they do. We need to be able to see ourselves as being able to push through that locked box (bad example) and crawling out. If we cannot envision the box being opened, there cannot be free will.

But this is where consciousness comes in for me. Examination/investigation of who we are and how we are influenced, considering all aspects of a situation, thinking ahead and asking how this or that choice might influence a conclusion - there is free will in that. There is no shabby thinking or being lead by patterns or triggers. The more grounded we are, the more conscious and self-aware we are, the freer our will and choices are. We are not leaves in the wind.

That there shows the potential for free will depending on which path an individual chooses to take. Either way, it is his choice. An individual either makes the movement toward transcendence and transformation or he stays in the quicksand.

Why does “the direction of greater satisfaction” have to be devoid of free will?

I may be misunderstanding you here. This can lead to a real slippery slope I think.
This might not lead to a better world but one where people offer excuses for the horrible things which they do or think that they have a right to do because, well, after all, “there is no free will and I live in an already determined world. I am like the Borg. What could I have done.”
But again I might be misunderstanding you here. Can you offer an example.

How can your absolute thinking about there being no “free” will help the cause then?

This is just a suggestion. Maybe you can take Jung’s advice and incorporate “gladly” into some of your decision-making and see what happens, how it makes you feel. Does it make you feel any different, freer, like you were the one in control and autonomous? First you would have to withhold your belief in a lack of free will for a little while. Or not.

There are things which I know that I must do. They are practical things which have to be done. How does this take away from my free will in doing them? I still have a say in the matter. I can turn my back on them. Why do you associate “must” with not having a choice in the matter? I think it depends on one’s perception and frame of mind.

Of course, when it comes to mental illness; for instance, things like being bipolar or having OCD or tourettes, I can see your point. We ARE pre-determined in ways. But even there, things can be different or made better, with motivation and one’s will.

Did the stoics feel compelled to do things or were they free and easy about them because they decided it was intelligent and practical to do these things or to live in this way. Where is the compulsion there?

I may not be interpreting your words clearly with the above, but you seem, to me, to be refuting your own “belief” that there is no such thing as free will.

I can certainly agree with you about the language problem.

Some times the choices which we inevitably have to make do not necessarily bring us in the direction of greater satisfaction and we are quite aware of this. But we do choose to make the choice for the greater good. The only time, for me, when we do not choose freely is when we are all bound up with indecision, regret and obsession about it both before and afterwards.

Granted, perhaps I still am not sure what you mean by the direction of greater satisfaction. Maybe you mean what I mean when I say “for the greater good”.

My pleasure. But where was my coffee? :mrgreen:

I already found it through your italicized words above. I will give it a shot as I can. Perhaps it will give me a little more insight into your lack of “seeing” free will at all.

This is something which we all have to keep in mind…
“We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.” - Anais Nin

I love going through tunnels but I especially love when we come out of them and see the whole panorama of what is around us. Totally different vision, right?

Exactly!

I agree that as we learn how to handle life’s difficulties, hopefully we are able to learn the ropes as to how to get what we want. But this learning process is not done of our own free will. As Ambiguous said: everything we do, think, and say is in sync with the laws of matter, which means all of our desires, wants, and preferences are not what we choose freely. But once we have these wants and desires, we then choose those things that help us to attain the things we desire, unless what we want is hurting someone. That’s where we also have the God given ability to say “no”, which is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. Nothing falls out of the loop of deterministic law. To repeat: none of what we want, and none of what we pursue to get what we want, is done of our own free will.

Some people can rise above horrendous circumstances if they are lucky enough to have the strength and fortitude to do it. Some don’t have the same constitution and are weaker in their ability to think positively in such a dire situation. Neither have free will, not the one who is more resourceful or the one who gives up more quickly.

.

In reality the one who has that kind of self-determination is just as bound by the law of determinism as the one who doesn’t have that kind of self-determination. His genetics (some people are born to see the glass half full, which has a genetic component) and his environment (maybe his parents telling him for years that he can do anything he puts his mind to, which he has come to believe) has put him in a position of strength during very hard times. But none of what he can do or not do is of his own free will. I hope you read this author’s clear definition of determinism so we can be on the same page.

You were right up until the last sentence. There’s nothing wrong with using the term “free will” to mean not having outside influence and thinking through a situation very carefully. For example, you could say, “I was free to make this decision, no one tried to persuade me. I chose this path of my own free will. I gave it a lot of thought and now my decision is clear, I’m going to join the Peace Corp.” Once again, it’s fine to use the term "free"in that way, but this is not the free will I’m talking about. IOW, this does not mean I could have chosen to answer any way other way than the way I did, in fact, answer. Do you see why definition is so important in a discussion like this?

This goes back to the definition of free will. Obviously, leaves are not conscious so you can’t compare. Consciousness does not automatically equate with free will. The word autonomy is very vague and can mean different things. Having the will to go one’s own way or to come to a half when one feels like it doesn’t grant him free will. Yes, he is free in the sense that nothing is constraining him. At first glance the average person would say of course they have free will. They can choose either/or. It’s up to them. But if you look deeper you will see that we are not free at all since we cannot choose what we prefer less when a better alternative [in our eyes] is available. We are constantly moving from dissatisfaction to dissatisfaction. We are moving from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction, and there is only one possibility each and every moment of time.

Once again, you are using the term “free will” to mean nothing was holding them back. It’s okay to use it that way, but in reality they didn’t have the free will not do what they did to save themselves. The survivors are no different from the ones that could not think as clearly as they could; could not figure out strategies to save themselves. Both were doing only what they were capable of doing. Obviously, we are not talking about being satisfied. That’s not what “greater satisfaction” means.

If he had given himself the chance to re-think his options, he could have envisioned otherwise, but you’re speaking in hypotheticals. It’s like looking back and saying “if only.” We cannot change the past because it has already been written. The only thing we can do is learn from past experience but there is no way it could not have happened just that way.

That may be true, but nothing that has happened or will happen is done of one’s own free will. There are people who have done heroic acts as a result of being in the tar pit, but these are not free acts. That is where you are confused. Your will to go against the grain, to persevere, to fight for “freedom” are all based on things that have driven people to get ahead, transcend their circumstances, if you will, but none of this is done of a “free” will. Replace it with strong will. Not free.


[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]

I’m sorry but this is not an opinion. Man does not have freedom of the will and what this does for our benefit is amazing once we understand how to apply it. We could not achieve this new world if will was free because we could hurt others with nothing to control that behavior.

Free will and determinism are opposites. Either we could have chosen otherwise, or we could not have chosen otherwise. Not both. It would be a contradiction.

A better example is death and life. If we are dead (no sign of life and no chance to be revived), we are not alive. If we are alive (breathing with a heartbeat), we are not dead. These are opposites. I am talking strictly about true death, not being kept alive artificially, which some would say is still life.
The examples you gave are relative terms.

I don’t think that’s necessary as long as people know what they mean by “free”. The author said he uses the phrase, “I did this of my own free will” all the time which only means “I did this of my own desire.” But again this does not mean he was actually free in a free will sense to do what he did. I hope that makes sense.

Could be, but where is the free will? He may have a greater sense of freedom by transcending what the other person cannot but this has nothing to do with his ability to do this of his own free will. Don’t you think if the other person could transcend difficult times due to a strong motivation (which is also beyond his control) he would do it?

This is all well and good, but you are going back to a different definition of free will. Obviously if someone was given advice from Nietzsche and it made sense, he may turn everything upside down, inside out, this way and that way. Where does free will take over in these instances? He’s doing what he is compelled to do based on what he has learned. This way of thinking may lead to more freedom, which is a different term than free will. If we cannot envision the box being opened, we are trapped within our limited ability to think beyond the box, but in either case no one has the free will to choose other than what he chooses (based on his limitations) in the direction of greater satisfaction. This author was a voracious reader and thinker, and was able to think outside of the box. That is what allowed him to make this discovery, but he did it not of his own free will.

to be cont…

But this is where consciousness comes in for me. Examination/investigation of who we are and how we are influenced, considering all aspects of a situation, thinking ahead and asking how this or that choice might influence a conclusion - there is free will in that. There is no shabby thinking or being lead by patterns or triggers. The more grounded we are, the more conscious and self-aware we are, the freer our will and choices are. We are not leaves in the wind.

That there shows the potential for free will depending on which path an individual chooses to take. Either way, it is his choice. An individual either makes the movement toward transcendence and transformation or he stays in the quicksand.

Why does “the direction of greater satisfaction” have to be devoid of free will?

I may be misunderstanding you here. This can lead to a real slippery slope I think.
This might not lead to a better world but one where people offer excuses for the horrible things which they do or think that they have a right to do because, well, after all, “there is no free will and I live in an already determined world. I am like the Borg. What could I have done.”
But again I might be misunderstanding you here. Can you offer an example.

How can your absolute thinking about there being no “free” will help the cause then?

This is just a suggestion. Maybe you can take Jung’s advice and incorporate “gladly” into some of your decision-making and see what happens, how it makes you feel. Does it make you feel any different, freer, like you were the one in control and autonomous? First you would have to withhold your belief in a lack of free will for a little while. Or not.

There are things which I know that I must do. They are practical things which have to be done. How does this take away from my free will in doing them? I still have a say in the matter. I can turn my back on them. Why do you associate “must” with not having a choice in the matter? I think it depends on one’s perception and frame of mind.

Of course, when it comes to mental illness; for instance, things like being bipolar or having OCD or tourettes, I can see your point. We ARE pre-determined in ways. But even there, things can be different or made better, with motivation and one’s will.

Did the stoics feel compelled to do things or were they free and easy about them because they decided it was intelligent and practical to do these things or to live in this way. Where is the compulsion there?

I may not be interpreting your words clearly with the above, but you seem, to me, to be refuting your own “belief” that there is no such thing as free will.

I can certainly agree with that.

Some times the choices which we inevitably have to make do not necessarily bring us in the direction of greater satisfaction and we are quite aware of this. But we do choose to make the choice for the greater good. The only time, for me, when we do not choose freely is when we are all bound up with indecision, regret and obsession about it both before and afterwards.

Granted, perhaps I still am not sure what you mean by the direction of greater satisfaction. Maybe you mean what I mean when I say “for the greater good”.

My pleasure. But where was my coffee? :mrgreen:

I already found it through your italicized words above. I will give it a shot as I can.
[/quote]

Yet, oddly enough, in the “new world” everyone will start acting the same way. People will stop being immoral. They will all get the most satisfaction from being gentle and caring. “Somehow” an ideal social structure will be created. O:)

Or coming at it from another angle, people’s interests will no longer clash over resources and power and, well, love and sex. Well, I was glad to get approval around my understanding of determinism, at least this part. Earlier peacegirl did not seem to think I understood. And I share your skepticism that the fact that we are determined (if it is the case) necessarily leads to a utopia, and further how utterly determined creatures could know if they were being objective when they predicted this. I sometimes get tired of people who, it seems to me, get away with arguments they have convinced themselves with. I am not convinced there is determinism and I am not convinced there is free will. Though I find the explanations for free will seems less convincing. I get the not necessarily nice urge, sometimes, to take away people’s xanax and join me in regions of less certainty. I’m not proud of that urge, but there it is.

Peacegirl,

I hope you and the author are aware that mathematics is a sub category of logic, logic is not a sub category of mathematics.

I think your author is not only incorrect, but vastly ignorant

I think you should take into account.
From Carl Jung himself. Man and his symbols.

imgur.com/a/KHx2W5L

If I have an awareness of the future by subconscious imagery, that has yet to be determined by the past or present choice, then that shits all over your argument or proposition and we all know it, we’re timeless awareness.

There is no fooling me in what you have done with your argument. You know as well as I do that there are multiple options to choose from in a continuous present moment and our motives don’t matter when in terms of choosing (to anyone external), they only matter to the individual and I am telling you (I shouldn’t even have to tell you) that not every decision is made based on a satisfaction or fear of a lesser satisfactory position, biologically, mentally, etc.

It only appears as “it can’t be proven” to someone external to you. So you look at me and I pick up a piece of chocolate instead of a strawberry and you automatically assume I could not have chosen the strawberry otherwise? That is utterly preposterous and I think you know it. Are You going to argue that we are bound by context/setting to determine a choice in the present? The very context/setting that we can choose… literally.

So I want you to explain to me, how can I have an idea not based around any experience, something completely new arise in the conscious mind from the unconscious/subconscious when the system of determinism has not yet been executed in a past or present moment of continuity? Is that free enough of a will for you?

Oh and also

Carl Jung said we are free to do “gladly” that which we must do. He didn’t say we HAVE to. Which means what Pg? That we can choose an option other than that which entails “gladly” which is what Pg? Is that not freedom? It’s common sense, why would anyone not want to feel better than down? That responsibility is dependent upon the individual, yet common sense seems lacking in this modern era, doesn’t it? Yet there are those whom feel down to be the victim, no satisfaction gained truly, the lack of common sense.

I think that determinism is a poor level of abstraction. It explains nothing and it’s not useful in any way. I see no reason to use it.

If the cat is vomits on the kitchen floor, then saying that it could not have not vomited does not help you or the cat. Saying that it is neither right nor wrong for the cat to do it, is also not helpful.

It’s only when you identify specific objects and events that you can take effective actions. You need to identify the cat, the kitchen, the vomit … decide that it as a “wrong” behavior, search for causes and attempt to stop it.

Yes, this is true. Mathematics and even time are both languages created by man for man, it didn’t exist as it is, written all over trees, it is merely our attempt at describing reality through a language that we call math, based upon a variety of topics, shape, quantity, etc. Errors can be made just as well as any other subject because nature is not obligated to make sense externally to us internally. Even when our internal being is from this “external” nature, it’s why I say we have an infinite in us, we are it. By understanding oneself you may understand significantly more than one whom doesn’t. It’s a mirror, the inverted pyramid or hour glass as Meno and I put it.

Generally that is how consistency works. You forget that in which you are consistent in using because it is common sense and consistent, the proof is observance of those external to you in positions of turmoil or lesser being due to a context that they have chosen.

If I eat chocolate everyday and it’s all I ever eat or use, is it going to still taste like chocolate or will I have grown so accustom to it that there is no differentiation? This is why /routine/ gets boring.

There’s an argument for freewill for you, which you consistently use, everyday, always.

But I’ll agree with you that either both don’t exist

Or I’ll go on the side that both do. There is no black and white

You assume it’s a relief “Xanax” to have free will when in reality it is a greater responsibility and power. Key word, assume.

Phyllo, knowing that man does not have free will, in and of itself, doesn’t change anything. It’s what lies behind this knowledge that is of major significance.

[i]“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnston, but in order for me to
reveal my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its
hiding place because they are related to each other.”

“What is this theory?” he asked.

“You see, Mr. Johnston, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”

“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me
that man’s will is not free?”

“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnston. I don’t believe it; I know
this for a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door
marked ‘Man’s Will is Not Free,’ just like the invariable laws of the
solar system were concealed behind the door marked ‘The Earth is
Round’ — until some upstart scientist opened it for a thorough
investigation.”

“I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it
make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be
affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if
the will of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery,
consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors
that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as
long as the door marked ‘The Earth Is Round’ was never opened
thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the
undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to
discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”
“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of
the most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any
discoveries to change the world.”

“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none
of them had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there.
Most people do not even know it is a theory since it is preached by
religion, government, even education as if it is an absolute fact.”

“Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have
discovered but whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it
cannot be valid because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank
you very much for coming out but I’m not interested in discussing
this matter any further.” And he would not let me continue.[/i]

This is what you are failing to understand. Responsibility increases with the knowledge that man’s will is not free, not decreases. In fact, responsibility and conscience go up to a much higher degree. Aren’t you interested in learning how that’s possible or are you just so skeptical that you have closed your ears?

external to me, Karpel? external to one in general? And I am not sure what you are trying to say here other wise.

I shit once a day and enjoy it. I also eat an apple a day, thought I have less hope than the saying offers about the effects. I enjoy them every day. Though I know the subject isn’t really chocolate here. You may even be agreeding with me. I am not sure what you meant.

Me?

I don’t know what you mean here or on what issue you are or would be on my side in relation to. The side that thinks a lot of free will arguments are weak? The one that thinks there are problems with determinists being confident in their own logic? Something else?

I don’t think free will is a relief per se if believed in. I believe that when I see arguments that do not hold and the people making them seem smart enough to notice that

the arguments are a xanax. I think arguments in favor of determinism can also be Xanax.

I find both free will and determinism as having unpleasant sides.

Free will would entail that my experiences and desires need not control the choices I want to make. The choice will be uncaused. It can’t really be caused by me, because I want certain things and not others and my experiences have led to various ideas about what is possible and how to best go about that and what to avoid. If all that is not causing my choice, then it is as if someone else might as well make the choice for me. Determinism has its obvious downside and needs less explanation.

I think in general people don’t really look at all the implications of their beliefs, just the ones that feel good.

That’s what it says in the book but it’s not shown to be true.

Yes external to you or to any individual. The context of which other individuals have chosen for themselves of which they are at a higher, lower or equal to position in terms of conscious/awareness/will but it is only by choice one can rise higher or sink lower.

Yes and those are things that are consistent and common sense, do you really have to sit to think about whether you should or not take a shit or eat an apple like you do with the arguments or proposition of free will? You don’t hold those things up to the same standard of thought right, because it’s common sense? It is our consistency in use of ‘free will’ and our value attribution along with our deep analytical dissecting of free will and ourselves that creates the illusion of its not existing or existing, it is what creates the question of which the answer is mostly subjective, not always objective, due to not being able to portray the internal complexity and extent of option/possibility in a present continual moment, to any external individual outside and separate to oneself, the external vision appears as only one choice, they can’t see the thought process or feeling behind the other options. And since it appears as a one choice then you can use that argument peacegirl uses “couldn’t have chosen different” but doesn’t take into account the internal complexity behind it of being able to in fact, choose differently.

You or anyone in general whom uses free will to determine or state it is weak or not free. The argument for freewill that you call weaker than determinism, has been created by our comfort in routine and look at what has happened in society, we have people who act terribly and take no self responsibility, a lot of whom play victim to their contextual situations and deem themselves weak with no free will. Yet they still have will yes? How do they function at all otherwise consciously, yet they condemn themselves to not having a ‘free’ will, and become powerless to their own situations by giving power to the situation, which the situation is determinism, cause and effect without understanding it.

There is power in determinism as well though, it’s the use and understanding of determinism that grants the power of estimation for future, the term ‘free will’ is merely the semantic label of the infinity that is inside determinism, the never ending possibilities/opportunities. Free will is the power that may be achieved and understood, determinism is merely the method or system in getting to that power by value attribution. We are a timeless awareness, we can know a future event before it even happens by using determinism and the mind and this is power, we are now /free/ to not take that path of cause and effect due to our logically deducing it to being ruin or maybe we do take it because it helps humanity, even if ones own satisfaction is at risk, it just would seem reasonable and necessary. For every deterministic cause and effect scenario, there is a freedom of will to be gained from it. And there are an infinity of scenarios to choose from. Make sense? In this infinity, we may or may not find ourselves.

I’m on both sides man I see determinism because I use it myself but it’s the endless infinite of possibilities inside determinism via deducing through will, that frees itself.

Maybe both don’t exist, maybe both do. I just don’t pick one side because I can see them both. If I can choose to plan my entire life with my own will and I put myself intricately into context or environment after I have deduced that context or environments effects, I can and will be free by my own abuse/use of the system that is determinism.

I have felt more pain than pleasure in my life… it’s not that I feel good about free will, I just want others to understand or see that it comes after and it’s a continuous cycle of using determinism to get free, I can only see it as an absolute due to it being an infinite but an infinite is not an absolute because it is a continuity. One may say, well how are you free if you have to use this system before hand? It’s not about the use of it, it’s about choosing what its used /for/, that’s where the freedom comes to play. If I can choose my own environment and environment alters genetics and personality, then I can effectively use that system of determinism to be free to the extent of my choosing and make or discover my own being from there on after.

I agree that arguments can be a Xanax but I gain no pleasure in an attempt at being correct or arguing for free will, I’d much rather be wrong. Being right doesn’t matter to me because my being right or arguing for that sake alone, does not help humanity as much as humanity needs.

Yes it is. It just can’t be proven empirically because the Golden Age of man has not yet been built, but that doesn’t mean the blueprint is inaccurate, just as it doesn’t mean the formula to build a strong bridge is inaccurate just because the bridge hasn’t yet been constructed.

Does he present any situations where it’s shown to be true? Any tests? Any studies?

But that’s the same argument for absolute freewill as well Pg… it will never be shown though because an infinity can’t be absolute if it’s an infinity, due to it being a continuity.

Actually there’s even a problem beyond the lack of evidence. The hypothesis in the book is about the inevitability of us humans coming to a somewhat utopian set of conclusions and ways of relating to eachother when we realize that determinism is the case. The author predicted that this would happen decades ago. It did not happen. This is an important failure to predict correctly since the conclusions in the book are about what humans will do. If the author, not working wiht empirical research, is making predictions about what people will do, but using deduction presumably determines that people will do X in a certain period of time, his methods and insights must be called into question. Doesn’t mean he must be wrong, but clearly he overestimated his ability to predict and his book is a set of predictions.

This is remarked on early on was being because the main body of scientists have not accepted the book. Well, pretty much anyone could have predicted that was not going to happen because of how the book was written and the fact that none of it represents scientific research nor would it pass any kind of peer review. IOW it is precisely not the kind of paper that scientists tend to respect.

Again this does not mean it is wrong, but this excuse also indicates a failure to understand human minds, whereas the author is predicting what human minds will and must do

In the new world a person knows in advance that he will be excused regardless of what is done. Therefore, is it necessary to come up with excuses when he knows he is already excused? Think about this: when he knows that he will not be blamed by anyone anywhere, he will be unable to find the necessary justification which conscience demands before a harm is done to another. Conscience will not allow him to hurt someone without a justification, even if that justification is subconscious. Finding the justification isn’t always easy to pinpoint in cases where there has been a long line of neglect and abuse, because it’s not always an immediate identifiable cause.

to be cont…

This is just a suggestion. Maybe you can take Jung’s advice and incorporate “gladly” into some of your decision-making and see what happens, how it makes you feel. Does it make you feel any different, freer, like you were the one in control and autonomous? First you would have to withhold your belief in a lack of free will for a little while. Or not.

There are things which I know that I must do. They are practical things which have to be done. How does this take away from my free will in doing them? I still have a say in the matter. I can turn my back on them. Why do you associate “must” with not having a choice in the matter? I think it depends on one’s perception and frame of mind.

Of course, when it comes to mental illness; for instance, things like being bipolar or having OCD or tourettes, I can see your point. We ARE pre-determined in ways. But even there, things can be different or made better, with motivation and one’s will.

Did the stoics feel compelled to do things or were they free and easy about them because they decided it was intelligent and practical to do these things or to live in this way. Where is the compulsion there?

I may not be interpreting your words clearly with the above, but you seem, to me, to be refuting your own “belief” that there is no such thing as free will.

I can certainly agree with that.

Some times the choices which we inevitably have to make do not necessarily bring us in the direction of greater satisfaction and we are quite aware of this. But we do choose to make the choice for the greater good. The only time, for me, when we do not choose freely is when we are all bound up with indecision, regret and obsession about it both before and afterwards.

Granted, perhaps I still am not sure what you mean by the direction of greater satisfaction. Maybe you mean what I mean when I say “for the greater good”.

My pleasure. But where was my coffee? :mrgreen:

I already found it through your italicized words above. I will give it a shot as I can.
[/quote]

[/quote]