New Discovery

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]

Accurate predictions are difficult. I’m not surprised that the author had problems.

Baby steps are required. Small scale tests.

Use the results to either move forward on a larger scale or adjust or abandon your ideas.

And perhaps he should have known this.

Sounds reasonable.

Well then how do the Simpson’s do it? They predict shit on a cartoon and have several times with striking accuracy.

Futurama could even be considered a depiction of what our future could look like, as far fetched as it sounds… it’s pretty similar to this society, consumed by consumerism, ignorant, etc.

There are a lot of variables to consider when predicting the future, the reason it is complicated is because there is an infinite of scenarios, which is the aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value.

But the dire feeling I would have is in turn no less compelled by nature. Either there are aspects of what I think, feel, say and do which involves some level of autonomous control or the whole package that is “I” is just another one of nature’s dominoes.

It’s just a domino able to “choose” that which it could never have not chosen.

Then around and around and around we go:

In other words, you speak of this “moment” in which you choose to move in the direction of greater satisfaction as though it was not in turn but another necessary component of nature playing itself out. As though the absense of free will only really kicks in after you have been compelled by nature to “choose” this.

No, not “we”. You are compelled by nature to insist it is impossible while nature has compelled me [here and now] to insist that I am unable to grasp definitively if it is impossible or not.

Nature, you see, has compelled you to be what nature has compelled me to construe to be an objectivist. It’s not what you believe is true that matters so much as the comfort and the consolation that nature compels you to feel in insisting that others must think about these relationships exactly as you do.
Or.
Be.
Wrong.

Consciously, subconsciously and unconsciously, it’s nature all the way down.

What earthly difference does it make what libertarians believe if they are compelled to believe it by nature? How are the laws of matter embodied by them any different from the laws of matter that embody you?

Yeah, but not as correct as you are.

Yeah, but not as absolutely right as you are.

You are absolutely right. But only if I am absolutely right regarding my own assessment of determinism. Which I am or I am not compelled by nature to believe.

Okay, how is the input and the output here not in turn entirely in sync with the only possible choice that nature compels you to make?

And then back to the profoundest mystery of all. What compels nature to compel anything at all? If not God, then what?

Okay, on a smaller scale, please note how the author’s discovery can be demonstrated in much the same way as Edison demonstrated his own discoveries.

Exactly. He could not. But your author’s discovery revolves around intellectual assumptions and word definitions that he himself appears unable to demonstrate other than on this smaller scale.

And I’ll await that demonstration from you in the next post. Or not of course.

After all, when I ask you to…

You note this instead:

To which I rejoin…

To which you insist…

To which I am compelled to react with…

Wiggle! Wiggle! Wiggle!

For whatever reason? How could the only reason in a determined universe not be that nature has yet to compel me to want to?

Still, I think what most disappoints me regarding your posts on this thread are the ones that revolve around this:

In my view, refusing to explore this with me in depth can only be defended if in fact you really are compelled by nature to respond as you do.

Otherwise, I am compelled to point out just how unnerved this sort of pursuit seems to make you.

Also, when you fall back on assertions like this…

…without situating it in the gap between what you think you know and all that can be known, I am compelled to feel less and less challenged by you. In fact, I have less and less respect for your intelligence itself.

In my view, you cling to this discovery as a psychological defense mechanism. It’s just one of dozens and dozens of objectivist narratives I have come upon over the years.

Not that I wasn’t entirely compelled to of course.

Thus:

So, if out of the blue [seemingly, but entirely compelled by nature] I now note that “you are fucking idiot!!” that too is necessarily embedded in the only possible reality? I could “choose” to cast the most vile and vicious aspersions on you and all we would both be compelled to acknowledge here is that it was only as it ever could have been?

But this is where these things always get particularly tricky for me. I could say all those crude and caustic things to and about you. Then the moderators could warn me to stop. Then I could choose not to stop. Then I could be banned from ILP.

But nature compels me here and now to not want to be banned from ILP. So I “choose” not to say things that would get me banned.

But: Would this – does this – all unfold in sync with the only possible reality? Or am “I” somehow able to contribute of my own volition to whatever in the future my “fate” turns out to be?

You insist that…

But how on earth can “I” decide anything at all that is not inherently a part of nature deciding everything?

So, having only the options that nature has compelled you to “choose” from, you “choose” not to have a real choice?

That’s not confusing to you?

Well, doesn’t this assume that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction while simultaneously lacking in free will? How does he actually demonstrate this though? Doesn’t he assume that only after we do choose to move in another direction – after the choice itself is made – does free will collapse?

And that down the road [after enough folks “choose” to read his book] the choices to move in particular directions will result in a future in which “progressive” behaviors will revolve entirely around his own assumptions regarding that which constitutes “peace and prosperity”?

How could anything I say be misleading if 1] I am compelled by nature to say only what I must and 2] others are compelled by nature to be misled only as they must?

I’ll be put in danger as nature sees fit. Only nature is still this mysterious entity with mysterious laws that no one is yet able to explain [at least not to me] going back to the existence of existence itself.

You mean, “there nature goes again, compelling you to make the biggest assumption of all…”

This being that nature compels you too to have this particular belief in your head.

Ah, but only here and now. What will nature compel you to believe tomorrow? Next week? Next year?

How about After you are dead and gone?

Just out of curiosity, what do you imagine nature is compelling your author to do here and now?

If everyone was free to move toward transcendence and transformation, wouldn’t they do it?

Only because it would mean we can choose either/or equally, which is what free will means. That’s what it means; they could have chosen otherwise. Just because we have options doesn’t give us free will at all, since we are compelled to move only in one direction, the one that is more satisfying to us when meaningful differences are compared.

Glad you asked. I hope you read chapter two where the answer is given. It would be even better if you read chapter one as well, and then chapter three. I would love to talk to you about it afterwards. How can someone try to excuse himself when he knows he is already excused? What this does is prevents the ability to shift one’s responsibility (the other side of the two-sided equation) leading to conscience being able to justify an act of harm.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-2-13-2019-THREE-CHAPTERS.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ehH5XaQCSCFcNYvHvC_pxbvcl8vpSTDYkkKxNDMECqrpIBpmaLKH88Yo

Because we can control the desire not to strike a first blow by extending the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame. Blame doesn’t cause a person to desire hurting others, but it allows one to contemplate the idea if the desire is already there. But remember, there is more involved in order for this new world to come about. We have to rid the world of all blame, and there are many forms.

The way you are using the word free is, once again, not what I’m talk about when I use the term free will in this debate. We can feel free and still not have free will. This has become a real communication problem. I like what he says, and we can learn a lot on how to overcome adversity. But this new world removes a lot of the adversity, so we don’t have to work so hard at coping.
[quote="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.

No one is denying this. With motivation and WILL things can be different or made better, but it’s never done of a FREE will.

Every moment, no matter what we do, is away from a feeling of dissatisfaction (or from here) to satisfaction (there). That is the direction all life takes. It is life’s urge which is pushing us forward. Please try to understand this. It doesn’t matter whether we are contemplating or not. I am moving toward greater satisfaction by scratching an itch on my forehead. It didn’t take deliberation but it was still a movement away from a dissatisfying position. If we were satisfied we would stay in one position and never move.

Not true, having the final word only means that we make the choice (we give permission for that choice to be acted upon), but the choice is never free for the reasons given.

Great!

Determinism does not mean we can predict everything. It’s impossible, but considering there is an infinite of scenarios, there is only one that a person can choose, which is why will is not free. This infinite of scenarios is not an aspect of the will that is free by attribution of value. Your logic is wanting. :confused: