WRONG
Whole “discoveries” can then be created in the heads of some simply by insisting that only their own definitions count.
No iambiguous. This discovery was not created in his head. Well everything is in our heads actually, but his definition is much more accurate because it clarifies what determinism really means. It does not mean we don’t have a choice. It does not mean nature is dictating what we MUST choose before we choose it, as if it has already been scripted. That’s like saying it’s already been fated that I let my child get hit by a car, even though I can stop it. When a person says nature caused me…this implies that you had no choice in the matter because it was a choice that you didn’t consent to. Of course you had a choice or you wouldn’t be able to deliberate over options AND THEN CHOOSE. Isn’t that why you create the false dichotomy in your head between nature causing (which gives no choice), and autonomy (free choice)? You can’t have both because they contradict themselves, but you refuse to see it, of course not that you could have seen it differently. I’m not blaming you. Instead, you pooh pooh this knowledge by insisting that the way determinism is defined can’t be improved upon. That’s why you keep saying nature made me do this or that. Nature didn’t make you do anything if you yourself didn’t want it.
There is a definite problem with the conventional definition of determinism (which brings up a cascade of issues with all the other terms) since nothing causes us to do anything (which is implied in the definition) if we don’t want to, or against or will.
Wow. The human will itself embedded [and then said to be embodied] in a cascade of definitions.
Yes, that’s why he said, “I did something of my own free will” is perfectly fine if it means “I did something because I wanted to.” But this does not mean my will is free. Also, due to this more accurate definition, the word “cause” does not mean we are caused, against our will, to do anything. This has created so much confusion in this longstanding debate, it’s ruining the ability to reconcile “responsibility” with “determinism” and is preventing a major breakthrough that will change our world for the better.
Though some suggest that nothing causes this argument to be made other than by way of nature compelling the one making it to define the words only as, well, nature intended her to.
Only that brings us to yet another quandary: What does it mean to speak of the “laws of matter” as “intended”?
By God perhaps?
Or, as some of us suspect, by whatever the final explanation for existence itself is.
In other words, if it’s not God.
I’ve said this before, this question, although interesting, has nothing to do with the purpose of this discussion which is to share this major work for the benefit of humanity.
Iambiguous still doesn’t understand that, and says it’s an intellectual contraption in the author’s head.
And yet in a way that still escapes me, I suspect she will argue in turn that I do not understand that only because nature has not [as of now] compelled me to.
So, I’m off the hook, but…but still able to be held responsible for “choosing” not to understand it.
You’re off the hook because your will is not free. No one is holding you responsible.
You tell me what this means. You know, for all practical purposes.
By the way…
Peacegirl [of late] has apparently been compelled by nature not to respond directly to the posts I create here. Our own exchange has been…terminated by her?
Why?
I am sorry if I missed some of your posts. I may not have seen them because I have been responding to quite a few people. Can you bump them?
Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that her own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to her is that it is not what she believes is true that matters nearly as much as that she believes that all others are obligated to share in that belief.
Another psychological embodiment of this: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 5&t=185296
This has nothing to do with obligation. If people see the soundness of these principles, they will, of their own accord, desire to learn more. If not, then not. I have no control over what people are interested in. I’m hoping that there is interest and people will want to spread word about this knowledge so it can be carefully investigated. He even mentioned that at the end of the book.
[i]I am hoping that when I am no longer here, those who
understand these principles will continue to carry the ball. It is
important to understand that my prediction of 25 years or that this
great change would take place in the 20th century was based on my
conviction that there would be a thorough investigation and
understanding of the principles involved, but as yet it has not been.
In other words, if Gregor Mendel had predicted that his discovery
about heredity would come to light approximately 30 years after his
death, he would have been accurate, but he had no way of knowing
when it would be confirmed by science. He knew it was coming, but
could not know when. In my case, however, I was allowing 5-10
years for this knowledge to be understood by science and the
political world, taking for granted that the intellectual capacity was
available and would thoroughly investigate what could not be denied.
I still believe the intellectual capacity to understand it exists today,
but to quote Morrison again, “Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind which is reluctant to give up fixed
ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took
2000 years to convince men that this fact is true. New ideas
encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth survives and is
verified.”
Can you see the problem I have with regard to my
discovery? If it took 2 thousand years to get the shape of the earth
scientifically confirmed so that all mankind would accept it, how
long do you think it will take to get this knowledge in my book
scientifically confirmed and accepted when 98% of mankind believe
that man’s will is free and when this belief hermetically seals a door
behind which is the discovery that will bring about this Great
Transition. However, two things are certain. This discovery must
come to light sooner or later because God is giving us no choice in
this matter. Until that time, however, every effort must be made to
bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible. With the
public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning of the
Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century. And
when it finally arrives, we will all be here to celebrate the inception
of this wonderful new world.
[/i]