New Discovery

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 30, 2019 3:33 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Freedom of the will means that given the same exact circumstances we CHDO (could have done otherwise) which is false

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
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.


Exactly!
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 30, 2019 3:50 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Hi peacegirl

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

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


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.


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.

These people had a burning desire and the determination that it took to survive, but they didn't do it of their own free will. All of the factors that made them who they are allowed them to get through the nightmare. None of this was done of their own free will.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Self-determined means they had free will, according to the dictionary definition. This is false because no one has free will.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.
.

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.

And of the choices available, most are made consciously. What does this have to do with free will?


Arcturus wrote: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.


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?
Their choices were limited but they were able to think positively and gather as many resources as they could to try to beat the odds, but none of this was done of their own free will. They moved in this direction out of necessity and their desire to self-preserve, which was in the direction of greater satisfaction.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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?


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.

They were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though their choices were extremely restricted. They were choosing the best survival strategies they could in order to stay alive in the hope that they soon would be rescued.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.


...
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.


The fact that you say "that to me is free will" shows me that you don't understand that this is not an opinion. Either we have free will or we don't.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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?


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.

We can't have both because they are opposites.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

It is wonderful to be able to overcome adversity. The only thing I'm trying to explain is that whatever a person chooses, is in actuality not done of his own free will. He does what he can to make his life better if he is able. Both are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given their particular circumstances. Once again, the confusion over the meaning of terms is problematic. I see it over and over again.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

But that doesn't mean he is any freer (or that he could do otherwise) than a person who can't make his life better, for whatever reason.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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?

Arcturus Descending wrote: 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.


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...


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


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.

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


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.


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


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


I'm only trying to define determinism in a way that reconciles what we do "of our own accord" with the fact that our will is not free so that I can show how this changes our world for the better.


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.


People often think determinism would reduce them to robots (which it doesn't), and why they resist the truth. Determinism hasn't shown how to overcome the problem of moral responsibility, which is what I'm trying to show.


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


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

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


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?


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


I 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.


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

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


I can certainly agree with that.

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

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


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".

No need to apologize. I'm glad you stopped by. :)


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

Maybe you will desire to read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If you request it, I'll post it for you.


I already found it through your italicized words above. I will give it a shot as I can.[/quote]
Last edited by peacegirl on Thu May 30, 2019 8:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby phyllo » Thu May 30, 2019 4:03 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote: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
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.


Exactly!
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:)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 30, 2019 4:10 pm

phyllo wrote:
Peacegirl said: Exactly!
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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 30, 2019 4:50 pm

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
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8493
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Thu May 30, 2019 4:59 pm

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

https://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.
Last edited by Artimas on Thu May 30, 2019 5:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby phyllo » Thu May 30, 2019 5:04 pm

I am not convinced there is determinism and I am not convinced there is free will.
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.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Thu May 30, 2019 5:09 pm

Ecmandu wrote: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


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.
Last edited by Artimas on Thu May 30, 2019 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Thu May 30, 2019 5:23 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Peacegirl said: Exactly!
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.


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.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 30, 2019 8:33 pm

phyllo wrote:
I am not convinced there is determinism and I am not convinced there is free will.
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.


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 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.
Last edited by peacegirl on Thu May 30, 2019 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu May 30, 2019 8:39 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Peacegirl said: Exactly!
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.


Artimas wrote: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.


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?
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 30, 2019 8:41 pm

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

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.
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.

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

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
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?

You assume it’s a relief “Xanax” to have free will when in reality it is a greater responsibility and power. Key word, assume.
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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby phyllo » Thu May 30, 2019 8:46 pm

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.
That's what it says in the book but it's not shown to be true.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Thu May 30, 2019 9:44 pm

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

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.
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.

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

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
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?

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



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.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 31, 2019 2:28 am

phyllo wrote:
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.
That's what it says in the book but it's not shown to be true.


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.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby phyllo » Fri May 31, 2019 3:26 am

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?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Fri May 31, 2019 4:10 am

peacegirl wrote:
phyllo wrote:
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.
That's what it says in the book but it's not shown to be true.


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.


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.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 am

phyllo wrote:
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?
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
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 31, 2019 1:31 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Hi peacegirl

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

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


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.


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.

These people had a burning desire and the determination that it took to survive, but they didn't do it of their own free will. All of the factors that made them who they are allowed them to get through the nightmare. None of this was done of their own free will.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Self-determined means they had free will, according to the dictionary definition. This is false because no one has free will.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.
.

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.

And of the choices available, most are made consciously. What does this have to do with free will?


Arcturus wrote: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.


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?
Their choices were limited but they were able to think positively and gather as many resources as they could to try to beat the odds, but none of this was done of their own free will. They moved in this direction out of necessity and their desire to self-preserve, which was in the direction of greater satisfaction.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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?


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.

They were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though their choices were extremely restricted. They were choosing the best survival strategies they could in order to stay alive in the hope that they soon would be rescued.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.


...
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.


The fact that you say "that to me is free will" shows me that you don't understand that this is not an opinion. Either we have free will or we don't.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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?


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.

We can't have both because they are opposites.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


A better example is life and death. 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.

It is wonderful to be able to overcome adversity. The only thing I'm trying to explain is that whatever a person chooses, is in actuality not done of his own free will. He does what he can to make his life better if he is able. Both are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given their particular circumstances. Once again, the confusion over the meaning of terms is problematic. I see it over and over again.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

But that doesn't mean he is any freer (or that he could do otherwise) than a person who can't make his life better, for whatever reason.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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?

Arcturus Descending wrote: 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.


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.

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


Arcturus Descending wrote:Aly self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.”
― Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning[/b]


If only it was that easy.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


When you say it is his choice, of course it is, but you are speaking libertarian free will, as if he can make a choice to transform when he may not see a way.

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


Arcturus Descending wrote:Why does "the direction of greater satisfaction" have to be devoid of free will?


You have options (which many people call free will) but you cannot move in the direction that gives you less dissatisfaction when something of greater satisfaction is available. But this doesn't mean more pleasure. Lots of times we choose what is less pleasurable but still in the direction of greater satisfaction.

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative


I'm only trying to define determinism in a way that reconciles what we do "of our own accord" with the fact that our will is not free so that I can show how this changes our world for the better.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


That's a good question and one that is answered in the book. How can you make an effort to excuse what you did when you know in advance you are already excused?


People often think determinism would reduce them to robots (which it doesn't), and why they resist the truth. Determinism hasn't shown how to overcome the problem of moral responsibility, which is what I'm trying to show.


[/quote="Arcturus Descending"]How can your absolute thinking about there being no "free" will help the cause then?


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...


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

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


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?


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


I 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.


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

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


I can certainly agree with that.

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

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


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".

No need to apologize. I'm glad you stopped by. :)


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

Maybe you will desire to read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If you request it, I'll post it for you.


I already found it through your italicized words above. I will give it a shot as I can.[/quote][/quote]
Last edited by peacegirl on Fri May 31, 2019 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby phyllo » Fri May 31, 2019 1:37 pm

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.
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.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri May 31, 2019 1:39 pm

phyllo wrote:Accurate predictions are difficult.
And perhaps he should have known this.

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.
Sounds reasonable.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Fri May 31, 2019 3:04 pm

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.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 31, 2019 5:26 pm

iambiguous wrote: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.


peacegirl wrote: 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.


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:

iambiguous wrote:In other words, regarding the part I do not understand, what was unfolding inside your head before and then after these two "choices"? How is free will -- the lack of it -- understood by you in both instances?


peacegirl wrote: What was unfolding inside my head was before I said I was going to bow out was basically frustration with the lack of progress.


iambiguous wrote: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.


peacegirl wrote: 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.


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.

peacegirl wrote: Haven't you ever said you were never going to do something again, and then you did it again?


iambiguous wrote:Sure, but it still comes down to whether these flip-flops were ever actually something I was able to choose to make.


peacegirl wrote: You really didn't have a choice since the word implies you could have done otherwise, which we know is impossible.


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.

peacegirl wrote: A libertarian would think I had a choice, where I know I didn't. It's not about the inflection, it's about the underlying belief system.


iambiguous wrote: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.


peacegirl wrote: Libertarians believe that you made a choice that you didn't have to make because you were free to choose otherwise.


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?

peacegirl wrote: Nature hasn't compelled me to choose something; nature has compelled me to desire to choose something.


iamiguous wrote: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.


peacegirl wrote: Correct.


Yeah, but not as correct as you are.

peacegirl wrote: Once you make a choice you are responsible for that choice. Most choices are benign. It only becomes a problem when your choices impinge on others.


iambiguous wrote:Or: Once I am compelled by nature to choose the one behavior that is in sync with nature's inherent laws, my "reponsibility" [perceived by both myself and others] becomes just another necessary manifestion of reality unfolding only as it ever could have.


peacegirl wrote: That's perfectly fine to say, although "your responsibility perceived by others" is a judgment that will not occur under the changed conditions.


iambiguous wrote:How can our reaction to anything not occur but only as it must if the changed conditions themselves occur only as they must?


peacegirl wrote: You are absolutely right.


Yeah, but not as absolutely right as you are.

peacegirl wrote: Our reaction to anything can only occur as it must. It's all beyond our control.


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.

iambiguous wrote: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.


peacegirl wrote: There is no difference. The only thing that changes is the input which alters the output in the direction of greater satisfaction.


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?
Last edited by iambiguous on Fri May 31, 2019 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 31, 2019 7:06 pm

iambiguous wrote:They can't of their own free will choose to read his book, but it clearly seems to exasperate you to no end that many of us here don't "choose" to read it.


peacegirl wrote: Of course I'm exasperated! Imagine how Edison felt when no one listened because they thought he was a goofball until he was able to prove that he was right during the short time he had a window of opportunity.


iambiguous wrote: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.


peacegirl wrote: 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.


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.

iambiguous wrote:But: How might [Edison] 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.


peacegirl wrote: 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.


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...

iambiguous wrote: ...note just one example of where the author his demonstrated that his discoveries are on par with the manner in which folks like Edison and Einstein demonstrated both the use value and the exchange value of their own discoveries.


You note this instead:

peacegirl wrote: He demonstrated the value of this discovery in that it changes the entire landscape of human relations for the better. You won't read the book, so there's nothing I can do. Others will read it.


To which I rejoin...

iambiguous wrote: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.


To which you insist...

peacegirl wrote: The book is filled with examples. I'm not wiggling out of anything.


To which I am compelled to react with...

Wiggle! Wiggle! Wiggle!

iambiguous wrote: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!


peacegirl wrote: Because, for whatever reason, you don't want to.


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:

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the existence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christian beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.

How is this not applicable to your claim about the discovery in the context of all that can be known about existence itself?


peacegirl wrote: It has nothing to do with naivety, it has everything to do with astute observation.

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.


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...

peacegirl wrote: It's been proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that we don't have free will.


...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:

iambiguous wrote: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.


peacegirl wrote: 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.


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...

peacegirl wrote: Nature can't decide. We decide, as part of nature's law.


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

iambiguous wrote:...you insist here that you choose but it is not a real choice. Again, what on Earth can that possibly mean?


peacegirl wrote: 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.


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?

iambiguous wrote:Consider:

The Boeing 737 is made up of 367,000 parts. And not a one of them chooses a damn thing.

The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons. And each of them works in sync with all of the others to embody an "I". But how [in tandem] do they encompass an "I" that either does or does not possess the will to choose freely among options?

No doubt about it, the parts of an airplane were thought up and assembled by the parts of our own brains. But the distinction between not choosing, choosing and "choosing" here is far, far, far, far from being wholly understood, settled.


peacegirl wrote: There is a lot of unknowns, but you can't clump everything together and just say nothing is settled when much is settled. It boils down to what you want to believe.


iambiguous wrote: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.


peacegirl wrote: What assumptions did he make? That we move in the direction of greater satisfaction from a position of less satisfaction?


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"?

peacegirl wrote: When you say nature made me pull the trigger, it's misleading because nature doesn't have the power to make you do anything. A more accurate way of saying the same thing is: I wanted to pull the trigger because if I hadn't it could have put me in more danger.


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.

iambiguous wrote:The idea being that as long as what [objectivists] 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.


peacegirl wrote: There you go again, making the biggest assumption of all; that this is just a belief in my head.


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?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 31, 2019 7:49 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Hi peacegirl

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

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


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.


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.

These people had a burning desire and the determination that it took to survive, but they didn't do it of their own free will. All of the factors that made them who they are allowed them to get through the nightmare. None of this was done of their own free will.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Self-determined means they had free will, according to the dictionary definition. This is false because no one has free will.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.
.

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.

And of the choices available, most are made consciously. What does this have to do with free will?


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


There's nothing wrong with using the term "free will" if it means 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?
Their choices were limited but they were able to think positively and gather as many resources as they could to try to beat the odds, but none of this was done of their own free will. They moved in this direction out of necessity and their desire to self-preserve, which was in the direction of greater satisfaction.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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?


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.

They were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though their choices were extremely restricted. They were choosing the best survival strategies they could in order to stay alive in the hope that they soon would be rescued.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.


...
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.


The fact that you say "that to me is free will" shows me that you don't understand that this is not an opinion. Either we have free will or we don't.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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?


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 the principles and apply them. We could not achieve this new world if will was free because we could hurt others with nothing to control that behavior.

We can't have both because they are opposites.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


A better example is life and death. If we are alive (breathing with a heartbeat), we are not dead. If we are dead (no sign of life and no chance to be revived), we are not alive. 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.

It is wonderful to be able to overcome adversity. The only thing I'm trying to explain is that whatever a person chooses, is in actuality not done of his own free will. He does what he can to make his life better if he is able. Both are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given their particular circumstances. Once again, the confusion over the meaning of terms is problematic. I see it over and over again.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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 to have done otherwise. A different definition entirely to the "free" that you are using.

But that doesn't mean he is any freer (or that he could do otherwise) than a person who can't make his life better, for whatever reason.


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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?

Arcturus Descending wrote: 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.


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.


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


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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


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.


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

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


Arcturus Descending wrote:Why does "the direction of greater satisfaction" have to be devoid of free will?


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.


I'm only trying to define determinism in a way that reconciles what we do "of our own accord" with the fact that our will is not free so that I can show how this changes our world for the better.


Arturus Descending wrote: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.



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


People often think determinism would reduce them to robots (which it doesn't), and why they resist the truth. Determinism hasn't shown how to overcome the problem of moral responsibility, which is what I'm trying to show.


Arcturus Descending wrote:How can your absolute thinking about there being no "free" will help the cause then?


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Carl Jung said: "Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do."

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


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.

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.

[quote="Arcturus Descending wrote:
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.


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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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?


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.


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


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


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.


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

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


Arcturus Descending wrote:I can certainly agree with that.

It's causing lots of confusion.

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

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


Arcturus Descending wrote: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.


The kind of free you are talking about is not the free I'm talking about. Of course we feel more free when we don't regret, have more choices, do things we want, have opportunities, etc. etc. etc. But that's not the free will I'm discussing, which only means "CHDO" (could have done otherwise).

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".

No need to apologize. I'm glad you stopped by. :)


Arcturus Descending wrote:My pleasure. But where was my coffee? :mrgreen:


Sorry, I ran out. Next time. :wink:

Maybe you will desire to read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If you request it, I'll post it for you.


Arcturus Descending wrote:I already found it through your italicized words above. I will give it a shot as I can.


Great!
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: thinkdr