Determinism

[peacegirl]

This person seems to have read the entire book:

The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

He did not read the book. I was on a philosophy forum like this one. He was not a verified purchaser. This review was so many years ago, I've gotten over the shock of what he posted.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

First of all, he didn't even have the author's name right. His name is not Lessan. It's Lessans. Second of all his ideas are scientific in the sense that they are strictly observed phenomenon.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

I already told you that these observations are not hypotheses. They are astute observations which can be verified. They cannot be tested in the typical way because we can't directly test whether we have no free will in this way, but they can be tested in other ways.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

What he wrote is a complete false representation. There is no military action where dissenters are taken care of. This actually made me cry because he lied. But you can't get it removed from Amazon.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

That is false phyllo. The light is at the eye but the difference is the way the eye works. I refuse to get into this because this is not the discovery that is most important right now.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

Once again, you have no idea what he is even talking about because you are using the idea that the eyes are a sense organ.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

No, it's about how the eyes work, not about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.

K. Greene
https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All ... merReviews

Testable, testing, tested. Yeah, I see that as a problem in the first three chapters.

Phyllo, we all depend on reviews to judge whether a book is worthy of our time. Usually we go to the reviews that get the least positive stars. I get it, but in this case this guy was never a verified purchaser. He never read the book. He came to his biased conclusions based on a few snippets, just like you are now doing. He acted like he was interested and then went behind my back and posted a horribly inaccurate review. He wanted to hurt the author because of his claim regarding the senses. He then took a few sentences out of context that did not reflect any of the author's claims. If this is what you are depending on rather than trusting your own ability to understand, then obviously we need go no further. This reviewer had not the slightest clue of what the book was about. I am not blaming you, but it might be better that you move on.

[iambiguous]

This person seems to have read the entire book:

The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.

K. Greene

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All ... merReviews

Testable, testing, tested. Yeah, I see that as a problem in the first three chapters.

Phyllo, we all do this. We depend on reviews to judge whether it is worthy of our time. I get it,but in this case this guy was never a verified purchaser. He never read the book. He came to his biased conclusions based on a few snippets, just like we are doing now. He acted like he was interested and then went behind my back and posted a horribly inaccurate review. If you want I can dissect each of his comments to show you that he already had a prejudiced view in mind, and he wanted to hurt the author. If this is what you are depending on rather than trusting your own ability, then obviously we need go no further.

Wow! You are really in denial here.

Not that you ever could have not been. And, even if you do have free will, you should take that as a gift and move on.

[peacegirl]

This person seems to have read the entire book:

The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.

K. Greene

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All ... merReviews

Testable, testing, tested. Yeah, I see that as a problem in the first three chapters.

Phyllo, we all do this. We depend on reviews to judge whether it is worthy of our time. I get it,but in this case this guy was never a verified purchaser. He never read the book. He came to his biased conclusions based on a few snippets, just like we are doing now. He acted like he was interested and then went behind my back and posted a horribly inaccurate review. If you want I can dissect each of his comments to show you that he already had a prejudiced view in mind, and he wanted to hurt the author. If this is what you are depending on rather than trusting your own ability, then obviously we need go no further.

Wow! You are really in denial here.

Not that you ever could have not been. And, even if you do have free will, you should take that as a gift and move on.

I'm not interested in what you believe iambiguous. This gives you a perfect reason to judge this book as false after one person's fake review. It's really okay! You're not to blame.

[iambiguous]

I'm not interested in what you believe iambiguous. This gives you a perfect reason to judge this book as false after one person's fake review. It's really okay! You're not to blame.

Fortunately [or unfortunately], I am compelled by the laws of matter to point out that you are compelled by the laws of matter not to be interested in what I believe.

You know, going back to the explanation for existence itself, whatever that means.

Now, switching over to the presumption that we do possess free will [the real thing and not your own unintelligible rendition], do you have any actual substantial evidence that K. Greene's review was fake?

How about Todd P. Brandes's review...fake too?

[phyllo]

Phyllo, we all depend on reviews to judge whether a book is worthy of our time. Usually we go to the reviews that get the least positive stars. I get it, but in this case this guy was never a verified purchaser. He never read the book. He came to his biased conclusions based on a few snippets, just like you are now doing. He acted like he was interested and then went behind my back and posted a horribly inaccurate review. He wanted to hurt the author because of his claim regarding the senses. He then took a few sentences out of context that did not reflect any of the author's claims. If this is what you are depending on rather than trusting your own ability to understand, then obviously we need go no further. This reviewer had not the slightest clue of what the book was about. I am not blaming you, but it might be better that you move on.

I don't know about discoveries two and three, but what he wrote about the beginning part of the book seems to be right on. So I tend to think that he did read the entire book.

[peacegirl]

Phyllo, we all depend on reviews to judge whether a book is worthy of our time. Usually we go to the reviews that get the least positive stars. I get it, but in this case this guy was never a verified purchaser. He never read the book. He came to his biased conclusions based on a few snippets, just like you are now doing. He acted like he was interested and then went behind my back and posted a horribly inaccurate review. He wanted to hurt the author because of his claim regarding the senses. He then took a few sentences out of context that did not reflect any of the author's claims. If this is what you are depending on rather than trusting your own ability to understand, then obviously we need go no further. This reviewer had not the slightest clue of what the book was about. I am not blaming you, but it might be better that you move on.

I don't know about discoveries two and three, but what he wrote about the beginning part of the book seems to be right on. So I tend to think that he did read the entire book.

He did not own the book. The part about military action and dissenters was completely fabricated. Phyllo, you seem to be looking for reasons to reject what you haven’t read let alone studied. Why go through all that? Just find another thread more to your liking.

[peacegirl]

I'm not interested in what you believe iambiguous. This gives you a perfect reason to judge this book as false after one person's fake review. It's really okay! You're not to blame.

Fortunately [or unfortunately], I am compelled by the laws of matter to point out that you are compelled by the laws of matter not to be interested in what I believe.

You know, going back to the explanation for existence itself, whatever that means.

Now, switching over to the presumption that we do possess free will [the real thing and not your own unintelligible rendition], do you have any actual substantial evidence that K. Greene's review was fake?

How about Todd P. Brandes's review...fake too?

Iambiguous, I already responded regarding this guy’s review. I’m done discussing this. If you for one moment think that his review has merit, then accept his review and stop posting to me.

[phyllo]

Phyllo, you seem to be looking for reasons to reject what you haven’t read let alone studied.

I'm not "looking for reasons to reject" anything.

I'm giving you a lot of slack.

You don't have any responses to my current objections. You don't post anything that would convince me to believe the author.

Just find another thread more to your liking.

Honestly, this is the last thread on ILP that interests me.

It comes down to ... Could we create an environment where evil and suffering is entirely eliminated?

I can't think of a way of doing that.

[iambiguous]

Either we have free will or we don't. Of course I learned something that maybe you didn't, but this doesn't change the fact that it has to be one or the other. We cannot have both just as we can't be dead and alive at the same time.

What's this got to do with my point: that, given some measure of free will, the lives we live [and the lives we don't live] and the experiences we have [and the experiences we don't have], and the information and knowledge we come upon [and the information and knowledge we don't come upon] predispose us existentially to one point of view rather than another. And, concomitantly, there is still no consensus among scientists and philosophers as to the frame of mind here that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace.

What does anything you are saying have to do with whether or not we have no free will? We all are predisposed to bias, but not when it comes to proof. You cannot say that nothing can be proved true.

Assuming some measure of the real deal free will, I will leave it to others to decide for themselves if your point about proof makes any sense. How exactly would I go about proving that I either could or could not opt to say anything other than what I do? Unlike you, I don't have an author able to think himself into believing that something is true about free will or evil merely by asserting it is true in a book. And then calling his arguments "scientific".

Note to others:

I refer you to back to K. Greene's review above for a more substantial assessment of the author's "proof".

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective about free will expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

I'm not sure what the knowledge of no free will has to do with morality. The moral code will be no more. The telling others what to do will be no more.

That's because you believe [compelled or not] that humankind's future is the only possible future because understanding it as the author does is the only possible way in which to understand it. As though in this future "conflicting goods" -- poof! -- vanish into thin air.

This is the problem with people who immediately jump to conclusions that a peaceful world is impossible. You are convinced there is no way to create an environment that can diminish conflicts. You keep referring to abortion, as if there can be no answer. Leave abortion out for now because abortion will not even be an issue when people want their children in a union that is happy, and they will only have the number of children they can afford.

This is nothing short of la la land thinking to me. It's the sort of thinking that can only be defended by arguing that you and the author could not have not thought otherwise. Leaving aside the part where this joyous future unfolds only in the author's head, there is absolutely no body of evidence that would indicate that the conflicting goods embedded in abortion...conflicts that have rent the human species now for thousands of years...could reconfigure into the abortion equivalent of a MacDonald's Happy Meal. It's more like a surreal combination of Don Quixote and Pollyanna.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about free will; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

Do you think that's what Edison or Einstein did? They looked for people who agreed with them? That's crazy.

Come on, both of them created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound. People flocked to both men in order to congratulate them on having successfully demonstrated their ideas and inventions. You on the other hand are in here drawing people's attention to a book -- a world of words -- about the future of free will and evil.

So demonstrating one's discovery through a book is somehow questionable? A world of words? That's how we communicate, haven't you noticed? This can be simulated or proven in some other way. I am drawing attention to people who may be interested in this major discovery. You're just an angry skeptic.

Typical. My point that Einstein and Edison "created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound" is completely ignored. Instead, the author's own "world of words" in a book is proof enough that it is true "scientifically".

And either I was never able to be other than an angry skeptic or I can freely opt to be all the more mocking of arguments that seem flagrantly weak to me. And, even here, that is only in regard to the arguments that are intelligible to me.

Note to nature:

You tell me.

My argument on the other hand is not whether we go looking for others to share our point of view but whether we were ever free to opt not to.

No, we are never free, but some choices are under a greater compulsion than others. You were obviously not free to opt not to share your point of view, but you don't have a discovery to share. I do, therefore my passion to reach people who could be instrumental in bringing this knowledge to light is greater than anything you might offer.

"No, we are never free..."

But then you note this: "...but some choices are under a greater compulsion than others."

Chemically, neurologically...how exactly does that all unfold in the brains of human beings such that we can pin down actual levels of compulsions...through experiments, predictions, deconstructing actual experiences that we have. Note in more detail how the gap unfolds between me not having a discovery and you [through the author] having one. How exactly would that be demonstrated by you to the scientific and philosophical communities?

4] Some begin to share this philosophy of free will with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

You've got it all wrong iambiguous. Sorry.

Again, the crucial difference between the two of us here is that I readily acknowledge that, given the gap described above, the odds are staggeringly remote that I am anywhere near to being entirely correct about the nature of matter embodied in the human brain. You're the objectivist here in regard to that, not me

Sorry iambiguous but you cannot use your knowledge and background to dismiss this author's findings. Call it staggering or anything in between. He made a discovery, period. I have no idea why you insert that I'm an objectivist. The only objective truth here is that, under changed environmental conditions, people cannot desire to hurt others with a first blow. We are all different and have different proclivities. This knowledge allows us to be free to fulfill our dreams. There is no big brother, and no authority in this new world which you made a false reference to.

Again, there are the discoveries made by Einstein and Edison...discoveries that are bursting at the seams with demonstrable evidence. And, for Einstein, he would be the first to acknowledge all of the mysteries that remain to be discovered going back to an understanding of existence itself. As for Edison, he discovered ways to create actual things. They either work as intended or they don't.

The author's "discovery" on the other hand? Look, if you lack both the intellectual honesty and integrity to own up to just how meager his own demonstrable proof is...?

Really, do yourself a favor and make a more concerted effort to think yourself into believing that the only way the author's discovery is on the same level as Einstein and Edison is in a wholly determined universe where all three accomplished only that which they were compelled by the laws of matter to accomplish.

And that way you and I would be on the same level here as well.

[peacegirl]

Phyllo, you seem to be looking for reasons to reject what you haven’t read let alone studied.

I'm not "looking for reasons to reject" anything.

I'm giving you a lot of slack.

You don't have any responses to my current objections. You don't post anything that would convince me to believe the author.

Just find another thread more to your liking.

Honestly, this is the last thread on ILP that interests me.

It comes down to ... Could we create an environment where evil and suffering is entirely eliminated?

I can't think of a way of doing that.

Phyllo, of course you can't think of a way of doing that, because it appears impossible. But it IS possible given certain environmental conditions. Why do you think I'm so passionate about getting this knowledge out? If will was free man could kill, steal, and hurt others left and right regardless of what measures are taken to prevent these actions. But the proof of the pudding is that under the changed conditions, there is no way a person could desire to hurt others as the best possible choice. Remember, man is compelled by the laws of his nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. When no satisfaction can be gotten from striking a first blow (which involves the removal of all critical judgment and blame), our problem is solved. Also remember that all forms of authority and control must be removed from the environment before this principle can be effective. This will require the end of all government as we know it. It is hard to envision a complete overhaul of our way of life. Not only will we have more freedom to do whatever we want in life, but we will have no more need for locks, weapons, or police.

As we follow the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which
will act as an infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and
wrong while solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be
obeying the mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no
choice when we see what is truly better for ourselves. By removing all
forms of blame which include this judging in advance of what is right
and wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice
from being struck. This corollary is not only effective by your
realization that we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt
done to us, but also by our realization that any advance blame, this
judging of what is right for someone else strikes the first blow since it
is impossible to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will
never blame this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in
advance that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong
to do something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of
it being done which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of
this advance accusation that has already given justification.
Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want which
hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right
for someone else.

[phyllo]

Also remember that all forms of authority and control must be removed from the environment before this principle can be effective. This will require the end of all government as we know it.

I don't think that this is doable.

Do you have any proposals that don't require 7 billion people to be instantly switched to a different mode of thinking and acting?

Any baby steps ... small gradual transitions?

[peacegirl]

Also remember that all forms of authority and control must be removed from the environment before this principle can be effective. This will require the end of all government as we know it.

I don't think that this is doable.

Do you have any proposals that don't require 7 billion people to be instantly switched to a different mode of thinking and acting?

Any baby steps ... small gradual transitions?

Yes, he calls it the Great Transition. It has to be a gradual change, but eventually all weapons will be converted or destroyed because they won't be needed. First, his discovery needs to be rigorously studied and confirmed by science. Until then, no progress can be made. He gives a basic blueprint as to how this transition can easily take place. I can't relate everything to you in a post. I even told you that this will create more questions, especially when the first three chapters haven't been read.

It is important to understand that in order to solve a problem,
even with our basic principle, we must know what we are faced with
and in the economic world there are three aspects of hurt. The first
is not being able to fulfill our basic needs. The second is the inability
to maintain the standard of living that was developed. And the last is
to be denied an opportunity, if desired, to improve one’s standard of
living.

Before I demonstrate how this hurt in the economic world is
removed, it is necessary to remind you of this key fact: Man’s will is
not free because he never has a choice, as with aging, and then it is
obvious that he is under the normal compulsion of living regardless of
what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a
choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is
compelled, by his very nature, to prefer the one that gives him greater
satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two
goods, or a good over an evil. The natural law implicit in the
two-sided equation cannot prevent man from finding greater
satisfaction in hurting others when not to do this makes matters
worse for himself as would be the case if he were forced, beyond his
control, to lose his source of income and be placed in a position where
he could not meet his living expenses or acquire the necessaries of life.
Just the possibility that this could happen (this pervasive insecurity)
activates and justifies the law of self-preservation to lie, cheat, steal,
and even kill if there is no other way to get the money he needs or
might need for survival.

It is also important to realize that when man
is compelled to give up his desire to hurt others because he knows
there will be no blame he is not choosing the greater of two goods or
the lesser of two evils, but a good over an evil. But if by not hurting
others he makes matters worse for himself, then he is compelled to
prefer the lesser of two evils and this is what happens where the first
two aspects of hurt are concerned. Consequently, if we find ourselves
unable to get what we need then we are compelled to blame and even
hurt those who have it. An example of this occurs when employees
who find their income falling short of the mark because of rising
prices, blame their employer for having too much money and strike to
take some of it away. The employer, in turn, who has discovered that
the strike has lowered his income; and the government, finding itself
unable to meet its needs under the present tax structure, blame the
people for having too much money and decide to take some of it away
by increasing prices and taxes. The people, falling below their needs
because of this increase, blame the government and anybody else they
can cheat to get back what they lost. The manufacturers, wholesalers
and retailers are compelled to lay off their surplus employees when
consumption slows down and to prevent this, since there is no way the
United States can consume all it produces (I am using the United
States as an example since I live here, but this applies to any country
that produces more than it consumes), the government is forced to do
everything humanly possible to keep its foreign markets open and
reduce unnecessary competition, otherwise a recession and perhaps
depression could result. It is true that war keeps millions of people
employed, reduces the already overcrowded earth and the chances of
a depression, so what is the better choice? Everywhere we look man
is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils, and under these
conditions our basic principle can have no effect. Therefore, to solve
our problem since this is the kind of situation that exists in the
economic world, it is necessary to remove the first blow.

To clarify
this, if A is compelled to hurt B because the alternative of not doing
this is still worse, then A has no choice but to hurt B, as when the
unions strike, when prices and taxes are increased, when lay-offs
occur, when government prefers war, etc. But if there is no possibility
for A to make matters worse for himself by not hurting B, then this
aspect of justification has been removed and it then becomes possible
to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when he knows there will
be no blame which compels him, beyond his control, to choose a good
(not to hurt anybody) over an evil (to do so). Now the question arises
at this point, “How can we create an environment that would remove
the conditions which make it necessary to select the lesser of two evils
as a solution to our problems?”

[Ecmandu]

Umm... yeah; that’s just false. 2 million people commit suicide every year. Obviously, “man” is not determined to live until old age.

You need a reality check. I always appreciate people trying to help, but if it doesn’t help, then by the laws of determinism, we have to reject your theory.

[peacegirl]

Either we have free will or we don't. Of course I learned something that maybe you didn't, but this doesn't change the fact that it has to be one or the other. We cannot have both just as we can't be dead and alive at the same time.

What's this got to do with my point: that, given some measure of free will, the lives we live [and the lives we don't live] and the experiences we have [and the experiences we don't have], and the information and knowledge we come upon [and the information and knowledge we don't come upon] predispose us existentially to one point of view rather than another. And, concomitantly, there is still no consensus among scientists and philosophers as to the frame of mind here that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace.

What does anything you are saying have to do with whether or not we have no free will? We all are predisposed to bias, but not when it comes to proof. You cannot say that nothing can be proved true.

Assuming some measure of the real deal free will, I will leave it to others to decide for themselves if your point about proof makes any sense. How exactly would I go about proving that I either could or could not opt to say anything other than what I do? Unlike you, I don't have an author able to think himself into believing that something is true about free will or evil merely by asserting it is true in a book. And then calling his arguments "scientific".

Note to others:

I refer you to back to K. Greene's review above for a more substantial assessment of the author's "proof".

None of what this guy wrote was accurate and the part about dissenters was completely made up. Why would you tell people to refer to this person who never read the book and made all kinds of assumptions like you're doing?

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective about free will expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

I'm not sure what the knowledge of no free will has to do with morality. The moral code will be no more. The telling others what to do will be no more.

That's because you believe [compelled or not] that humankind's future is the only possible future because understanding it as the author does is the only possible way in which to understand it. As though in this future "conflicting goods" -- poof! -- vanish into thin air.

This is the problem with people who immediately jump to conclusions that a peaceful world is impossible. You are convinced there is no way to create an environment that can diminish conflicts. You keep referring to abortion, as if there can be no answer. Leave abortion out for now because abortion will not even be an issue when people want their children in a union that is happy, and they will only have the number of children they can afford.

This is nothing short of la la land thinking to me. It's the sort of thinking that can only be defended by arguing that you and the author could not have not thought otherwise. Leaving aside the part where this joyous future unfolds only in the author's head, there is absolutely no body of evidence that would indicate that the conflicting goods embedded in abortion...conflicts that have rent the human species now for thousands of years...could reconfigure into the abortion equivalent of a MacDonald's Happy Meal. It's more like a surreal combination of Don Quixote and Pollyanna.

Even if there were conflicting goods (as you call it) regarding abortion, do you actually think this example is proof that man could never achieve peace? You are being very shortsighted.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about free will; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

Do you think that's what Edison or Einstein did? They looked for people who agreed with them? That's crazy.

Come on, both of them created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound. People flocked to both men in order to congratulate them on having successfully demonstrated their ideas and inventions. You on the other hand are in here drawing people's attention to a book -- a world of words -- about the future of free will and evil.

Not everyone flocks to someone who makes an important finding. Take Gregor Mendel, for example, whom the author quotes in his book.

If you recall, in the 19 century Gregor Mendel made a discovery
in the field of heredity. He was unable to present his findings because
there was an established theory already being taught as true. The
professors he contacted had their own theories and they concluded
that it was impossible for him to have discovered anything new since
he was nothing in comparison to them. If these professors had taken
the time to scientifically investigate his claims they would have found
that he was correct and they were mistaken, but this would have made
them the laughingstock of the entire student world. In the end it was
Nageli, the leading authority of his time, whose pride refused to let
him investigate Mendel whom he judged a semi-amateur because he
regarded as impossible the very core of Mendel’s discovery. He was
wrong as history recorded and though Mendel was compelled to
receive posthumous recognition for the law he discovered, he is now
considered the father of modern genetics and Nageli, a footnote.
History has recorded innumerable stories of a like nature, but is it
necessary that the pattern continue? Isn’t it obvious that if such a
discovery exists, and it does, and you deny the possibility, you are
setting yourselves up as infallible gods among men, just as our
intellectual ancestors did when they prematurely rejected the discovery
of Gregor Mendel? Can’t you be the ones to confirm the discovery?
Must it be others, long after we are dead?



https://www.cracked.com/article_18822_5 ... -time.html

So demonstrating one's discovery through a book is somehow questionable? A world of words? That's how we communicate, haven't you noticed? This can be simulated or proven in some other way. I am drawing attention to people who may be interested in this major discovery. You're just an angry skeptic.

Typical. My point that Einstein and Edison "created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound" is completely ignored. Instead, the author's own "world of words" in a book is proof enough that it is true "scientifically".

And either I was never able to be other than an angry skeptic or I can freely opt to be all the more mocking of arguments that seem flagrantly weak to me. And, even here, that is only in regard to the arguments that are intelligible to me.

Note to nature:

You tell me.

Unbelievable! You say the arguments are weak, so what are the arguments that you can't help mocking?

My argument on the other hand is not whether we go looking for others to share our point of view but whether we were ever free to opt not to.

No, we are never free, but some choices are under a greater compulsion than others. You were obviously not free to opt not to share your point of view, but you don't have a discovery to share. I do, therefore my passion to reach people who could be instrumental in bringing this knowledge to light is greater than anything you might offer.

"No, we are never free..."

But then you note this: "...but some choices are under a greater compulsion than others."

Chemically, neurologically...how exactly does that all unfold in the brains of human beings such that we can pin down actual levels of compulsions...through experiments, predictions, deconstructing actual experiences that we have. Note in more detail how the gap unfolds between me not having a discovery and you [through the author] having one. How exactly would that be demonstrated by you to the scientific and philosophical communities?

First, they will need to study his work. It’s not as difficult to understand as you may think. Proof is not hard to establish when the basic principle is put into effect.

We don't have different levels of compulsions such that they have to be measured. Some decisions are more pressing than others. If I am running late for a meeting, I may decide to skip breakfast in order to get to the meeting on time. This scenario is quite different from not having to rush to go anywhere and casually deciding what I want to eat for breakfast, eggs or pancakes. To repeat: When I said some people are under a greater compulsion than others, I meant they were driven by an urgent need to get something done because of its importance. When it comes to the free will/determinism debate, we are all under a compulsion to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It’s an invariable law.

Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or
bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is
remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case present
alternatives that affect choice.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy of free will with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

You've got it all wrong iambiguous. Sorry.

Again, the crucial difference between the two of us here is that I readily acknowledge that, given the gap described above, the odds are staggeringly remote that I am anywhere near to being entirely correct about the nature of matter embodied in the human brain. You're the objectivist here in regard to that, not me

Sorry iambiguous but you cannot use your knowledge and background to dismiss this author's findings. Call it staggering or anything in between. He made a discovery, period. I have no idea why you insert that I'm an objectivist. The only objective truth here is that, under changed environmental conditions, people cannot desire to hurt others with a first blow. We are all different and have different proclivities. This knowledge allows us to be free to fulfill our dreams. There is no big brother, and no authority in this new world which you made a false reference to.

Again, there are the discoveries made by Einstein and Edison...discoveries that are bursting at the seams with demonstrable evidence. And, for Einstein, he would be the first to acknowledge all of the mysteries that remain to be discovered going back to an understanding of existence itself. As for Edison, he discovered ways to create actual things. They either work as intended or they don't.

The author's "discovery" on the other hand? Look, if you lack both the intellectual honesty and integrity to own up to just how meager his own demonstrable proof is...?

You have no idea what his discovery is. Can you tell me? Hint: It is not that man's will is not free although this is the key that unlocks the door to his discovery. Therefore, it is YOU that is lacking in integrity because you are accusing him of something you know nothing about.

Really, do yourself a favor and make a more concerted effort to think yourself into believing that the only way the author's discovery is on the same level as Einstein and Edison is in a wholly determined universe where all three accomplished only that which they were compelled by the laws of matter to accomplish.

And that way you and I would be on the same level here as well.

We are on the same level in a wholly determined universe because our will is not free to do or say anything but what we do and say, but we are not on the same level as far as what we know to be true.

[Ecmandu]

Peacegirl,

I’m just going to tell you very simply...

We live in a negative zero sum world. It’s impossible to have world peace under that condition.

Your author is a moron. Sorry. But it’s true.

Had your author been astute, they would have noticed this and remarked very simply;

“Negative zero sum realities never work... we need to fix this”

I’m sorry that your author didn’t know things like this.

I’m sorry you didn’t know it.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl,

I’m just going to tell you very simply...

We live in a negative zero sum world. It’s impossible to have world peace under that condition.

Your author is a moron. Sorry. But it’s true.

Had your author been astute, they would have noticed this and remarked very simply;

“Negative zero sum realities never work... we need to fix this”

I’m sorry that your author didn’t know things like this.

I’m sorry you didn’t know it.

Ignorance is alive and well!

[iambiguous]

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.”
Socrates (470 – 399 B.C.)

At this time we have entered the Knowledge Era.

Knowledge and wisdom are synonymous.

The ability to learn effectively is a vital component if you are to be super-successful in this amazing, demanding new era.

As Socrates stated almost 2,500 years ago, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” This one phrase establishes the single most important aspect of study, teaching, self-growth, and acquiring effective knowledge.

In other words, if Socrates was around today, and contributing to this thread, I'd ask him to take his definition of free will and evil and note how he would embed those definitions in his interactions with others. In particular in regard to a set of circumstances in which there were conflicting assessments of evil.

What would he argue if he were to take his definition of free will to a discussion group composed of members of both the APA and the API? And how would he demonstrate empirically, experientially, phenomenologically etc., that his definition was in sync with human interactions "for all practical purposes"?

Then the part where he examines his own "greater satisfactions" in regard to the "causal chain" insofar as I understand it and as you understand it.

Unless, of course, the discussion revolves around pinning down once and for all if we were ever able to freely opt to define things like "greater satisfaction" differently. From my frame of mind, how we come to define things is no less inherently subsumed in the causal chain.

Back to square one. No, you were never able to freely opt to choose anything. The discussion revolves around proving that we have no free will, and it's been pinned down.

Right, as though the pinning down itself is not but another component of the causal chain.

Whereas free will advocates insist that she might opt of her own volition not to shoot them because of her own volition she thought things through one more time and saw the situation differently.

She can opt "of her own volition not to shoot them" but this doesn't confer free will.

Of course this is precisely what those who champion free will, given that "extra ingredient"/"secret sauce" embedded through evolution in human brain matter, will scoff at. It is precisely that human minds can opt of their own volition to do or not do things that does confer free will on them. There is no psychological illusion of free will, it's the real deal.

But they need to understand the confusion with definition. Having no free will does not mean we don't have volition, or we can't choose between options. The author says this throughout the entire book. "He was compelled, of his own free will...which only means of his own volition. Volition is not synonymous with free will.

volition: the faculty or power of using one's will.

In philosophy and theology, the terms free will and volition are often NOT used synonymously, but do convey related ideas. Unless misused, the term free will communicates a sense of absolute, autonomous, 'libertarian' or unbounded freedom, whereas volition simply implies power of choice.

Dan R. Smedra

For me, though, I am interested in exploring the difference "for all practical purpose".

Consider:

Mary is said to have the free will to choose an abortion. Now, if someone argues that, no, she does not have free will but only the power to choose, how is that power not entangled in this:

"Mary can do what she wills but he cannot will what she wills.
Or: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."

Now, in a determined universe, if one's will is not free, but only the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will how are they not synonymous "for all practical purposes"?

Again, take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

Unbelievable. When you are actually able to convince yourself that connecting these fundamental dots regarding the universe -- going back to an explanation for existence itself -- has nothing to do with the author's own conclusions about free will and evil, I can only presume to be dealing with someone who, in her own way, is no less a fulminating fanatic.

]Think what you want. I am not getting off track to satisfy your belief that the author had to explain the workings of the entire universe to demonstrate why man's will is not free.

Off track?!!

Before there were human beings, there was the evolution of biological life on planet Earth. So: How can fully understanding this biological evolution not be crucial in understanding how our brains function? And how can it not be vital in turn to understand how biological life was able to exist at all? And, since this life exists on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a cluster of galaxies in a universe in what may well be a multiverse, how can connecting all of these dots not be of fundamental importance to anything that scientists and philosophers seek to demonstrate?

But: What's that got to do with the possibility that, if the human brain creates our reality in a dream wholly in sync with the laws of matter the reality it creates in the waking world is no less a chemical and neurological construction? Also, we can consume drugs or be afflicted with any number of brain diseases in which reality, in turn, becomes more or less beyond our control. Determinism as I construe it merely assumes that nothing is not only as it ever could have been been, can be, or will be.

That's all true. We are our brains. They control everything that we think, say, and do. We are made of chemical and neurological construction, and our responses are no less determined by these causal factors. Everything, from a diseased brain, to drugs, to mental illness, are not within our control, and neither are our choices based on our brain chemistry, desires, our past, our environment, our genetics, etc. that push us toward the choices we are compelled to make. I don't know how our brains formed to allow us to contemplate (I don't need to know), but this we are able to do. This does not make us free just because we have choices to consider.

Tell me that this is not my very own argument here!! She agrees with it but somehow I still turn out to be "wrong" in not accepting the author's arguments.

It is not the same because you keep blaming the laws of matter as to why you can't control your reactions. You can't, if you don't want to, and you don't want to.

Read what you noted above. Then explain how I could not not keep blaming the laws of matter.

Only if you wanted not to, but you didn't, therefore you could not have chosen otherwise.

I didn't want not to because I could never have wanted not to.

"A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants", reconfigured into "A man cannot want to do something but he cannot not want to not do something."

Or, uh, something like that in the surreal world of human brains grappling to understand human brains this far out on the metaphysical limb?

A world of words in which the truth is defined into existence by insisting that only the meaning that he gives to the words in the book count.

After all, if the author's conclusions really are the definitive account of free will and evil, why isn't it the talk of the town in both the scientific and the philosophical communities?

Ahhh, I knew it. That's why you aren't taking his work seriously. You have no idea his backstory or what he went through, so please don't put your foot further into your mouth than it already is.

Trust me: if you do mamage to bring his conclusions to the philosophical and scientific communities, and as a result of it, the author is the talk of the town in both communities, I'll take his conclusions considerably more seriously.

On the other hand: compelled or otherwise?

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?

The parts where he himself become the equivalent of Einstein and Edison.

There are ways to prove that man does not have free will, and what will happen when the world stops blaming. There are simulations or other ways that can prove him right. Johnathon Schooler's experiment was flawed in its design. This author shows in detail how this principle works (for the better) in all areas of human relation. You are challenging me without lifting a finger to really understand anything I'm saying because 1) if he was right wouldn't everyone know about it? and 2. you don't want to lose your worldview. I can't blame you though because your will is not free.

That's it?! That is your response to the things that I requested above?!!

Fortunately for you, I still believe that you were compelled by the laws of matter to completely dodge my requests.

[peacegirl]

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.”
Socrates (470 – 399 B.C.)

At this time we have entered the Knowledge Era.

Knowledge and wisdom are synonymous.

The ability to learn effectively is a vital component if you are to be super-successful in this amazing, demanding new era.

As Socrates stated almost 2,500 years ago, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” This one phrase establishes the single most important aspect of study, teaching, self-growth, and acquiring effective knowledge.

So why did you say "what does definition have to do with it?"

In other words, if Socrates was around today, and contributing to this thread, I'd ask him to take his definition of free will and evil and note how he would embed those definitions in his interactions with others. In particular in regard to a set of circumstances in which there were conflicting assessments of evil.

His definition would probably be your definition because it's how determinism has always been defined. This has created a big chasm in the debate that cannot be rectified, for if the laws of matter are "causing" you to kill someone, then obviously you would want the free will to go against what nature is "causing" you to do. It's so obvious to me what the problem is, but you don't see it. You can't help yourself.

What would he argue if he were to take his definition of free will to a discussion group composed of members of both the APA and the API? And how would he demonstrate empirically, experientially, phenomenologically etc., that his definition was in sync with human interactions "for all practical purposes"?

First of all, he would show why man's will is not free. Then he would extend this knowledge to show what happens in the real world when we apply the corollary. It's really amazing.

Then the part where he examines his own "greater satisfactions" in regard to the "causal chain" insofar as I understand it and as you understand it.

When he stumbled upon his finding, he moved in the direction of putting his discovery down on paper so others could understand it. He moved in this direction for greater satisfaction. He was moving in sync with his nature. So are you. So is everyone else.
Regardless of a person's movement through life, he is always moving in this direction. You are getting greater satisfaction from reading my posts. If you weren't, you would not be here.

Unless, of course, the discussion revolves around pinning down once and for all if we were ever able to freely opt to define things like "greater satisfaction" differently. From my frame of mind, how we come to define things is no less inherently subsumed in the causal chain.

Back to square one. No, you were never able to freely opt to choose anything. The discussion revolves around proving that we have no free will, and it's been pinned down.

Right, as though the pinning down itself is not but another component of the causal chain.

Whereas free will advocates insist that she might opt of her own volition not to shoot them because of her own volition she thought things through one more time and saw the situation differently.

She can opt "of her own volition not to shoot them" but this doesn't confer free will.

Of course this is precisely what those who champion free will, given that "extra ingredient"/"secret sauce" embedded through evolution in human brain matter, will scoff at. It is precisely that human minds can opt of their own volition to do or not do things that does confer free will on them. There is no psychological illusion of free will, it's the real deal.

But they need to understand the confusion with definition. Having no free will does not mean we don't have volition, or we can't choose between options. The author says this throughout the entire book. "He was compelled, of his own free will...which only means of his own volition. Volition is not synonymous with free will.

volition: the faculty or power of using one's will.

In philosophy and theology, the terms free will and volition are often NOT used synonymously, but do convey related ideas. Unless misused, the term free will communicates a sense of absolute, autonomous, 'libertarian' or unbounded freedom, whereas volition simply implies power of choice.

This goes back to the antiquated definition of determinism. Obviously, if you are using "the laws of matter forcing you to do what you do", then you need something to counteract that by saying "You did it of your own free will or volition".

Dan R. Smedra

For me, though, I am interested in exploring the difference "for all practical purpose".

Consider:

Mary is said to have the free will to choose an abortion. Now, if someone argues that, no, she does not have free will but only the power to choose, how is that power not entangled in this:

"Mary can do what she wills but he cannot will what she wills.
Or: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."

That makes sense. I'm not sure where you think this contradicts the soundness of "greater satisfaction." If she wills to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose that avenue. If she does not will to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose not to have an abortion based on that. There is no right or wrong here. Is that what you're suggesting?

Now, in a determined universe, if one's will is not free, but only the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will how are they not synonymous "for all practical purposes"?

For one reason only, and that is to clarify that even though will is not free nothing can make us in a determined universe to do anything we make up our mind not to do. So many times you hear someone say, "He made me do it; I couldn't help myself." I've posted this before but it's worth repeating.

Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.

Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what
they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils?

Therefore,when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and
innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused
and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything
man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done
to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his
preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time,
for one reason or another; but remember, this desire of one thing over
another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed.
All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but
make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding
further.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought
I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do
something against my will does not mean my will is free because my
desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free
choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did
it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually
did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me
no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

Again, take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

Volition is having the will to choose. It does not mean the choice is a free one. So when I say I did something of my own free will, I only mean I did something of my own desire (or volition).

Unbelievable. When you are actually able to convince yourself that connecting these fundamental dots regarding the universe -- going back to an explanation for existence itself -- has nothing to do with the author's own conclusions about free will and evil, I can only presume to be dealing with someone who, in her own way, is no less a fulminating fanatic.

]Think what you want. I am not getting off track to satisfy your belief that the author had to explain the workings of the entire universe to demonstrate why man's will is not free.

Off track?!!

Before there were human beings, there was the evolution of biological life on planet Earth. So: How can fully understanding this biological evolution not be crucial in understanding how our brains function?

It's interesting to understand biological evolution, but it's not a prerequisite to understanding how the brain works or how humans evolved to a more complex level of intelligence. It doesn't follow.

And how can it not be vital in turn to understand how biological life was able to exist at all? And, since this life exists on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a cluster of galaxies in a universe in what may well be a multiverse, how can connecting all of these dots not be of fundamental importance to anything that scientists and philosophers seek to demonstrate?

It's all mind boggling and mystifying to understand how all of this came into existence, but for the purposes of this discovery (that will bring about a more peaceful world), it is not necessary. I don't get where you're coming from. Again, it's like saying how do you know one plus one is two without understanding the whole of mathematics.

But: What's that got to do with the possibility that, if the human brain creates our reality in a dream wholly in sync with the laws of matter the reality it creates in the waking world is no less a chemical and neurological construction? Also, we can consume drugs or be afflicted with any number of brain diseases in which reality, in turn, becomes more or less beyond our control. Determinism as I construe it merely assumes that nothing is not only as it ever could have been been, can be, or will be.

That's all true. We are our brains. They control everything that we think, say, and do. We are made of chemical and neurological construction, and our responses are no less determined by these causal factors. Everything, from a diseased brain, to drugs, to mental illness, are not within our control, and neither are our choices based on our brain chemistry, desires, our past, our environment, our genetics, etc. that push us toward the choices we are compelled to make. I don't know how our brains formed to allow us to contemplate (I don't need to know), but this we are able to do. This does not make us free just because we have choices to consider.

Tell me that this is not my very own argument here!! She agrees with it but somehow I still turn out to be "wrong" in not accepting the author's arguments.

It is not the same because you keep blaming the laws of matter as to why you can't control your reactions. You can't, if you don't want to, and you don't want to.

Read what you noted above. Then explain how I could not not keep blaming the laws of matter.

Only if you wanted not to, but you didn't, therefore you could not have chosen otherwise.

I didn't want not to because I could never have wanted not to.

Right! Once it's done it's a done deal.

"A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants", reconfigured into "A man cannot want to do something but he cannot not want to not do something."

Or, uh, something like that in the surreal world of human brains grappling to understand human brains this far out on the metaphysical limb?

If a man can do what he wants, how can he not want what he wants?

A world of words in which the truth is defined into existence by insisting that only the meaning that he gives to the words in the book count.

You're incorrect iambiguous. He clearly demonstrated why we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. These are meaningful words. We make meaning out of words when they are clear and precise. He did not insist on his own world of words, as you put it. This is crazy talk. I believe you made light of his proof by calling his reasoning circular.

Tautologies are not circular. They are simply true in all circumstances. Or you might say “they are not false in any circumstance.” Being necessarily true is a poor reason to dismiss an idea as trivial or redundant.

Overall, it’s a grave error to overlook the usefulness and profundity of tautologies. Not only should we examine them, we should embrace them and incorporate them into the foundations of our ideas.

Discovering tautologies is exciting, and it’s literally synonymous with discovering truth. Not to mention: any sound deductions that follow from tautologies are also necessarily true. If we construct theories that are founded on necessarily-true premises, we can built a robust worldview that is justified all the way to its foundations. StevePatterson.com

After all, if the author's conclusions really are the definitive account of free will and evil, why isn't it the talk of the town in both the scientific and the philosophical communities?

I told you that you don't know his backstory. If you did you would never imply what you're implying.

Ahhh, I knew it. That's why you aren't taking his work seriously. You have no idea his backstory or what he went through, so please don't put your foot further into your mouth than it already is.

Trust me: if you do mamage to bring his conclusions to the philosophical and scientific communities, and as a result of it, the author is the talk of the town in both communities, I'll take his conclusions considerably more seriously.

On the other hand: compelled or otherwise?

I'm not counting on you, so it doesn't matter to me if you ever take his work seriously.

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?

The parts where he himself become the equivalent of Einstein and Edison.

A small group of people could begin using these principles, but it would not be easy because we live in a free will environment of blame and punishment. Actually, the ultimate proof is whether it works. I don't think a simulation would be necessary. How did we get to the moon without actually going to the moon based on the necessary navigation information? There comes a time that we have to take the plunge. If the principles are accurate, the outcome will also be accurate. First, people have to understand why his observations regarding "greater satisfaction" is the reason man does not have free will. They must also understand why, under changed conditions, conscience increases, not decreases. Then they need to understand how we must remove all things that are redolent of blame including government as we know it. They also need to understand that all hurt, or the possibility of being hurt, must be removed from the environment (which will require a revamping of the economic system) for there to be no justification to strike back or to hurt others so as not to hurt oneself (the law of self-preservation). It is only the first blow that we are removing because retaliation is justified. A first blow is not under these conditions. Once they see the validity and soundness of his discovery, it will not be hard to envision that a new world of peace and prosperity for ALL people is within reach, and the leaders of each nation will want to begin the transition to this new way of life. He was never given an opportunity to explain his findings, and the same disregard for his work is going on today. This book has never been distributed widely. Think about it. He typed his book on a manual typewriter; the old kind with the ribbon and the carriage? He didn't have a computer or the internet, but sadly, there is so much garbage on the internet, no one takes anybody seriously. We're all put in the same pot!

There are ways to prove that man does not have free will, and what will happen when the world stops blaming. There are simulations or other ways that can prove him right. Johnathon Schooler's experiment was flawed in its design. This author shows in detail how this principle works (for the better) in all areas of human relation. You are challenging me without lifting a finger to really understand anything I'm saying because 1) if he was right wouldn't everyone know about it? and 2. you don't want to lose your worldview. I can't blame you though because your will is not free.

That's it?! That is your response to the things that I requested above?!!

Fortunately for you, I still believe that you were compelled by the laws of matter to completely dodge my requests.

Where did I dodge your requests? If I did, it wasn't on purpose. I feel like I'm on trial. I've spent more time answering your questions than anyone else here.

[iambiguous]

Assuming some measure of the real deal free will, I will leave it to others to decide for themselves if your point about proof makes any sense. How exactly would I go about proving that I either could or could not opt to say anything other than what I do? Unlike you, I don't have an author able to think himself into believing that something is true about free will or evil merely by asserting it is true in a book. And then calling his arguments "scientific".

Note to others:

I refer you to back to K. Greene's review above for a more substantial assessment of the author's "proof".

None of what this guy wrote was accurate and the part about dissenters was completely made up. Why would you tell people to refer to this person who never read the book and made all kinds of assumptions like you're doing?

First of all, what is always most fascinating to me about exchanges revolving around free will is how, whatever the ultimate reality is, both sides have to, well, shift gears to at least some semblance of free will. Otherwise, from my current frame of mind, the entire exchange was, is and will ever be only as it ever could have been.

You basically do the same thing. But: in a way I am still unable to fully grasp. You insist that we do not possess free will and that, yes, everything up to the present is only as it ever could be. But somehow at the present and in the future it's...different? Again, I am simply unable to grasp what on earth you mean by that "for all practical purposes".

Now, given your own understanding of what you "chose"/chose to write about Greene's review, what specific evidence do you have that he made up things and did not read the book.

Because you say so?

And explain once again how, even if he did these things in the only possible reality, he was still worthy of your censure. To me that's the sort of censure we'd hear from those convinced that free will is the real deal.

This is the problem with people who immediately jump to conclusions that a peaceful world is impossible. You are convinced there is no way to create an environment that can diminish conflicts. You keep referring to abortion, as if there can be no answer. Leave abortion out for now because abortion will not even be an issue when people want their children in a union that is happy, and they will only have the number of children they can afford.

This is nothing short of la la land thinking to me. It's the sort of thinking that can only be defended by arguing that you and the author could not have not thought otherwise. Leaving aside the part where this joyous future unfolds only in the author's head, there is absolutely no body of evidence that would indicate that the conflicting goods embedded in abortion...conflicts that have rent the human species now for thousands of years...could reconfigure into the abortion equivalent of a MacDonald's Happy Meal. It's more like a surreal combination of Don Quixote and Pollyanna.

Even if there were conflicting goods (as you call it) regarding abortion, do you actually think this example is proof that man could never achieve peace? You are being very shortsighted.

That I reduce you time and again to posting things like this...points that bare no almost resemblance to the points I made...speaks volumes from my frame of mind. Only from my frame of mind, you were never able not to.

Do you think that's what Edison or Einstein did? They looked for people who agreed with them? That's crazy.

Come on, both of them created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound. People flocked to both men in order to congratulate them on having successfully demonstrated their ideas and inventions. You on the other hand are in here drawing people's attention to a book -- a world of words -- about the future of free will and evil.

Not everyone flocks to someone who makes an important finding. Take Gregor Mendel, for example, whom the author quotes in his book.

As though this doesn't just explain away the distinction I make between Einstein and Edison on the one hand, and your author on the other.

As for Mendel, same thing. The work that he did resulted in actual either/or information and knowledge about genes. He is called the "father of modern genetics" for a reason.

So, when will your author be called "the father of modern free will and evil"?

So demonstrating one's discovery through a book is somehow questionable? A world of words? That's how we communicate, haven't you noticed? This can be simulated or proven in some other way. I am drawing attention to people who may be interested in this major discovery. You're just an angry skeptic.

Typical. My point that Einstein and Edison "created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound" is completely ignored. Instead, the author's own "world of words" in a book is proof enough that it is true "scientifically".

And either I was never able to be other than an angry skeptic or I can freely opt to be all the more mocking of arguments that seem flagrantly weak to me. And, even here, that is only in regard to the arguments that are intelligible to me.

Note to nature:

You tell me.

Unbelievable! You say the arguments are weak, so what are the arguments that you can't help mocking?

Compelled or not, we've come to this particular blow by blow part of the exchange time and again. I don't argue that his arguments are weak objectively...only that here and now subjectively they appear weak to me. And even then only because given the laws of nature they could never have not appeared weak to me.

"No, we are never free..."

But then you note this: "...but some choices are under a greater compulsion than others."

Chemically, neurologically...how exactly does that all unfold in the brains of human beings such that we can pin down actual levels of compulsions...through experiments, predictions, deconstructing actual experiences that we have. Note in more detail how the gap unfolds between me not having a discovery and you [through the author] having one. How exactly would that be demonstrated by you to the scientific and philosophical communities?

First, they will need to study his work. It’s not as difficult to understand as you may think. Proof is not hard to establish when the basic principle is put into effect.

No, first they need to be convinced that his work is worth studying. How would you go about demonstrating that to them?

Only, once again, back to the surreal nature of me asking you this given that "here and now" I have been compelled by the laws of matter to think myself into "choosing" to ask you this. Ever and always we are stuck in the gap between what we think we know about all of this and all that would need to be known -- and can be known -- in order to make sense of anything we think, feel, say and do.

We don't have different levels of compulsions such that they have to be measured. Some decisions are more pressing than others. If I am running late for a meeting, I may decide to skip breakfast in order to get to the meeting on time. This scenario is quite different from not having to rush to go anywhere and casually deciding what I want to eat for breakfast, eggs or pancakes. To repeat: When I said some people are under a greater compulsion than others, I meant they were driven by an urgent need to get something done because of its importance. When it comes to the free will/determinism debate, we are all under a compulsion to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It’s an invariable law.

Okay, how would you go about demonstrating to them that this is true? Other than by way of insisting that they must accept your own assumptions here?

Right? You're not a physicist or a neuroscientist or a professional philosopher/metaphysician. What qualifications do you have to demonstrate your assumptions other than in how you define the meaning of the words in the argument itself. Your words would only be connected to other words. And not connected to the behaviors that are "chosen"/chosen by yourself or others.

Running late for a meeting. Skipping breakfast. How would you demonstrate that both are either only what they ever could have been in the only possible reality or through the author's arguments we are able to create a future more in sync with a "greater satisfaction". How would you show that this greater satisfaction you feel is not in and of itself the only thing that nature compelled you to feel?

And suppose you ate bacon for breakfast. And some animal rights activists called that evil. How would you or the author have demonstrated to the scientific or philosophical community whether eating bacon is or is not evil? And how in the future it will all just disappear altogether as a moral quandary.

Again, there are the discoveries made by Einstein and Edison...discoveries that are bursting at the seams with demonstrable evidence. And, for Einstein, he would be the first to acknowledge all of the mysteries that remain to be discovered going back to an understanding of existence itself. As for Edison, he discovered ways to create actual things. They either work as intended or they don't.

The author's "discovery" on the other hand? Look, if you lack both the intellectual honesty and integrity to own up to just how meager his own demonstrable proof is...?

You have no idea what his discovery is. Can you tell me? Hint: It is not that man's will is not free although this is the key that unlocks the door to his discovery. Therefore, it is YOU that is lacking in integrity because you are accusing him of something you know nothing about.

Again: Where's the proof? You are either able to convince me, others here, or those in the scientific and philosophical communities that it is there or you aren't. Until then, in my view, no one will ever have an idea of what the author discovered until they agree that what the author discovered is the "theory of everything".

Another objectivist in other words.

Really, do yourself a favor and make a more concerted effort to think yourself into believing that the only way the author's discovery is on the same level as Einstein and Edison is in a wholly determined universe where all three accomplished only that which they were compelled by the laws of matter to accomplish.

And that way you and I would be on the same level here as well.

We are on the same level in a wholly determined universe because our will is not free to do or say anything but what we do and say, but we are not on the same level as far as what we know to be true.

From my frame of mind, that's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[peacegirl]

Assuming some measure of the real deal free will, I will leave it to others to decide for themselves if your point about proof makes any sense. How exactly would I go about proving that I either could or could not opt to say anything other than what I do? Unlike you, I don't have an author able to think himself into believing that something is true about free will or evil merely by asserting it is true in a book. And then calling his arguments "scientific".

Note to others:

I refer you to back to K. Greene's review above for a more substantial assessment of the author's "proof".

None of what this guy wrote was accurate and the part about dissenters was completely made up. Why would you tell people to refer to this person who never read the book and made all kinds of assumptions like you're doing?

First of all, what is always most fascinating to me about exchanges revolving around free will is how, whatever the ultimate reality is, both sides have to, well, shift gears to at least some semblance of free will. Otherwise, from my current frame of mind, the entire exchange was, is and will ever be only as it ever could have been.

That is true, but when this principle is applied, and all blame is removed from the environment (including anything that judges your actions in advance as right or wrong), you can't use the laws of matter as an excuse for killing someone, or any other excuse when all justification has been removed.

You basically do the same thing. But: in a way I am still unable to fully grasp. You insist that we do not possess free will and that, yes, everything up to the present is only as it ever could be. But somehow at the present and in the future it's...different? Again, I am simply unable to grasp what on earth you mean by that "for all practical purposes".

It's not different, but just as we make choices based on our present knowledge, so too do we make future choices based on a different set of choices, all in the direction of greater satisfaction. I have to post the same excerpt again because you obviously didn't retain anything.

By discovering
this well concealed law and demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic
change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing
what will be called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of
nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and
all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is
difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what
I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried
to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the
reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as
impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which
is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and
compared to our present understanding of human nature.

Now, given your own understanding of what you "chose"/chose to write about Greene's review, what specific evidence do you have that he made up things and did not read the book.

Because you say so?

Not because I say so iambiguous. This guy had no understanding of the second or third discoveries, and he misrepresented the first. There is no mention of dissenters or military in the entire book. If you believe Greene who was just some troll on the internet, then go ahead, but there is no point in my being here.

b]And explain once again how, even if he did these things in the only possible reality, he was still worthy of your censure. To me that's the sort of censure we'd hear from those convinced that free will is the real deal.[/b]

I'm not blaming him when I know he couldn't help himself, but he would never have made a fake review in the new world. He struck the first blow and I was justifiably upset because people count on reviews to be objective. I'm over it though. Eventually there will be rave reviews and they will replace this poor one.

This is the problem with people who immediately jump to conclusions that a peaceful world is impossible. You are convinced there is no way to create an environment that can diminish conflicts. You keep referring to abortion, as if there can be no answer. Leave abortion out for now because abortion will not even be an issue when people want their children in a union that is happy, and they will only have the number of children they can afford.

This is nothing short of la la land thinking to me. It's the sort of thinking that can only be defended by arguing that you and the author could not have not thought otherwise. Leaving aside the part where this joyous future unfolds only in the author's head, there is absolutely no body of evidence that would indicate that the conflicting goods embedded in abortion...conflicts that have rent the human species now for thousands of years...could reconfigure into the abortion equivalent of a MacDonald's Happy Meal. It's more like a surreal combination of Don Quixote and Pollyanna.

Even if there were conflicting goods (as you call it) regarding abortion, do you actually think this example is proof that man could never achieve peace? You are being very shortsighted.

That I reduce you time and again to posting things like this...points that bare no almost resemblance to the points I made...speaks volumes from my frame of mind. Only from my frame of mind, you were never able not to.

I'm saying that people will have different points of view in these gray areas, but no one (once they become citizens of this new world) is going to moralize to another what they ought to do.

Do you think that's what Edison or Einstein did? They looked for people who agreed with them? That's crazy.

Come on, both of them created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound. People flocked to both men in order to congratulate them on having successfully demonstrated their ideas and inventions. You on the other hand are in here drawing people's attention to a book -- a world of words -- about the future of free will and evil.

Not everyone flocks to someone who makes an important finding. Take Gregor Mendel, for example, whom the author quotes in his book.

As though this doesn't just explain away the distinction I make between Einstein and Edison on the one hand, and your author on the other.

As for Mendel, same thing. The work that he did resulted in actual either/or information and knowledge about genes. He is called the "father of modern genetics" for a reason.

So, when will your author be called "the father of modern free will and evil"?

I don't care what he will be called. You sound resentful.

So demonstrating one's discovery through a book is somehow questionable? A world of words? That's how we communicate, haven't you noticed? This can be simulated or proven in some other way. I am drawing attention to people who may be interested in this major discovery. You're just an angry skeptic.

Typical. My point that Einstein and Edison "created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound" is completely ignored. Instead, the author's own "world of words" in a book is proof enough that it is true "scientifically".

And either I was never able to be other than an angry skeptic or I can freely opt to be all the more mocking of arguments that seem flagrantly weak to me. And, even here, that is only in regard to the arguments that are intelligible to me.

Note to nature:

You tell me.

Again, I don't blame you for being an angry skeptic, but we won't be able to continue like this ad infinitum because we are getting absolutely nowhere. The most I would expect anyone to do is to hear him out, and then decide for himself. But you won't even hear him out.

Unbelievable! You say the arguments are weak, so what are the arguments that you can't help mocking?

Compelled or not, we've come to this particular blow by blow part of the exchange time and again. I don't argue that his arguments are weak objectively...only that here and now subjectively they appear weak to me. And even then only because given the laws of nature they could never have not appeared weak to me.

So hopefully you will choose [in the direction of greater satisfaction] to read his book and maybe they won't appear weak to you anymore. If you choose not to learn more, I will move on. No one else is interested in participating so this thread will die out.

"No, we are never free..."

But then you note this: "...but some choices are under a greater compulsion than others."

Chemically, neurologically...how exactly does that all unfold in the brains of human beings such that we can pin down actual levels of compulsions...through experiments, predictions, deconstructing actual experiences that we have. Note in more detail how the gap unfolds between me not having a discovery and you [through the author] having one. How exactly would that be demonstrated by you to the scientific and philosophical communities?

If we are compelled to move in one direction, we are under a compulsion to move in that direction. I already explained that some choices make very little difference either way (which means the differences are not that meaningful), while others are considerably more important and more meaningful. It's not about measuring or deconstructing actual experiences. It is about him demonstrating that under the changed conditions, we cannot strike a first blow because conscience goes up in these circumstances, not down.

First, they will need to study his work. It’s not as difficult to understand as you may think. Proof is not hard to establish when the basic principle is put into effect.

No, first they need to be convinced that his work is worth studying. How would you go about demonstrating that to them?

Only, once again, back to the surreal nature of me asking you this given that "here and now" I have been compelled by the laws of matter to think myself into "choosing" to ask you this. Ever and always we are stuck in the gap between what we think we know about all of this and all that would need to be known -- and can be known -- in order to make sense of anything we think, feel, say and do.

There is no gap. You believe in your mind that it will never be filled. That is an intellectual contraption.

We don't have different levels of compulsions such that they have to be measured. Some decisions are more pressing than others. If I am running late for a meeting, I may decide to skip breakfast in order to get to the meeting on time. This scenario is quite different from not having to rush to go anywhere and casually deciding what I want to eat for breakfast, eggs or pancakes. To repeat: When I said some people are under a greater compulsion than others, I meant they were driven by an urgent need to get something done because of its importance. When it comes to the free will/determinism debate, we are all under a compulsion to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It’s an invariable law.

Okay, how would you go about demonstrating to them that this is true? Other than by way of insisting that they must accept your own assumptions here?

I never said they must accept his discovery, but they must study his work to be able to make a fair judgment. Then they can come to their own conclusions. Even if they don't think he has anything of value, that does not mean he doesn't. Someone's opinion does not make something false. To repeat:

When it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.

Right? You're not a physicist or a neuroscientist or a professional philosopher/metaphysician. What qualifications do you have to demonstrate your assumptions other than in how you define the meaning of the words in the argument itself. Your words would only be connected to other words. And not connected to the behaviors that are "chosen"/chosen by yourself or others.

Because I understand what he is saying and I see the problem with the standard definition in regard to the will of man. He showed that nothing could make Gandhi do anything against his will, not even the threat of death. I don't know if you read my posts, frankly.

Running late for a meeting. Skipping breakfast. How would you demonstrate that both are either only what they ever could have been in the only possible reality or through the author's arguments we are able to create a future more in sync with a "greater satisfaction". How would you show that this greater satisfaction you feel is not in and of itself the only thing that nature compelled you to feel?

I'm not trying to show that the greater satisfaction a person chooses could not be anything other than what he was compelled to do, but it is he law of greater satisfaction that is causing him to choose one thing over another. You cannot blame what you do on the laws of matter, because you wouldn't have chosen what you do, if you didn't want to. IOW, you cannot say the laws of matter made you do something against your will, which many people have a problem with for good reason. Imagine someone trying to get off the hook by saying, "I couldn't help driving my car into the marketplace and killing people. The laws of matter made me do it. I didn't want to but had to." Don't you see the problem here?

And suppose you ate bacon for breakfast. And some animal rights activists called that evil. How would you or the author have demonstrated to the scientific or philosophical community whether eating bacon is or is not evil? And how in the future it will all just disappear altogether as a moral quandary.

Again, no one will tell anyone that killing an animal for food (or anything else) is wrong. There will be no moral code which dictates what is right and wrong. Conscience will help each individual decide what is best under their particular circumstances because conscience will go up to a 10 under these new conditions. People in the new world would not want to kill animals inhumanely or be cruel. Being cruel is not a normal behavior and it's only when people are not hurt, that they will not want to hurt. These are the gray areas where individuals will have to make up their own mind and no one will criticize them. Now let's get back to the most important issues at hand like war, crime, hatred, and poverty.

Again, there are the discoveries made by Einstein and Edison...discoveries that are bursting at the seams with demonstrable evidence. And, for Einstein, he would be the first to acknowledge all of the mysteries that remain to be discovered going back to an understanding of existence itself. As for Edison, he discovered ways to create actual things. They either work as intended or they don't.

The author's "discovery" on the other hand? Look, if you lack both the intellectual honesty and integrity to own up to just how meager his own demonstrable proof is...?

I don't think his proof is meager. What is his discovery iambiguous? I think you would enjoy the first three chapters but you're fighting me for whatever reason. The worst thing that can happen is you pooh pooh what he wrote, and say it's crap. I won't blame you.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf

You have no idea what his discovery is. Can you tell me? Hint: It is not that man's will is not free although this is the key that unlocks the door to his discovery. Therefore, it is YOU that is lacking in integrity because you are accusing him of something you know nothing about.

Again: Where's the proof? You are either able to convince me, others here, or those in the scientific and philosophical communities that it is there or you aren't. Until then, in my view, no one will ever have an idea of what the author discovered until they agree that what the author discovered is the "theory of everything".

You are entirely off base by saying what was required for him to make this discovery. You won't let go of that idea, so you probably will never really know how great his discovery actually is.

Another objectivist in other words.

Really, do yourself a favor and make a more concerted effort to think yourself into believing that the only way the author's discovery is on the same level as Einstein and Edison is in a wholly determined universe where all three accomplished only that which they were compelled by the laws of matter to accomplish.

And that way you and I would be on the same level here as well.

We are on the same level in a wholly determined universe because our will is not free to do or say anything but what we do and say, but we are not on the same level as far as what we know to be true.

From my frame of mind, that's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

It is not six of one, half dozen of the other. You are not on the same page as him. If he was correct in his observations, then we don't have free will. If you believe in free will, then you would be incorrect. If you're not sure we have free will, I hope this new understanding would compel you to revisit your present thinking. His definition does not remove our ability to choose, contemplate, have options, ponder, decide, etc. Free will and determinism are polar opposites. We can't have both. It's a contradiction. Determinism wins! And thank God it does. If we could choose to kill and hurt people regardless of the prevailing conditions, we would have no chance to achieve world peace.

[phyllo]

I'm not blaming him when I know he couldn't help himself, but he would never made a false review in the new world. He struck the first blow and I was justifiably hurt because people count on reviews to be objective. I'm over it though. Eventually there will be good reviews and they will replace this poor one.

Maybe you struck the first blow by getting him to read a book which he found to be a waste of time.

Have you considered that?

Where or when is the first blow if there is a continuous chain of causality.

[peacegirl]

I'm not blaming him when I know he couldn't help himself, but he would never made a false review in the new world. He struck the first blow and I was justifiably hurt because people count on reviews to be objective. I'm over it though. Eventually there will be good reviews and they will replace this poor one.

Maybe you struck the first blow by getting him to read a book which he found to be a waste of time.

Have you considered that?

Where or when is the first blow if there is a continuous chain of causality.

His review was a hurt because it was a misrepresentation. I did nothing to hurt him other than try to get people to understand why the eyes are not a sense organ. He didn't like that, so he went behind my back and gave a horrible review. I'm not discussing his second discovery. There is a continuous chain of causality but when we stop the pain by removing the hurt that exists in today's world and by giving people total freedom to do whatever they want, we can stop the chain of causality that hurts others in its tracks (our world will veer in a new direction but still within the laws of nature) because no one will desire to move in this direction for satisfaction.

[iambiguous]

So why did you say "what does definition have to do with it?"

First assumption: That we live in a wholly determined universe and I was never able to not say it.

Second assumption: That we live in a world where [somehow] human brains have acquired the capacity to define things freely. I then ask others to take particular definitions of their own out into the world of human interactions and explore them "for all practical purposes" given the existence of conflicting goods.

Thus:

In other words, if Socrates was around today, and contributing to this thread, I'd ask him to take his definition of free will and evil and note how he would embed those definitions in his interactions with others. In particular in regard to a set of circumstances in which there were conflicting assessments of evil.

His definition would probably be your definition because it's how determinism has always been defined. This has created a big chasm in the debate that cannot be rectified, for if the laws of matter are "causing" you to kill someone, then obviously you would want the free will to go against what nature is "causing" you to do. It's so obvious to me what the problem is, but you don't see it. You can't help yourself.

Again, given the first assumption above...so what? Whatever definition he or I or you or others come up with...or whatever we "see"...it is embedded in the only possible reality. Now, admittedly, I don't know exactly what that means. Either because nature has not provided me with that knowledge or, if such knowledge is something I can pursue of my own free will [the real deal], it is almost certainly beyond calculating the odds of me grasping it given the gap I discuss above.

Then the part where he examines his own "greater satisfactions" in regard to the "causal chain" insofar as I understand it and as you understand it.

When he stumbled upon his finding, he moved in the direction of putting his discovery down on paper so others could understand it. He moved in this direction for greater satisfaction. He was moving in sync with his nature. So are you. So is everyone else.

Or, when nature compelled him to stumble upon it, nature's laws then compelled him to move in the only possible direction such that he was never able to feel a greater satisfaction other than that which nature had embedded chemically and neurologically in his brain.

Just as is the case with you and I. Again, given the first assumption above.

Including this:

Regardless of a person's movement through life, he is always moving in this direction. You are getting greater satisfaction from reading my posts. If you weren't, you would not be here.

In other words, I can want to move in this direction but I cannot want to want to.

For me, though, I am interested in exploring the difference "for all practical purpose".

Consider:

Mary is said to have the free will to choose an abortion. Now, if someone argues that, no, she does not have free will but only the power to choose, how is that power not entangled in this:

"Mary can do what she wills but he cannot will what she wills.
Or: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."

That makes sense. I'm not sure where you think this contradicts the soundness of "greater satisfaction." If she wills to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose that avenue. If she does not will to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose not to have an abortion based on that. There is no right or wrong here. Is that what you're suggesting?

Yes. But only given assumption number 2 above. Given assumption 1, nothing that happens to Mary can ever not make sense because everything that happens to her could never have not happened. You may as well ask if it makes sense for one domino to topple over onto another one when it was never able to not do so. Only with the dominoes in the human brain things get considerably more problematic. And mind-boggling.

Then back [for the umpteenth time] to this:

Now, in a determined universe, if one's will is not free, but only the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will how are they not synonymous "for all practical purposes"?

For one reason only, and that is to clarify that even though will is not free nothing can make us in a determined universe to do anything we make up our mind not to do. So many times you hear someone say, "He made me do it; I couldn't help myself." I've posted this before but it's worth repeating.

To wit:

In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.

Again, the assumption is that he is somehow "choosing" to do what he does. Such that a no free will man is not really a no free will man at all.

Others may understand how you and the author "think this through" in your heads. But [compelled or not] I'm not one of them.

Thus Gandhi "can do what he wants, but still not want what he wants".

At least given my own assumptions about a wholly determined universe.

But when I ask this of you...

Again, take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

...all I get back [as per usual] is yet another general description intellectual contraption:

Volition is having the will to choose. It does not mean the choice is a free one. So when I say I did something of my own free will, I only mean I did something of my own desire (or volition).

Try again.

Before there were human beings, there was the evolution of biological life on planet Earth. So: How can fully understanding this biological evolution not be crucial in understanding how our brains function?

It's interesting to understand biological evolution, but it's not a prerequisite to understanding how the brain works or how humans evolved to a more complex level of intelligence. It doesn't follow.

The only way it doesn't follow is that nature compels you to think it doesn't. In my view, in a free will world no one but a fool would argue that. Of course an understanding of the human brain is intertwined in an understanding of the evolution of biological life on planet Earth. Intertwined in turn in all of the interactions of matter going back to....what exactly?

From my frame of mind, given free will [the real deal], nothing says more about your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty than your silly conclusions here.

How could anyone not be embarrassed and believe what you do? Except as nature compels them to.

So, back to this:

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?

The parts where he himself become the equivalent of Einstein and Edison.

A small group of people could begin using these principles, but it would not be easy because we live in a free will environment of blame and punishment. Actually, the ultimate proof is whether it works. I don't think a simulation would be necessary. How did we get to the moon without actually going to the moon based on the necessary navigation information? There comes a time that we have to take the plunge. If the principles are accurate, the outcome will also be accurate. First, people have to understand why his observations regarding "greater satisfaction" is the reason man does not have free will. They must also understand why, under changed conditions, conscience increases, not decreases. Then they need to understand how we must remove all things that are redolent of blame including government as we know it. They also need to understand that all hurt, or the possibility of being hurt, must be removed from the environment (which will require a revamping of the economic system) for there to be no justification to strike back or to hurt others so as not to hurt oneself (the law of self-preservation). It is only the first blow that we are removing because retaliation is justified. A first blow is not under these conditions. Once they see the validity and soundness of his discovery, it will not be hard to envision that a new world of peace and prosperity for ALL people is within reach, and the leaders of each nation will want to begin the transition to this new way of life. He was never given an opportunity to explain his findings, and the same disregard for his work is going on today. This book has never been distributed widely. Think about it. He typed his book on a manual typewriter; the old kind with the ribbon and the carriage? He didn't have a computer or the internet, but sadly, there is so much garbage on the internet, no one takes anybody seriously. We're all put in the same pot!

Simply unbelievable! At least in the real deal free will world.

I ask you this...

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?

And you give me that?!!

[peacegirl]

So why did you say "what does definition have to do with it?"

First assumption: That we live in a wholly determined universe and I was never able to not say it.

Second assumption: That we live in a world where [somehow] human brains have acquired the capacity to define things freely. I then ask others to take particular definitions of their own out into the world of human interactions and explore them "for all practical purposes" given the existence of conflicting goods.

Thus:

In other words, if Socrates was around today, and contributing to this thread, I'd ask him to take his definition of free will and evil and note how he would embed those definitions in his interactions with others. In particular in regard to a set of circumstances in which there were conflicting assessments of evil.

His definition would probably be your definition because it's how determinism has always been defined. This has created a big chasm in the debate that cannot be rectified, for if the laws of matter are "causing" you to kill someone, then obviously you would want the free will to go against what nature is "causing" you to do. It's so obvious to me what the problem is, but you don't see it. You can't help yourself.

Again, given the first assumption above...so what? Whatever definition he or I or you or others come up with...or whatever we "see"...it is embedded in the only possible reality. Now, admittedly, I don't know exactly what that means. Either because nature has not provided me with that knowledge or, if such knowledge is something I can pursue of my own free will [the real deal], it is almost certainly beyond calculating the odds of me grasping it given the gap I discuss above.

Even if you don't grasp it, you don't need to. Not everyone grasps how a light bulb works, but they get the benefits.

Then the part where he examines his own "greater satisfactions" in regard to the "causal chain" insofar as I understand it and as you understand it.

When he stumbled upon his finding, he moved in the direction of putting his discovery down on paper so others could understand it. He moved in this direction for greater satisfaction. He was moving in sync with his nature. So are you. So is everyone else.

Or, when nature compelled him to stumble upon it, nature's laws then compelled him to move in the only possible direction such that he was never able to feel a greater satisfaction other than that which nature had embedded chemically and neurologically in his brain.

I can accept that.

Just as is the case with you and I. Again, given the first assumption above.

Including this:

Regardless of a person's movement through life, he is always moving in this direction. You are getting greater satisfaction from reading my posts. If you weren't, you would not be here.

In other words, I can want to move in this direction but I cannot want to want to.

You want to move in this direction otherwise you wouldn't be here, period. You may have no control over what you want, but even if you don't, it doesn't change anything.

For me, though, I am interested in exploring the difference "for all practical purpose".

Consider:

Mary is said to have the free will to choose an abortion. Now, if someone argues that, no, she does not have free will but only the power to choose, how is that power not entangled in this:

"Mary can do what she wills but he cannot will what she wills.
Or: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."

Regardless of whether she can't will what she wants, she still is under a compulsion to act on what she wants.

That makes sense. I'm not sure where you think this contradicts the soundness of "greater satisfaction." If she wills to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose that avenue. If she does not will to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose not to have an abortion based on that. There is no right or wrong here. Is that what you're suggesting?

Yes. But only given assumption number 2 above. Given assumption 1, nothing that happens to Mary can ever not make sense because everything that happens to her could never have not happened. You may as well ask if it makes sense for one domino to topple over onto another one when it was never able to not do so. Only with the dominoes in the human brain things get considerably more problematic. And mind-boggling.

We are not dominoes in the human brain. Everything that happens to Mary could never have not happened, but you are disregarding the fact that nothing forced her against her will. Why do you never address this, which is a big part of the problem with the definition that you can't seem to give up, even temporarily.

Then back [for the umpteenth time] to this:

Now, in a determined universe, if one's will is not free, but only the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will how are they not synonymous "for all practical purposes"?

Because it is the belief that we have free will that is keeping the illusion in place.

For one reason only, and that is to clarify that even though will is not free nothing can make us in a determined universe to do anything we make up our mind not to do. So many times you hear someone say, "He made me do it; I couldn't help myself." I've posted this before but it's worth repeating.

To wit:

In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.

Again, the assumption is that he is somehow "choosing" to do what he does. Such that a no free will man is not really a no free will man at all.

He IS choosing, and he IS a no free will man, but the word choice is misleading for it appears that either choice can be made freely, which is false.

Others may understand how you and the author "think this through" in your heads. But [compelled or not] I'm not one of them.

Sometimes when you have too much in your head, you make things harder than they actually are. An innocent child could understand what I'm saying because he doesn't have the static in his head that you have.

Thus Gandhi "can do what he wants, but still not want what he wants".

At least given my own assumptions about a wholly determined universe.

But when I ask this of you...

Again, take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

...all I get back [as per usual] is yet another general description intellectual contraption:

Volition is having the ability to choose without external constraint. Free will can be used in the same way. "I did it of my own volition or free will. Nobody forced me; I did it because I wanted to. It is a folk terminology. So when I say I did something of my own free will, I only mean I did something of my own desire (or volition). It does not mean my will is free.

Try again.

What is so hard about that iambiguous? You are making it harder than it needs to be. You can't give up your belief that the possibility of free will exists.

Before there were human beings, there was the evolution of biological life on planet Earth. So: How can fully understanding this biological evolution not be crucial in understanding how our brains function?

It's interesting to understand biological evolution, but it's not a prerequisite to understanding how the brain works or how humans evolved to a more complex level of intelligence. It doesn't follow.

The only way it doesn't follow is that nature compels you to think it doesn't. In my view, in a free will world no one but a fool would argue that. Of course an understanding of the human brain is intertwined in an understanding of the evolution of biological life on planet Earth. Intertwined in turn in all of the interactions of matter going back to....what exactly?

We don't need to dissect the human brain to observe how humans behave in real life.

From my frame of mind, given free will [the real deal], nothing says more about your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty than your silly conclusions here.

How could anyone not be embarrassed and believe what you do? Except as nature compels them to.

Ahem, it's you that should be embarrassed for assuming so much about your own intellectual contraptions, but you're too myopic to see it.

So, back to this:

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?

The parts where he himself become the equivalent of Einstein and Edison.

A small group of people could begin using these principles, but it would not be easy because we live in a free will environment of blame and punishment. Actually, the ultimate proof is whether it works. I don't think a simulation would be necessary. How did we get to the moon without actually going to the moon based on the necessary navigation information? There comes a time that we have to take the plunge. If the principles are accurate, the outcome will also be accurate. First, people have to understand why his observations regarding "greater satisfaction" is the reason man does not have free will. They must also understand why, under changed conditions, conscience increases, not decreases. Then they need to understand how we must remove all things that are redolent of blame including government as we know it. They also need to understand that all hurt, or the possibility of being hurt, must be removed from the environment (which will require a revamping of the economic system) for there to be no justification to strike back or to hurt others so as not to hurt oneself (the law of self-preservation). It is only the first blow that we are removing because retaliation is justified. A first blow is not under these conditions. Once they see the validity and soundness of his discovery, it will not be hard to envision that a new world of peace and prosperity for ALL people is within reach, and the leaders of each nation will want to begin the transition to this new way of life. He was never given an opportunity to explain his findings, and the same disregard for his work is going on today. This book has never been distributed widely. Think about it. He typed his book on a manual typewriter; the old kind with the ribbon and the carriage? He didn't have a computer or the internet, but sadly, there is so much garbage on the internet, no one takes anybody seriously. We're all put in the same pot!

Simply unbelievable! At least in the real deal free will world.

I ask you this...

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?

These were astute observations iambiguous. Experiments are not the only way to arrive at a truth epistemologically, although empirical proof is the ultimate test. The proof of the pudding is that this principle can be shown to work as science catches up and decides to either test it on a smaller scale, or take the plunge and begin the transition. What is there to lose but hate, crime, poverty, and war. Through his observations, he demonstrated that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction WHICH IS WHY WILL IS NOT FREE. You can't wrap your head around that, yet you can't give me one example where this is not true because there are none. You are so stuck on your definition that it is impossible for me to penetrate. No wonder you feel free will is necessary otherwise you're just a domino with no autonomy (in your way of thinking). Free will has been proven false but the problem of responsibility hasn't been resolved until this discovery came along. Sadly, very few people know about it.

And you give me that?!!

Yes, I give you that. This discussion with you is futile. There's no one else here who has even read the first three chapters (which I have posted many times), so I'm stuck going over and over the same thing without any progress.

[phyllo]

Your logic is ... "If they read the chapters, then they will agree with the author. They don't agree, therefore they have not read the chapters"?