Determinism

[peacegirl]

Then Lenin and you are opposed. He says Capitalism "deserves" - is culpable for causing - the crime it gets.

Or is it that man has no free will but Capitalism, as some kind of entity, does?

ah i see what you're doing. you're asking how a determinist could blame a certain economic system for producing conflicts between people who don't have the freewill to not produce those conflicts. indeed, there is a bit of an impasse here so long as a critique attempts to proceed on moral grounds. the only way around this problem is to replace the premise with a kind of hedonistic imperative and evoke a utilitarian point of view on the matter; we say despite whether or not capitalism is 'right' or 'wrong' according to [insert favorite ethical theory], it produces a grossly disproportionate hedonic calculus in practice. and since 'pleasure' and 'pain' are states which are absolutely certain and free from the interrogating finger of philosophy - 'how can you be sure you're experiencing pleasure or pain' is a question only and idiot philosopher would ask - the degree to which these states exist is the thing that should be brought into question when examining an economic system. so because capitalism produces a hedonistic calculus which results in a greater amount of pain and suffering in a majority, in exchange for a proprotionately smaller amount of pleasure and success for a minority, one would have to set the premise that the pleasure of the few over the majority is justified. but how can one do that? such a justification would be a value statement, a moral statement, and have absolutely no grounds other than as a simple emotivistic expression; the capitalist says 'capitalism is good because X', and this only means 'i like it'. there is no quality 'goodness' out there in the world which would vindicate capitalism of its disproportionate calculus. and yet at the same time, one can neither say the majority should experience less pain and suffering, as that kind of claim would fall under the same terms.

it simply comes down to this simple question; why would a majority allow capitalism to persist when it creates this disproportion. again, we aren't attacking or defending capitalism on the merits of it's being either 'good' or 'bad' in principle. we are looking at its material affects. we are asking why there are more empty houses than there are homeless people. we are asking why so many people die every day when there is sufficient aid and resources to keep them alive. we are asking why people are starving when there is so much surplus of food in the world that half of it spoils before it is ever used. we are asking why we willingly allow the cyclic crashes of the market to occur every so many years because of the accumulation of dead capital made stagnant. we are asking why so much money is being spent on military expenditures for countries to defend themselves against neighboring countries... all of which will eventually end up becoming economically interdependent, any fucking way.

but you must understand that there will never be agreement between the two warring classes that are involved in this silly nonsense. the capitalist is not concerned with any of these problems, while the worker most certainly is. and it is up to the working classes to resolve these ridiculous matters and change the calculus.

you might say that my approach here is like an amoral utilitarianism founded on a hedonistic imperative. i have simplified the problem and brought it out of the philosophical sophistry and haze that has so clouded the world for centuries. the atheistic randian capitalist says 'there is nothing stopping me, nor can there be'... to which i reply 'there is nothing stopping me either, nor will there be. now what do we do, mr. galt?'

and with that, 2000 years of philosophy does an enormous u-turn and arrives right back at thrasymachus. might is right. philosophical 'reasons' come after the fact, apropos to whatever sophistry one employs to defend their place of power.

But what is gratifyingly made clear is the meaning of "free will". It is, in your discourse, the ability to attribute value judgments.
Per you, such judgments are per definition untrue. As there is no free will.

Your judgments of Capitalism as being wrong are your free will. And thus dont exist.

whether 'free' or not, the gravity of the values of the working classes is enough to set the movement in motion without needing to justify it on any moral or ethical grounds. this amounts to the working class saying to the capitalist; 'that you are not free to do otherwise is irrelevant, as you are still a big fucking hemorrhoid in the asshole of the world. we don't need to 'blame' you for anything. what is to 'blame' is neither here nor there and was never a question. the working classes don't do metaphysics. that's a philosopher's nonsense.

The discovery to which this thread is dedicated solves the economic problem as it does many other aspects of human relation. I will post the Preface here in the hope that it will create some interest. Misplaced skepticism is a real problem for anyone who offers something that lies beyond the status quo. For the atheists among us, please understand that the word God was used only as a symbol for the laws that govern our universe. People are very prickly about this and will even refuse to read just because of this one word. Very unfortunate.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

PREFACE

My dear friends, relations, and people throughout the earth, the
purpose of this book is to clarify knowledge that must be brought to
light as quickly as possible because it can prevent what nobody wants
— a nuclear holocaust. With the world in turmoil and on the
threshold of an atomic explosion which could be started accidentally
and could very well destroy all civilization, I am announcing a
scientific discovery that will make war an absolute impossibility and
revolutionize the life of man entirely for his benefit.

Due to a
fantastic breakthrough, to the discovery of a natural, psychological law
that was hermetically sealed behind a logical theory that 98% of
mankind holds true, every bit of hurt that exists in human relations
can be virtually wiped from the face of the earth by something so
superior to punishment, as a deterrent, that people the world over will
be prevented from committing those very acts of evil for which blame
and punishment were previously necessary. Laugh if you will but your
smile of incredulity will be wiped from your face once you begin to
read the text chapter by chapter of which the first two are most
fundamental.

It is important to know that this book does not contain a theory
but an undeniable equation that can be scientifically proven. It has
no biases, prejudices or ulterior motives — its only concern is in
revealing facts about the nature of man never before understood.
Furthermore, so as to prevent jumping to conclusions, this book has
nothing whatever to do with communism, socialism, capitalism,
government, or religion; only with the removal of inaccurate facts that
have been passed along from generation to generation in the guise of
genuine knowledge.

There are those who may be blinded by this
mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived
so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a
semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or
don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can
be clarified in such a manner that they will be compelled to say, “Now
I understand and agree.”

I am about to demonstrate, in a manner our
world’s leading scientists will be unable to deny, not only that the
mankind system is just as harmonious as the solar system despite all
the evil and ignorance that ever existed, but that the inception of the
Golden Age cannot commence until the knowledge pertaining to this
law is accurately understood. What is about to be revealed is
unprecedented. Soon enough everyone will know, without
reservation, that mankind is on the threshold of a NEW WORLD
prophesied in the Bible that must come to pass out of absolute
necessity when this natural law is stamped by the exact sciences with
the brevet of truth.

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read
thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the
table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner.
Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could
appear like a fairy tale otherwise the statement that truth is stranger
than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by
yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical
relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be
discouraged because what follows will help you understand it much
better the second time around.

This book was written in a dialogue
format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make
these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is
a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing
important points and extending the principles in a more cohesive
fashion, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand
it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace reading
many things over and over again. When you have fully grasped the
full significance and magnitude of this work, and further realize there
has never been and will never be another like it because of what is
undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the
problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery?
Would you like to see that the mankind system has been obeying an
invariable law just as mathematically harmonious as that which
inheres in the solar system; a law that allowed a prophesy to be made
thousands of years ago and verified in the 20 century? Would you
like to learn, though this book has nothing whatever to do with
religion or philosophy, that your faith in God will finally be rewarded
with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly deliver us from all evil?

If
you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic transition to a new
way of life which must come about the moment this discovery is
thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not judge what you are
about to read in terms of your present knowledge but do everything in
your power to understand what is written by following the
mathematical relations implicitly expressed throughout. Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark...the hour is getting late.

[Meno_]

I have an intuitive understanding that is sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that will reinforce a kind of epistemic compatibility, which in turn will reveal two kinds of architecture , as the paradigm model, - which in turn will pose fear to the majority and optimism to maybe a few per cent.

That may be caused by the level of presumption becoming totally indecipherable to the majority , very near to the absolute sense.

If this approach trangresses on the basis of any kind of compatibility, then Peace Girl , i move for You to start, notwithstanding the above suggestion.

[peacegirl]

I have an intuitive understanding that is sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that , it will .

What do you even mean: "Sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that, it will." And what intuitive understanding do you have?

[Meno_]

I have an intuitive understanding that is sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that , it will .

What do you even mean: "Sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that, it will." And what intuitive understanding do you have?

In terms of what You may have in mind, meaning, a reinforcement of the power of the intuitive understanding of the 'should' of the transcending quality. You indicated more slant toward the quantitative reach for a hypothetical goal: with which I'm in 100 % agreement, (and now it is a sorry historical fact that the bilateral U.S.-USSR agreement has been broken) the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war, and at this point our fear coincides with more than occasional glances at the doomsday clock.

The link, is what matters, descriptively, perspectivelly, or politically . The triad that has been warned by neo-national socialists are almost identical with the one posed earlier in the years proceeding World War.II, not.overtly , but is systemically reducible. The term escapes me , and will introduce it , once I find it.

The above is intuitive and real, vis. more so, than merely stating that the symbol of that message is hardening
rather, reifying into more graspable notions.

Maybe that is why the unprecedented moves by a U.S. President to travel for meetings with a relatively insignificant political leader.

Somehow the feeling that this the direction overshadows the current one , that the military-industrial complex is taking.

The link during the cold war had created the hot line between presidents, and we have really little knowledge of the difference between the seeming cozy friendliness between Putin and Trump, which appears to again contraindicate the breakage of real political and military agreements of cooperation.

Again having no top secret credentials , one can merely guess where 'real' facts lie, and such absence of reality for most people, devolve real approximations into the realm of the symbolic or even lower. At this lowest source, if.focused, energy is magnified.

Living in a sociological pan-optic world, has been pointed out to be a.form of.paternalism, and in line with most post modern views, re-igniting the availability of needs by people as credible as Bergson et al.

[peacegirl]

I have an intuitive understanding that is sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that , it will .

What do you even mean: "Sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that, it will." And what intuitive understanding do you have?

In terms of what You may have in mind, meaning, a reinforcement of the power of the intuitive understanding of the 'should' of the transcending quality. You indicated more slant toward the quantitative reach for a hypothetical goal: with which I'm in 100 % agreement, (and now it is a sorry historical fact that the bilateral U.S.-USSR agreement has been broken) the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war, and at this point our fear coincides with more than occasional glances at the doomsday clock.

The link, is what matters, descriptively, perspectivelly, or politically . The triad that has been warned by neo-national socialists are almost identical with the one posed earlier in the years proceeding World War.II, not.overtly , but is systemically reducible. The term escapes me , and will introduce it , once I find it.

The above is intuitive and real, vis. more so, than merely stating that the symbol of that message is hardening
rather, reifying into more graspable notions.

Maybe that is why the unprecedented moves by a U.S. President to travel for meetings with a relatively insignificant political leader.

Somehow the feeling that this the direction overshadows the current one , that the military-industrial complex is taking.

The link during the cold war had created the hot line between presidents, and we have really little knowledge of the difference between the seeming cozy friendliness between Putin and Trump, which appears to again contraindicate the breakage of real political and military agreements of cooperation.

Again having no top secret credentials , one can merely guess where 'real' facts lie, and such absence of reality for most people, devolve real approximations into the realm of the symbolic or even lower. At this lowest source, if.focused, energy is magnified.

Living in a sociological pan-optic world, has been pointed out to be a.form of.paternalism, and in line with most post modern views, re-igniting the availability of needs by people as credible as Bergson et al.

Thank you for your response, but I'm not sure where this fits in to my previous post, other than to say that the doomsday clock is ticking, and that our intuition is trying to warn us of this impending doom. That's why the knowledge I am presenting is so timely.

[iambiguous]

Indeed, and what could be construed more as "physical coercion" than in being compelled to choose as but one more inherent component of nature's material/phenomenal laws?

It's all about the language. Ask any compatibilist what the difference is in his view, and you will see he makes a distinction between physical coercion and being compelled to choose. I don't make that distinction because, like you said, both involve compulsion.

Of what though? Of everything that we think, feel, say and do?

If so, what does that seem to suggest then about this very exchange that we are having? What is not compelled here --- even though no one has a gun to our head demanding that we type these particular words.

And even if we choose because others coerce us to choose are they not in turn coerced by natural laws to coerce us?

There's no question that every human being is compelled by the law of greater satisfaction.

And how is the law of greater satisfaction not in turn just another inherent component of the laws of matter?

Again: In a wholly determined universe how could they have not been deceived by these words? Like those folks could have freely chosen to grasp the words such that they were not deceived by them.

They could not not have been deceived by words, but now with a more careful clarification hopefully this will help them grasp what they could not have grasped before.

I'm lost again. How is their reaction to this "more careful clarification" not in turn on par with them having been deceived before? They were either always going to be helped by it or they weren't.

And around and around we go...

They couldn't. No one is saying they could have. That's why it is being explained in a way that will help them understand these words [in a wholly determined universe].

It is being explained to them in the only way it was ever going to be explained to them. And they react to the explanation in the only way they were ever able too. It's not like they were ever free to grasp your explanation if they do not grasp it.

This is a given iambiguous. Your words are correct but they are repetitive. I know I know, you can't not say what you're saying. I'm hoping you will continue to listen so we can move forward rather than backtracking by saying this is the only way it could have ever have been. That's A GIVEN!

My words are repetitive because in a wholly determined universe they were never able not to be repetitive. Moving or not moving "forward" is in turn either embedded or not embedded in the laws of matter. What is "GIVEN!" is either everything that I think, feel, say or do, or there is in fact some measure of autonomy eked out by "I" when mindless matter reconfigured into the mindful matter embodied in the human brain.

In fact, when I stress that...

...everything that we think, feel, say and do is inherently intertwined of necessity in the unfolding material universe.

EVERYthing.

You respond...

Very true.

But then you seem to qualify that...

From moment to moment every movement is controlled by a law we have no control over because we are always moving from a position of dissatisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, from point A to point B. If we were satisfied in remaining at point A, we would never move to another position, which is death.

...and I fail to grasp it. The movement from lesser to greater satisfaction is no less encompassed in everything. But human psychology has evolved such that "I" is able to convince itself that it is freely choosing to move as it does. Just as, in my dreams, I am convinced that I am calling the shots when in fact it is really only my brain creating everything in this dream world. And me in it.

[peacegirl]

Indeed, and what could be construed more as "physical coercion" than in being compelled to choose as but one more inherent component of nature's material/phenomenal laws?

It's all about the language. Ask any compatibilist what the difference is in his view, and you will see he makes a distinction between physical coercion and being compelled to choose. I don't make that distinction because, like you said, both involve compulsion.

Of what though? Of everything that we think, feel, say and do?

Basically we're on the same page. I was only adding a qualification which is significant. It doesn't change the fact that what we do, say, feel, and think are not of our own free will. It just means that nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will. That's what the standard definition of determinism implies, which then clouds who is responsible for an action. If the agent isn't responsible for pulling the trigger, who is? It doesn't mean he's to blame; it just means he is the one that pulled the trigger. That's all I wanted to establish.

If so, what does that seem to suggest then about this very exchange that we are having? What is not compelled here --- even though no one has a gun to our head demanding that we type these particular words.

You're absolutely right, we are compelled to be here because we want to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction. If we didn't want to be here, we would choose NOT to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction. Whatever choice we make when comparing options is in this direction because we cannot go in a direction that would give us less satisfaction than what a more satisfying option would offer, given our individual perspective.

And even if we choose because others coerce us to choose are they not in turn coerced by natural laws to coerce us?

There's no question that every human being is compelled by the law of greater satisfaction.

And how is the law of greater satisfaction not in turn just another inherent component of the laws of matter?

It isn't any different than just another inherent component of the laws of matter. What you need to bear in mind is that the agent (the I, the self, the decision maker) is responsible for making his decisions because nothing other than the agent can force a choice on him without his permission. In other words, he can't say "my heredity made me do it, my history made me do it, my environment made me do it, my synapses made me do it, because nothing has the power to make him do anything he, AS THE DECISION MAKER, DOESN'T WANT TO DO. You will see why this is important, and it doesn't conflict with the laws of matter.

Again: In a wholly determined universe how could they have not been deceived by these words? Like those folks could have freely chosen to grasp the words such that they were not deceived by them.

They could not not have been deceived by words, but now with a more careful clarification hopefully this will help them grasp what they could not have grasped before.

I'm lost again. How is their reaction to this "more careful clarification" not in turn on par with them having been deceived before? They were either always going to be helped by it or they weren't.

And around and around we go...

Who is saying anything could be any different? But I'm hoping that with further clarification people will want to learn more to see how this law of our nature plays out hypothetically and eventually realistically.

They couldn't. No one is saying they could have. That's why it is being explained in a way that will help them understand these words [in a wholly determined universe].

It is being explained to them in the only way it was ever going to be explained to them. And they react to the explanation in the only way they were ever able too. It's not like they were ever free to grasp your explanation if they do not grasp it.

This is a given iambiguous. Your words are correct but they are repetitive. I know I know, you can't not say what you're saying. I'm hoping you will continue to listen so we can move forward rather than backtracking by saying this is the only way it could have ever have been. That's A GIVEN!

My words are repetitive because in a wholly determined universe they were never able not to be repetitive.

You are right. You have chosen to keep repeating yourself in the direction of greater satisfaction. Whether you have to repeat yourself again is up to you because before you do something, you have a choice to repeat or not to repeat. Once you make the choice, it could never have been otherwise.

Moving or not moving "forward" is in turn either embedded or not embedded in the laws of matter. What is "GIVEN!" is either everything that I think, feel, say or do, or there is in fact some measure of autonomy eked out by "I" when mindless matter reconfigured into the mindful matter embodied in the human brain.

You talk about autonomy as if being able to do, think, say, and feel cannot be done without libertarian free will. This is why clarifying terms is so important. Autonomy, as I understand it, doesn't give me free will. It just means I am making my own decisions. You are making a false distinction between mindless matter (the domino effect where we have no say in what we choose because there's no will at all) and autonomy that gives us the ability to make choices. This rift has caused a problem in the free will/determinism debate for millennium. There is no contradiction if we use the term "free" in a conversation as long as it's qualified to mean there is no physical constraint. IOW, there is nothing wrong with saying "I did this of my own free will" when it is understood to mean, "I did this 'of my own desire' because I wanted to. It doesn't mean we are free to move in the direction of less or [dis]satisfaction (which would go against the laws of our nature). Again, once a choice is made in the direction of greater satisfaction [than what the present position offers], it could not have been otherwise.

In fact, when I stress that...

...everything that we think, feel, say and do is inherently intertwined of necessity in the unfolding material universe.

EVERYthing.

You respond...

Very true.

But then you seem to qualify that...

From moment to moment every movement is controlled by a law we have no control over because we are always moving from a position of dissatisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, from point A to point B. If we were satisfied in remaining at point A, we would never move to another position, which is death.

...and I fail to grasp it. The movement from lesser to greater satisfaction is no less encompassed in everything. But human psychology has evolved such that "I" is able to convince itself that it is freely choosing to move as it does. Just as, in my dreams, I am convinced that I am calling the shots when in fact it is really only my brain creating everything in this dream world. And me in it.

Hmmm, I see why we're having problems. Do you think you could justify yourself by saying, your brain or neurons made you pull the trigger? You as the agent didn't give the consent? That's why the author wrote that NOTHING BUT NOTHING can make you do anything you don't give consent to, or anything against your will to do. This is very very important to understand before I can move forward.

[Meno_]

="peacegirl"]

I have an intuitive understanding that is sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that , it will .

What do you even mean: "Sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that, it will." And what intuitive understanding do you have?

In terms of what You may have in mind, meaning, a reinforcement of the power of the intuitive understanding of the 'should' of the transcending quality. You indicated more slant toward the quantitative reach for a hypothetical goal: with which I'm in 100 % agreement, (and now it is a sorry historical fact that the bilateral U.S.-USSR agreement has been broken) the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war, and at this point our fear coincides with more than occasional glances at the doomsday clock.

The link, is what matters, descriptively, perspectivelly, or politically . The triad that has been warned by neo-national socialists are almost identical with the one posed earlier in the years proceeding World War.II, not.overtly , but is systemically reducible. The term escapes me , and will introduce it , once I find it.

The above is intuitive and real, vis. more so, than merely stating that the symbol of that message is hardening
rather, reifying into more graspable notions.

Maybe that is why the unprecedented moves by a U.S. President to travel for meetings with a relatively insignificant political leader.

Somehow the feeling that this the direction overshadows the current one , that the military-industrial complex is taking.

The link during the cold war had created the hot line between presidents, and we have really little knowledge of the difference between the seeming cozy friendliness between Putin and Trump, which appears to again contraindicate the breakage of real political and military agreements of cooperation.

Again having no top secret credentials , one can merely guess where 'real' facts lie, and such absence of reality for most people, devolve real approximations into the realm of the symbolic or even lower. At this lowest source, if.focused, energy is magnified.

Living in a sociological pan-optic world, has been pointed out to be a.form of.paternalism, and in line with most post modern views, re-igniting the availability of needs by people as credible as Bergson et al.

Thank you for your response, but I'm not sure where this fits in to my previous post, other than to say that the doomsday clock is ticking, and that our intuition is trying to warn us of this impending doom. That's why the knowledge I am presenting is so )timely.[/quote



And Thank You, for Your response, and again point to it as possibly the expected response to object, on some basis, and the disclaimer as to its essential utility within Your intent for this forum.

I did make room for this possibility, which in fact, appears unacknowledged.

In addition, the parting shot conveyed was the alternate to this possibility, that apart from this, would be greatful to hear the proposal out forward by the double invitation to new participation, one: by literally getting on board, and two: by getting informed as to the methodology by which certainty could be attained, esp. by careful reading of the first 2 pages.

For the above two reasons, it appears, even though Your response was adequate, it conveys a sense of limiting temporal space, of which Bergson speaks in relation to the authoritarian paternalism of panoptical reactive social psychology.

Again , this may be interpreted as some restraint on compatibility , or not, but for my part it does serve little to advance an illusory emergence based on pure imagination.

Therefore, I see no need to either dispense with it , or, embrace it as a qualification to expanding consciousness in other terms.

At any rate, I look forward to an actual beginning to the proposed way to deal with the nuclear management in ways You describe as a newer proposal.

I really was surprised to hear the interpretation of my query, as basically merely fixative recurring glance at the nuclear 'doomsday' clock, which fits in to the general discussion, , and how compatibility issues , can or need at all be factored in, especially in light of the disclaimer, into it.

This is especially of interest , because of the increasing and urgent need to correlate all formal factions within a more and more spectral and multi leveled expanding problem, not to mention those that substantially can have bearing on them from without .


Thanks.

[peacegirl]

I have an intuitive understanding that is sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that , it will .

What do you even mean: "Sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that, it will." And what intuitive understanding do you have?

In terms of what You may have in mind, meaning, a reinforcement of the power of the intuitive understanding of the 'should' of the transcending quality. You indicated more slant toward the quantitative reach for a hypothetical goal: with which I'm in 100 % agreement, (and now it is a sorry historical fact that the bilateral U.S.-USSR agreement has been broken) the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war, and at this point our fear coincides with more than occasional glances at the doomsday clock.

The link, is what matters, descriptively, perspectivelly, or politically . The triad that has been warned by neo-national socialists are almost identical with the one posed earlier in the years proceeding World War.II, not.overtly , but is systemically reducible. The term escapes me , and will introduce it , once I find it.

The above is intuitive and real, vis. more so, than merely stating that the symbol of that message is hardening
rather, reifying into more graspable notions.

Maybe that is why the unprecedented moves by a U.S. President to travel for meetings with a relatively insignificant political leader.

Somehow the feeling that this the direction overshadows the current one , that the military-industrial complex is taking.

The link during the cold war had created the hot line between presidents, and we have really little knowledge of the difference between the seeming cozy friendliness between Putin and Trump, which appears to again contraindicate the breakage of real political and military agreements of cooperation.

Again having no top secret credentials , one can merely guess where 'real' facts lie, and such absence of reality for most people, devolve real approximations into the realm of the symbolic or even lower. At this lowest source, if.focused, energy is magnified.

Living in a sociological pan-optic world, has been pointed out to be a.form of.paternalism, and in line with most post modern views, re-igniting the availability of needs by people as credible as Bergson et al.

Thank you for your response, but I'm not sure where this fits in to my previous post, other than to say that the doomsday clock is ticking, and that our intuition is trying to warn us of this impending doom. That's why the knowledge I am presenting is so timely.

And Thank You, for Your response, and again point to the expected response to object, on some basis.

I did make room for this possibility, which in fact, appears unacknowledged.

In addition, the parting shot conveyed was the alternate to this possibility, that apart from this, would be greatful to hear the proposal out forward by the double invitation to new participation, one: by literally getting on board, and two: by getting informed as to the methodology by which certainty could be attained, esp. by careful reading of the first 2 pages.

For the above two reasons, it appears, even though Your response was adequate, it really conveyed a sense of limiting temporal space, of which Bergson speaks in relation to the authoritarian paternalism of panoptical reactive social psychology.

I'm not sure what you mean by the limiting of temporal space. FYI, this proposal is anything but authoritarian.

Again , this may be interpreted as some restraint on compatibility , or not, but for my part it does serve little to advance an illusory emergence based on pure imagination.

An illusory emergence? Pure imagination? This is not illusory or pure imagination.

Therefore, I see no need to either dispense with it , or, embrace it as a qualification to expanding consciousness in other terms.

At any rate, I look forward to an actual beginning to the proposed way to deal with the nuclear manage in the way You describe as a new proposal.

The reason it's so hard to imagine a world of peace is that it seems there are too many conflicts between nations to be able to achieve any real cooperation.

I really was surprised to hear the interpretation of my query, as basically a fixative recurring glance at the nuclear 'doomsday' clock, not fitting in to the general discussion, as such, and how compatibility issues , can or need at all be factored in, especially in light of the disclaimer.

Especially because the urgent need to correlate all factions within what I feel is brco ing more and more of a spectrum related, multi level problem. Thanks.

I didn't mean to say that your concerns don't have merit, but that the knowledge I'm presenting solves these multi-level problems. No one seems that interested because they are skeptical, which is understandable. But skepticism shouldn't prevent them from wanting to learn more.

[Meno_]

.....but I , we are very much interested, our veritable life may depend on it, Yours, mine, our kids, our communities and ways of life, forget my views which source from imagination, not mine, but from those archaic communes whose ethos develops from what Levi Strauss coins as based on a participation mystique, in addition to the facts people glean from serpent tongued institutions and political misadventurors and ego laden sceptical extremists! (To say the very least)

I am no such typical sceptic, assuredly.

At any rate, looking forward toward the spectral plan of development of Your thoughts, from imagination through symbol to actualization of outcome.

Hoping for no reoccurance to the 50's ' This is a test, only a test, in the event of a real nuclear emergency, please stay follow the directions.....


Resume to tune in to Your regularly scheduled programming..........

[peacegirl]

.....but I , we are very much interested, our veritable life may depend on it, Yours, mine, our kids, our communities and ways of life, forget my views which source from imagination, not mine, but from those archaic communes whose ethos develops from what Levi Strauss coins as based on a participation mystique, in addition to the facts people glean from serpent tongued institutions and political misadventurors and ego laden sceptical extremists! (To say the very least)

I am no such typical sceptic, assuredly.

At any rate, looking forward toward the spectral plan of development of Your thoughts, from imagination through symbol to actualization of outcome.

Hoping for no reoccurance to the 50's ' This is a test, only a test, in the event of a real nuclear emergency, please stay follow the directions.....


Resume to tune in to Your regularly scheduled programming..........

I posted the first three chapters but people seem reluctant to read what may be an investment of time without proof of benefit. I hope you take the time to read these chapters because they are the foundation for the rest of the book. If you feel it's too long-winded, you can skip the introduction and go right to Chapter One. I have been explaining in this thread that although man's will is not free, nothing can make him do anything against his will. These two principles (which are summarized at the end of Chapter One) are important to understand before moving to Chapter Two.

Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the 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
nature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another.

Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to.

Think about this
once again. 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? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now and what is revealed
as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something
fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no
accident but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt
that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT
MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.
And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or
principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his
will because over this his nature allows absolute control, and that his
will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of
available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will
reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has
been made.

[iambiguous]

He was clarifying that saying "I did something of my own free will" is correct when it means "I did something of my own desire because I wanted to.

But if you could never not want to...?

Correct!!!!!!!!!! There is no choice that could have been made but the choice that WAS made. Why are you trying to convince me when I know this is true?

How, in a wholly determined universe, could I reach that juncture in my life where I either choose to try to convince you or not [as you try to convince me or not] and not choose only that which I was ever going to have chosen given the manner in which my brain/mind is just another inherent component of all that can ever be understood about existence itself?

It does not mean I did something because I was compelled to do it based on previous events that forced me to do it against my will. That is an important point because determinism, as it's presently defined, implies that we are forced, against our will, to do what we do based on antecedent factors, when NOTHING has the power to make us to anything against our will. We have absolute control over this.

And if our "will" is but one more of nature's dominoes toppling over [necessarily] into the choices we make in any particular context...?

The domino analogy is problematic because it presupposes the agent is nonexistent.

No, it presupposes that any agent/entity [from subatomic particles to human beings to the multiverse] is quite the opposite of problematic. All is only as it was ever going to be given that all is only as it ever could have been.

And, from my frame of mind, even given some measure of autonomy, the "will" is embedded in the existential contraption that intertwines dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in the is/ought world. A world where value judgments collide all the time.

The reason you're having a problem is because you are relinquishing the agent altogether, are you not?

As though my "relinquishing" is not in turn only as it ever must be. It's just that when the agent/entity evolves into the human brain/mind it necessarily acquires a psychological component that predisposes it to think that it is choosing freely. Again, in the manner in which I construe a determined universe. When, in fact, "I" may not be wholly determined at all.

I don't think you think you are, but actually I think you are not taking into consideration that choices are made not by antecedent events that force a chess move; they are choices made in the present based on what a person is considering.

Unless, of course, the person in the present is considering only that which it was only ever able to consider. And then acting on that consideration in the only manner in which it was ever able to. Like imagining chess pieces with brains. They are aware of having moved as they do but they were never able to not move as they do.

Think about this once again. 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? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point. Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

This makes sense to him, to you. To me though [in a wholly determined universe] it does not.

Obviously Gandhi's choice was wholly determined, so where is your disagreement? He chose [in the direction of what gave him greater satisfaction among the alternatives available to him] to be killed rather than to give up his fight for freedom. Where does any of this comment dispute "a wholly determined universe?"

He didn't chose to be killed in the manner in which one chooses to be killed given some measure of human autonomy. In the latter instance he was able to choose not to be killed. Here in my view choice is circumscribed/circumvented by the components of my own argument: dasein, conflicting goods and political power. The assumption is that "I" has some capacity to choose freely but only as an existential contraption.

Either Ghandi's choices in the world back then might have been other than what they were...and history been changed...or they were always going to be what they were and history unfolded only as it ever could have.

We either have free will or we don't. Just because our world is developing and different choices are made at different times in history that are different from what we would choose now, does not alter the FACT that we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of our lives. I will state one last time, who is arguing with you iambiguous that everything unfolds as it could only ever be?

So Ghandi moved in the only direction that he was ever able to move. You call this him moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Why? Because that is the only reaction that you were ever able to have. This exchange is necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe and it embodies the "greater satisfaction" of both of us. But somehow you make it appear as though my reaction to all of this should be more in sync with your reaction. That somehow my missing your point is more egregious than you missing mine. Even though in choosing the points that we do we are necessarily in sync with our wholly determined existence. Necessarily in sync with whatever explains the existence of existence itself.

Admittedly, I may well be unable to grasp this point, but like the point above, it makes no sense to me in a wholly determined universe. Either the folks here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghrai ... oner_abuse -- were choosing and behaving of their own volition and history may well have been different, or there was never a way in which history here could have unfolded other than the way it did.

History is what it is. It could not have been any different. The problem you're having is you're belief that I'm trying to change what could never be. That's not what I'm doing. I'm just stating a simple comment that if a person doesn't want to do something, nothing but nothing can make him do it. That's it. Please take in what I'm saying because it doesn't conflict with anything you're saying, but it's an important point as you will see if we get to move forward.

All I can do here is to appeal to others:

What really important point do I keep missing here? Assuming that we do live in a wholly determined universe. Which, from my frame of mind, assumes that I could never have not missed it.

What we want to do under torture would seem [to me] to be no less what we could only ever have wanted to do if "I" here is embedded in a wholly determined universe. Just as the one inflicting the torture could not have chosen not to inflict it.

Yes, you're right. The author said this in Chapter One, which you didn't read because you don't think it's worth your time.

Sigh....

I chose not to read it because I could never have chosen not to not read it. Not because others compelled me to not read it but because all of my choices must be in sync with the manner in which all matter necessarily unfolds [including my brain/mind] in a wholly determined universe.

Isn't this why dualism has always been an important consideration in philosophy? How is the mind [or for some the soul] not just the brain?

What freaks people out about this is the idea that no one can ever be held morally responsible for something they could never have not done. But they are, in turn, freaked out only because they could never have not been freaked out.

I agree. They had to be freaked out but that doesn't mean they have to continue to be freaked out out once they understand the true meaning of determinism and the amazing knowledge that lies behind that heremetically sealed door.

Okay, but, if, one day, they are not freaked out, it is only because their new understanding was always going to be a part of a future that could only ever be. The past, present and future of "I" --- how is it really different [for all practical purposes] from the past, present and future of those dominoes set up by an individual who was no less set up by the laws of nature. How [to nature] is "I" not just a thinking domino?

...of late the news here in America has been splattered with accounts of Trump's national emergency aimed at building a wall on the border with Mexico.

Given the assessment above what are the players in this political conflict actually choosing autonomously [freely] to think, feel, say or do.

Is this all unfolding necessarily per nature's immutable laws or can minds be changed and new policies pursued.

Of course minds can change according to new information. That being said, everything is being played out as it has to be, but that doesn't mean war has to continue, hate has to continue, poverty has to continue, crime has to continue, once we are given the knowledge how to prevent these occurrences from continuing.

No, these things don't have to continue. But in however they do continue it won't be because of anything that you and I and others were able to freely choose to do. The dominoes toppling over onto each other may not make it to the end. A mistake in setting them up was made. But [per nature] the one setting them up was never able to not make that mistake. For both the dominoes and the one setting them up the past, present and future are what they are. What they were only ever going to be. The same with war. Any war.

I'm less keen on definitions then on the extent to which any particular definition is brought down to earth. Our consent [regarding anything we think, feel, say, do] is either embedded in some measure of autonomy, volition, free will etc., or it is wholly in sync with a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

No conflict here.

No conflict and yet our reaction to these relationships are different. With respect to either an autonomous world or a wholly determined world. Yet both would seem to be subsumed only as they ever could have been in a determined world.

Me, I situate human interactions of this sort in my own understanding of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a No God world in which I take my leap to some measure of autonomy.

Having this type of autonomy does not step outside of natural law.

This makes sense to me only to the extent that, in seeking greater satisfaction, I was able to choose not to think as I do. Because in thinking like this it brings me anything but a feeling of being satisfied.

You are satisfied to be here otherwise you wouldn't be here. You are able to choose not to answer me, not to engage, not to argue, not to debate, etc. You have absolute control over walking away, and there is nothing I could do to convince you otherwise, if your mind is made up. Nothing has the power to make you do what you don't want to do, for over this you have absolute control, but this does not make your will free. I don't know if you grasp this or not.

But: I could only have been satisfied in a determined universe. I have "absolute control" only in the sense that you were compelled by the laws of matter to say this. You could never have chosen freely not to say it. My mind was made up from the moment that existence itself began to unfold only as it ever could have given these laws of matter.

Our brains would appear to be [up to now] matter able to become conscious of itself as matter having evolved over time given the evolution of life on earth. Life somehow having evolved from mindless matter. How then is mindful matter different from mindless matter? That's always been the gist of it here. Are human brains able to choose differently from those acts of nature that appear to be completely mindless?

Humans are able to think and ponder and ruminate. In this respect humans differ from other species. Call it whatever you want. Bottom line: We are developing and we are progressing as we have always done from the beginning of time. Eventually this new world is going to become a reality not because of anything I'm saying, but because this is the law of our nature.

So, in some distant future that could only ever have been what it is, this new world will have progressed such that behaviors that you find unappealling will have given way to those behaviors that you do?

Is that actually what you are saying? Even though as this all unfolds "we, as agents, have no say in what we choose."

My telling you that you keep making the same point may alter your next choice, as part of your consideration.

But: Could you have ever chosen not to tell me this point? Could I ever reacted to it [over and over again] other than as I did/do/will?

Nothing up to this very instant could have been done differently.

Same thing tomorrow? next week? next month? next year? All the way up to the day we die? Nothing could have been done differently?

Back again to you insisting that, "nothing can force us to choose something we don't want to choose." And then you acknowledging that all that we come to want is all that we could only have come to want.

Unless I am misunderstanding how you connect the dots here. Given that somehow I had the capacity to not misunderstand this.

And, as for "really listening" to what you're saying, there are some folks who tell you this, but what they mean is, "if you were really listening to me, you would agree with me."

So is this about you're wanting to be right at all costs, or is this about trying to understand what this discovery has to offer before telling me I'm wrong?

Well, if I did want to be right at all cost, I could never have not wanted to be. Right?

But my point is always that none of us have the capacity to claim that because none of us are able to demonstrate what actually is in fact right here going back to the explanation for existence itself.

We don't even have the capacity to fully demonstrate that this exchange itself is unfolding either only as it ever could have or as we freely choose to twist and turn it.

Instead we have these arguments embedded tautologically in the assumptions we make about the definition and the meaning of words put in a particular order.

The faculty of using one's will to make a choice from our present position that has grown uncomfortable to the next position we are now standing on does not in any way, shape, or form grant us freedom of the will where choice is free from our environment, genetics, and predispositions.

Sometimes this seems reasonable to me and sometimes it does not. The distinction I tend to focus on is the one between the either/or world and the is/ought world --- in a No God world in which the assumption is made that I do have access to some measure of autonomy.

[peacegirl]

He was clarifying that saying "I did something of my own free will" is correct when it means "I did something of my own desire because I wanted to.

But if you could never not want to...?

Correct!!!!!!!!!! There is no choice that could have been made but the choice that WAS made. Why are you trying to convince me when I know this is true?

How, in a wholly determined universe, could I reach that juncture in my life where I either choose to try to convince you or not [as you try to convince me or not] and not choose only that which I was ever going to have chosen given the manner in which my brain/mind is just another inherent component of all that can ever be understood about existence itself?

By defining determinism in this way, you are abdicating all responsibility for any choice made since, according to your definition, it's not you doing the choosing; you're just going along for the ride. Your definition of determinism differs from mine which is why we aren't on the same page.

It does not mean I did something because I was compelled to do it based on previous events that forced me to do it against my will. That is an important point because determinism, as it's presently defined, implies that we are forced, against our will, to do what we do based on antecedent factors, when NOTHING has the power to make us to anything against our will. We have absolute control over this.

And if our "will" is but one more of nature's dominoes toppling over [necessarily] into the choices we make in any particular context...?

The domino analogy is problematic because it presupposes the agent is nonexistent.

No, it presupposes that any agent/entity [from subatomic particulars to human beings to the multiverse] is quite the opposite of problematic. All is only as it was ever going to be given that all is only as it ever could have been.

It's not problematic in the sense that everything is mapped out the way it had to be mapped out, but it is problematic (which many philosophers worried about) in that a person could just excuse himself by saying, "I couldn't help shooting that person because my will is not free." That's what Johnathon Schooler's experiment tried to show when college students were told their will isn't free. But there is an interesting take on this which needs explaining.

And, from my frame of mind, even given some measure of autonomy, the "will" is embedded in the existential contraption that intertwines dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in the is/ought world. A world where value judgments collide all the time.

The reason you're having a problem is because you are relinquishing the agent altogether, are you not?

As though my "relinquishing" is not in turn only as it ever must be. It's just that when the agent/entity evolves into the human brain/mind it necessarily acquires a psychological component that predisposes it to think that it is choosing freely. Again, in the manner in which I construe a determined universe. When, in fact, "I" may not be wholly determined at all.

Maybe the idea that we have free will is because we have choice, and people don't usually think beyond that unless they are interested in this topic and go deeper. Relinquishing the agent appears to be what you construe as determinism. I am saying that having agency does not negate determinism.

I don't think you think you are, but actually I think you are not taking into consideration that choices are made not by antecedent events that force a chess move; they are choices made in the present based on what a person is considering.

Unless, of course, the person in the present is considering only that which it was only ever able to consider. And then acting on that consideration in the only manner in which it was ever able to. Like imagining chess pieces with brains. They are aware of having moved as they do but they were never able to not move as they do.

That is true, they would be aware of having moved as they did and that they were never able to NOT move as they did. But before a move is made, they have a choice. Compatibilists call this free will, which it is not. The word 'choice' though is misleading for it makes it appear that there is more than one possibility. In actuality, this is a delusion since the choice that is made (out of necessity) has to be the choice that gives greater satisfaction after all options are considered.

Think about this once again. 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? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point. Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

This makes sense to him, to you. To me though [in a wholly determined universe] it does not.

Obviously Gandhi's choice was wholly determined, so where is your disagreement? He chose [in the direction of what gave him greater satisfaction among the alternatives available to him] to be killed rather than to give up his fight for freedom. Where does any of this comment dispute "a wholly determined universe?"

He didn't chose to be killed in the manner in which one chooses to be killed given some measure of human autonomy. In the latter instance he was able to choose not to be killed. Here in my view choice is circumscribed/circumvented by the components of my own argument: dasein, conflicting goods and political power. The assumption is that "I" has some capacity to choose freely but only as an existential contraption.

Gandhi was able to choose not to be killed (that was one of the choices available to him) but not at the cost of losing his freedom, and no ultimatum by his captors could make him do what he didn't want to do when unafraid of death. I'm not sure where your comment regarding conflicting goods and political power comes into play. We know the capacity to choose freely is false even though it often appears as if we're making a free choice.

Either Ghandi's choices in the world back then might have been other than what they were...and history been changed...or they were always going to be what they were and history unfolded only as it ever could have.

We either have free will or we don't. Just because our world is developing and different choices are made at different times in history that are different from what we would choose now, does not alter the FACT that we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction every moment of our lives. I will state one last time, who is arguing with you iambiguous that everything unfolds as it could only ever be?

So Ghandi moved in the only direction that he was ever able to move. You call this him moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Why? Because that is the only reaction that you were ever able to have.

Because I'm explaining a more accurate definition of determinism, and yes, it's the only reaction that I was ever able to have.

This exchange is necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe and it embodies the "greater satisfaction" of both of us. But somehow you make it appear as though my reaction to all of this should be more in sync with your reaction. That somehow my missing your point is more egregious than you missing mine. Even though in choosing the points that we do we are necessarily in sync with our wholly determined existence. Necessarily in sync with whatever explains the existence of existence itself.

I'm not missing your point, and I'm not saying one is more egregious than another. I'm saying one is more accurate. You cannot leave out the agent, and yet you obviously have no choice but to believe that agency equals free will. That is wrong and that is why my definition of "greater satisfaction" is a more accurate definition. Nothing can cause you to make the choices you make even in a wholly determined universe. You make the choices you make in the direction of greater preference or satisfaction based on the options under consideration, and yet still part of a wholly determined universe.

Admittedly, I may well be unable to grasp this point, but like the point above, it makes no sense to me in a wholly determined universe. Either the folks here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghrai ... oner_abuse -- were choosing and behaving of their own volition and history may well have been different, or there was never a way in which history here could have unfolded other than the way it did.

History is what it is. It could not have been any different. The problem you're having is you're belief that I'm trying to change what could never be. That's not what I'm doing. I'm just stating a simple comment that if a person doesn't want to do something, nothing but nothing can make him do it. That's it. Please take in what I'm saying because it doesn't conflict with anything you're saying, but it's an important point as you will see if we get to move forward.

All I can do here is to appeal to others:

[b]What really important point do I keep missing here? Assuming that we do live in a wholly determined universe. Which, from my frame of mind, assumes that I could never have not missed it./b]

What we want to do under torture would seem [to me] to be no less what we could only ever have wanted to do if "I" here is embedded in a wholly determined universe. Just as the one inflicting the torture could not have chosen not to inflict it.

Yes, you're right. The author said this in Chapter One, which you didn't read because you don't think it's worth your time.

Sigh....

I chose not to read it because I could never have chosen not to not read it. Not because others compelled me to not read it but because all of my choices must be in sync with the manner in which all matter necessarily unfolds [including my brain/mind] in a wholly determined universe.

That necessary unfolding has to do with the only choice possible (i.e., the choice that is the most preferable, not the least preferable). That is what your brain/mind has no choice but to do.

Isn't this why dualism has always been an important consideration in philosophy? How is the mind [or for some the soul] not just the brain?

Whether one thinks of the mind as metaphysical and the brain as physical does not change the fact that man's will is not free because of the mind/brain compulsion to choose the option which offers the greatest satisfaction among the alternatives under consideration, even if it's the lesser of two evils.

You are your brain, but you are making it appear that your brain is separate from YOU (the self that you call "I") and doing something without your consent. Your brain and you are one entity.

What freaks people out about this is the idea that no one can ever be held morally responsible for something they could never have not done. But they are, in turn, freaked out only because they could never have not been freaked out.

I agree. They had to be freaked out but that doesn't mean they have to continue to be freaked out out once they understand the true meaning of determinism and the amazing knowledge that lies behind that heremetically sealed door.

Okay, but, if, one day, they are not freaked out, it is only because their new understanding was always going to be a part of a future that could only ever be. The past, present and future of "I" --- how is it really different [for all practical purposes] from the past, present and future of those dominoes set up by an individual who was no less set up by the laws of nature. How [to nature] is "I" not just a thinking domino?

Because we are not just being knocked over by a domino. We are able to consider options, dominoes can't, and although the choices we make are not free, we are responsible for those choices, not in a judgmental or blameworthy way, but in a way that says we made the choice. This is important as you will see if we ever get there. If you were a domino, you could not assume responsibility for falling over because you were being caused to fall by another domino. You will probably respond by saying that whether it was an external push or just part of the brain doing what it does, they are both part of the unfolding of deterministic law. I am not disagreeing with that, but there is a difference in so far as responsibility. If you get pushed to the ground by someone, no one is going to say that you were responsible for falling. If you failed to tie your shoelaces and fall to the ground, someone will say it was your responsibility for falling. This doesn't mean it could have been any different. It's just an effort to show where the responsibility lies, nothing more.

...of late the news here in America has been splattered with accounts of Trump's national emergency aimed at building a wall on the border with Mexico.

Given the assessment above what are the players in this political conflict actually choosing autonomously [freely] to think, feel, say or do.

Is this all unfolding necessarily per nature's immutable laws or can minds be changed and new policies pursued.

The political conflict is no different than any other conflict. People disagree due to their political, religious, and national persuasions, but this doesn't mean new new policies can't be pursued. In fact, in the new world very little government will be needed and no one will be hurt by this lack of government. You can't even begin to envision how this is possible because you haven't read the book or understand the foundational principles that would make this possible.

Of course minds can change according to new information. That being said, everything is being played out as it has to be, but that doesn't mean war has to continue, hate has to continue, poverty has to continue, crime has to continue, once we are given the knowledge how to prevent these occurrences from continuing.

No, these things don't have to continue. But in however they do continue it won't be because of anything that you and I and others were able to freely choose to do.

Absolutely true, but you think in terms of your input in the choices you make, making no difference because you're just a robot choosing without thought. That is not how it is.

The dominoes toppling over onto each other may not make it to the end. A mistake in setting them up was made. But [per nature] the one setting them up was never able to not make that mistake. For both the dominoes and the one setting them up the past, present and future are what they are. What they were only ever going to be. The same with war. Any war.

Everything was necessary, but now that we have knowledge (knowledge has always helped us to make progress in all fields of endeavor), we can change the trajectory of where we are headed and still be within the domain of determinism.

I'm less keen on definitions then on the extent to which any particular definition is brought down to earth. Our consent [regarding anything we think, feel, say, do] is either embedded in some measure of autonomy, volition, free will etc., or it is wholly in sync with a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

No conflict here.

No conflict and yet our reaction to these relationships are different. With respect to either an autonomous world or a wholly determined world. Yet both would seem to be subsumed only as they ever could have been in a determined world.

Autonomy, or doing things on your own without help from others, does not grant you any kind of free will. The two words are not mutually exclusive.

Me, I situate human interactions of this sort in my own understanding of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a No God world in which I take my leap to some measure of autonomy.

You can have your autonomy without stepping into a libertarian free will world that doesn't exist. I don't know why you feel you can't have both without there being a conflict. Again, it's probably due to how you define autonomy.

Having this type of autonomy does not step outside of natural law.

This makes sense to me only to the extent that, in seeking greater satisfaction, I was able to choose not to think as I do. Because in thinking like this it brings me anything but a feeling of being satisfied.

You are satisfied to be here otherwise you wouldn't be here. You are able to choose not to answer me, not to engage, not to argue, not to debate, etc. You have absolute control over walking away, and there is nothing I could do to convince you otherwise, if your mind is made up. Nothing has the power to make you do what you don't want to do, for over this you have absolute control, but this does not make your will free. I don't know if you grasp this or not.

But: I could only have been satisfied in a determined universe. I have "absolute control" only in the sense that you were compelled by the laws of matter to say this. You could never have chosen freely not to say it. My mind was made up from the moment that existence itself began to unfold only as it ever could have given these laws of matter.

Your mind was made up, but you didn't know what choice would be until it was chosen. It is true that we are predestined to do what we could not not do, but it's exciting because we don't know what those choices will be given all of the factors that will come into play on a day to day basis.

Our brains would appear to be [up to now] matter able to become conscious of itself as matter having evolved over time given the evolution of life on earth. Life somehow having evolved from mindless matter. How then is mindful matter different from mindless matter? That's always been the gist of it here. Are human brains able to choose differently from those acts of nature that appear to be completely mindless?

Humans are able to think and ponder and ruminate. In this respect humans differ from other species. Call it whatever you want. Bottom line: We are developing and we are progressing as we have always done from the beginning of time. Eventually this new world is going to become a reality not because of anything I'm saying, but because this is the law of our nature.

So, in some distant future that could only ever have been what it is, this new world will have progressed such that behaviors that you find unappealling will have given way to those behaviors that you do?

Is that actually what you are saying? Even though as this all unfolds "we, as agents, have no say in what we choose."

Everything we do is following the laws of determinism, which only means we must choose, out of necessity, what gives us greater satisfaction. If you keep this in mind I can show you the extension of this knowledge, and why what gives us greater satisfaction will be altered due to beneficial changes in the environment.

My telling you that you keep making the same point may alter your next choice, as part of your consideration.

But: Could you have ever chosen not to tell me this point? Could I ever reacted to it [over and over again] other than as I did/do/will?

Nothing up to this very instant could have been done differently.

Same thing tomorrow? next week? next month? next year? All the way up to the day we die? Nothing could have been done differently?

Absolutely true, but this does not mean that factors won't come into play that will cause great leaps in our progress, all within the domain of determinism.

Back again to you insisting that, "nothing can force us to choose something we don't want to choose." And then you acknowledging that all that we come to want is all that we could only have come to want.

Unless I am misunderstanding how you connect the dots here. Given that somehow I had the capacity to not misunderstand this.

This was explained in Chapter One. All it means is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. There is no contradiction here.

Though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just
pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction.

And, as for "really listening" to what you're saying, there are some folks who tell you this, but what they mean is, "if you were really listening to me, you would agree with me."

So is this about you're wanting to be right at all costs, or is this about trying to understand what this discovery has to offer before telling me I'm wrong?

Well, if I did want to be right at all cost, I could never have not wanted to be. Right?

Right.

But my point is always that none of us have the capacity to claim that because none of us are able to demonstrate what actually is in fact right here going back to the explanation for existence itself.

The only thing we can claim is what we have the capacity to figure out. Some things are beyond ability to comprehend, but we do have the intellectual capacity to figure out how to prevent war and crime. That's amazing in and of itself.

We don't even have the capacity to fully demonstrate that this exchange itself is unfolding either only as it ever could have or as we freely choose to twist and turn it.

This exchange is unfolding only as it ever could have, but we also have the capacity to choose but not freely.

Instead we have these arguments embedded tautologically in the assumptions we make about the definition and the meaning of words put in a particular order.

Definitions mean nothing, words mean nothing, where reality is concerned unless those words and definitions reflect reality.

The faculty of using one's will to make a choice from our present position that has grown uncomfortable to the next position we are now standing on does not in any way, shape, or form grant us freedom of the will where choice is free from our environment, genetics, and predispositions.

Sometimes this seems reasonable to me and sometimes it does not. The distinction I tend to focus on is the one between the either/or world and the is/ought world --- in a No God world in which the assumption is made that I do have access to some measure of autonomy.

You have autonomy to do what you want to do, as long as your choices are not constrained by physical force. Even drug addicts are under a compulsion but they still have a choice to not take drugs, albeit difficult as we know it is to break an addiction. Having choice is what most people think free will to be. But, as we know, we don't have a free choice to pick what is the least preferable among the alternatives that are under our present consideration.

[Meno_]

.....but I , we are very much interested, our veritable life may depend on it, Yours, mine, our kids, our communities and ways of life, forget my views which source from imagination, not mine, but from those archaic communes whose ethos develops from what Levi Strauss coins as based on a participation mystique, in addition to the facts people glean from serpent tongued institutions and political misadventurors and ego laden sceptical extremists! (To say the very least)

I am no such typical sceptic, assuredly.

At any rate, looking forward toward the spectral plan of development of Your thoughts, from imagination through symbol to actualization of outcome.

Hoping for no reoccurance to the 50's ' This is a test, only a test, in the event of a real nuclear emergency, please stay follow the directions.....


Resume to tune in to Your regularly scheduled programming..........

I posted the first three chapters but people seem reluctant to read what may be an investment of time without proof of benefit. I hope you take the time to read these chapters because they are the foundation for the rest of the book. If you feel it's too long-winded, you can skip the introduction and go right to Chapter One. I have been explaining in this thread that although man's will is not free, nothing can make him do anything against his will. These two principles (which are summarized at the end of Chapter One) are important to understand before moving to Chapter Two.

Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the 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
nature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another.

Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to.

Think about this
once again. 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? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now and what is revealed
as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something
fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no
accident but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt
that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT
MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.
And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or
principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his
will because over this his nature allows absolute control, and that his
will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of
available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will
reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has
been made.

Sorry, I withdrew some unprepared material.

[peacegirl]

No problem.

[iambiguous]

"Compatibilism"

Craig Ross in Philosophy Now magazine

Imagine that...one had a disposition for random acts of extreme violence. Is one better off by having the wit to see that the .357 Magnum is overrated and that the 9mm is similarly effective, but with more shots? If one had the murderous impulses of an Eichmann or a Himmler, is one’s situation necessarily improved by being able to flexibly respond to the logistical problems of machine-gunning large numbers of people? Is the murderous intelligence involved in industrialising genocide ever a gain? Similarly, if we knew that we were going to have passions that we have not chosen, is it obvious that we would ask for the ability to pursue these passions flexibly and imaginatively? Perhaps if we knew that we were to have unknown passions and be held responsible for our actions, we would choose to be incompetent. Perhaps the priority would be first to do no harm: one could not risk being good at being bad.

How is having a "disposition for random acts of extreme violence" different from having a "predisposition" for the same? How wide is the gap here between them given this particular tendency? In a universe where human autonomy was actually able to be measured, a disposition/predisposition for acts of violence would be construed by me as an "existential contraption".

But in a wholly determined universe there would seem to be no existential contraptions in the manner in which I construe them. There is only the contraption that is existence itself unfolding in its entirety only as it ever can.

In other words, anything that we come to know about the passions that we have is only that which we were ever going to know.

So, all of this speculation would in turn seem to be but one more necessary component of that.

[Meno_]

You couldn't conceive of an existential contraption on the same page, if seeking difference between disposition and predisposition. I hope to explain this .


A predisposition, once differentiated from merely a disposition, can not entail anything on the order of dispositing factors, dice they are not contraptions, other than natural ones.

However, natural phenomenon can not be the product of existential markers, by definition.

Best I can do.

[iambiguous]

It's all about the language. Ask any compatibilist what the difference is in his view, and you will see he makes a distinction between physical coercion and being compelled to choose. I don't make that distinction because, like you said, both involve compulsion.

Of what though? Of everything that we think, feel, say and do?

Basically we're on the same page. I was only adding a qualification which is significant. It doesn't change the fact that what we do, say, feel, and think are not of our own free will. It just means that nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will. That's what the standard definition of determinism implies, which then clouds who is responsible for an action. If the agent isn't responsible for pulling the trigger, who is? It doesn't mean he's to blame; it just means he is the one that pulled the trigger. That's all I wanted to establish.

On the same page perhaps...but in the same book?

"...nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will."

Yet, from my frame of mind, in a determined universe, everything compels us to do what we do.

In that everything in the universe is an inherent, necessary component of existence itself. In other words, if that is actually true.

"Blame" here is just another domino.

If so, what does that seem to suggest then about this very exchange that we are having? What is not compelled here --- even though no one has a gun to our head demanding that we type these particular words.

You're absolutely right, we are compelled to be here because we want to be here...

...and we want to be here only because we could never have not wanted to be here. Nothing escapes here. It is always everything that we think, feel, say and do.

If we didn't want to be here, we would choose NOT to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction.

And this [to me] is precisely the point that the free will folks will make. When you make it however I just get confused all over again.

What you need to bear in mind is that the agent (the I, the self, the decision maker) is responsible for making his decisions because nothing other than the agent can force a choice on him without his permission.

Unlike the domino, the agent "I" chooses to topple over in behaving in particular ways. But like the domino, it topples over only as it ever and always must.

So, sure, if you focus on the word "choose" then "I" is clearly not a domino. But nothing changes. The reality that is existence unfolds for both the domino and "I" in the only way that was ever possible, permissible given a complete understanding of the laws of matter.

In other words, he can't say "my heredity made me do it, my history made me do it, my environment made me do it, my synapses made me do it, because nothing has the power to make him do anything he, AS THE DECISION MAKER, DOESN'T WANT TO DO. You will see why this is important, and it doesn't conflict with the laws of matter.

But how does he make a distinction between "I" and all of those components other than as he is compelled to? If nothing changes in his life because nothing was ever able to change what can ever really be more or less important?

I'm lost again. How is their reaction to this "more careful clarification" not in turn on par with them having been deceived before? They were either always going to be helped by it or they weren't.

Who is saying anything could be any different? But I'm hoping that with further clarification people will want to learn more to see how this law of our nature plays out hypothetically and eventually realistically.

But: How is further clarification not in the same boat as the previous clarification?

My words are repetitive because in a wholly determined universe they were never able not to be repetitive.

You are right. You have chosen to keep repeating yourself in the direction of greater satisfaction. Whether you have to repeat yourself again is up to you because before you do something, you have a choice to repeat or not to repeat. Once you make the choice, it could never have been otherwise.

You say it is up to me but is it ever really up to me to choose not to be repetitive?

This all sort of reminds me of the arguments that religious folks make in regard to reconciling the free will of mere mortals with an omniscient God. God knows all but I am still free to do what I choose because once I do it I could never have chosen not to do it. Or something like that.

It's all a world of words. I am still unable to connect the dots between them and the behaviors that I think I may or may not be free to choose.

Autonomy, as I understand it, doesn't give me free will. It just means I am making my own decisions.

Yet the dictionary lists the following synonyms for it: choice, free will, self-determination, volition

You are either making decisions that you could have chosen not to make or you aren't.

You are making a false distinction between mindless matter (the domino effect where we have no say in what we choose because there's no will at all) and autonomy that gives us the ability to make choices.

I am making the only distinction that I was ever able to "choose" to make. In a determined universe.

I have a say the way tides have a say in rising and falling wholly in sync with the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon. Brain matter may extraordinary but it is no less in tune with the laws of matters.

Unlike the tides, I do something because I desire to do it. But I was never able to not desire to do it.

In fact, when I stress that...

...everything that we think, feel, say and do is inherently intertwined of necessity in the unfolding material universe.

EVERYthing.

You respond...

Very true.

But then you seem to qualify that...

From moment to moment every movement is controlled by a law we have no control over because we are always moving from a position of dissatisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, from point A to point B. If we were satisfied in remaining at point A, we would never move to another position, which is death.

...and I fail to grasp it. The movement from lesser to greater satisfaction is no less encompassed in everything. But human psychology has evolved such that "I" is able to convince itself that it is freely choosing to move as it does. Just as, in my dreams, I am convinced that I am calling the shots when in fact it is really only my brain creating everything in this dream world. And me in it.

Hmmm, I see why we're having problems. Do you think you could justify yourself by saying, your brain or neurons made you pull the trigger.

Justification is just another domino though. I can only justify or not justify that which the laws of matter propel me to. My "consent" is a given.

You as the agent didn't give the consent?

In a determined universe [as I understand it] "I" give consent in the manner in which the heart gives consent to beat. The brain is just another internal organ in a body that is just another component of existence unfolding.

That's why the author wrote that NOTHING BUT NOTHING can make you do anything you don't give consent to, or anything against your will to do. This is very very important to understand before I can move forward.

Again, as though I am able to think this through...only this time I choose to understand your point.

Is that or is that not precisely the point that the free-will folks will make?

[peacegirl]

It's all about the language. Ask any compatibilist what the difference is in his view, and you will see he makes a distinction between physical coercion and being compelled to choose. I don't make that distinction because, like you said, both involve compulsion.

Of what though? Of everything that we think, feel, say and do?

Basically we're on the same page. I was only adding a qualification which is significant. It doesn't change the fact that what we do, say, feel, and think are not of our own free will. It just means that nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will. That's what the standard definition of determinism implies, which then clouds who is responsible for an action. If the agent isn't responsible for pulling the trigger, who is? It doesn't mean he's to blame; it just means he is the one that pulled the trigger. That's all I wanted to establish.

On the same page perhaps...but in the same book?

"...nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will."

Yet, from my frame of mind, in a determined universe, everything compels us to do what we do.

That is very true.

In that everything in the universe is an inherent, necessary component of existence itself. In other words, if that is actually true.

It is definitely true.

"Blame" here is just another domino.

Until people learn that it isn't useful. Then it won't be just another domino.

If so, what does that seem to suggest then about this very exchange that we are having? What is not compelled here --- even though no one has a gun to our head demanding that we type these particular words.

You're absolutely right, we are compelled to be here because we want to be here...

...and we want to be here only because we could never have not wanted to be here. Nothing escapes here. It is always everything that we think, feel, say and do.

We could never have not wanted to be here because it gave us greater satisfaction TO BE HERE. When the options provided to us give us a better choice than to be here, we will no longer choose to be here, in the direction of greater satisfaction.

If we didn't want to be here, we would choose NOT to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction.

And this [to me] is precisely the point that the free will folks will make. When you make it however I just get confused all over again.

There's nothing to be confused about. It's really rather simple but you're making it confusing because you're thinking that if we make choices as autonomous individuals (i.e., without external constraint), then that's what free will is, but that's not what free will is.

What you need to bear in mind is that the agent (the I, the self, the decision maker) is responsible for making his decisions because nothing other than the agent can force a choice on him without his permission.

Unlike the domino, the agent "I" chooses to topple over in behaving in particular ways. But like the domino, it topples over only as it ever and always must.

So, sure, if you focus on the word "choose" then "I" am clearly not a domino. But nothing changes. The reality that is existence unfolds for both the domino and "I" in the only way that was ever possible, permissible given a complete understanding of the laws of matter.

The only difference is that we, as humans, are able to contemplate before a choice is made. It doesn't change the direction we must go, or the fact that life unfolds according to natural law.

In other words, he can't say "my heredity made me do it, my history made me do it, my environment made me do it, my synapses made me do it, because nothing has the power to make him do anything he, AS THE DECISION MAKER, DOESN'T WANT TO DO. You will see why this is important, and it doesn't conflict with the laws of matter.

But how does he make a distinction between "I" and all of those components other than as he is compelled to?

Only that the "I" is the one that makes choices, which are based on all of the pros and cons being considered when making a choice. The "I" is different only in the sense that we are able to contemplate, ruminate, think ahead, etc. The "I" or "self" is still following its course as it unfolds and as it could ever be. But as we gain new knowledge, we can learn ways to stop the domino, so to speak, (e.g., the wars, the poverty, the crime, etc.) from knocking us down in ways that we don't want and can prevent.

If nothing changes in his life because nothing was ever able to change what can ever really be more or less important?

This is not about what is less or more important, right and wrong, good and bad intrinsically. This is about understanding our nature so that we can use it for our betterment, all in the direction of what must unfold necessarily since we are compelled to move toward what is better, not worse, for ourselves. If you had a choice, wouldn't you choose joy over sorrow, peace over war, health over sickness, sustenance over poverty? If you could choose either/or, would you really be given a choice?

I'm lost again. How is their reaction to this "more careful clarification" not in turn on par with them having been deceived before? They were either always going to be helped by it or they weren't.

Who is saying anything could be any different? But I'm hoping that with further clarification people will want to learn more to see how this law of our nature plays out hypothetically and eventually realistically.

But: How is further clarification not in the same boat as the previous clarification?

It is in the same boat, but sometimes it doesn't become clear until further clarification is made. Haven't you ever read a book a second time and got more out of it than the first time?

My words are repetitive because in a wholly determined universe they were never able not to be repetitive.

You are right. You have chosen to keep repeating yourself in the direction of greater satisfaction. Whether you have to repeat yourself again is up to you because before you do something, you have a choice to repeat or not to repeat. Once you make the choice, it could never have been otherwise.

You say it is up to me but is it ever really up to me to choose not to be repetitive?

It is up to you, but only if you want to be less repetitive.

This all sort of reminds me of the arguments that religious folks make in regard to reconciling the free will of mere mortals with an omniscient God. God knows all but I am still free to do what I choose because once I do it I could never have chosen not to do it. Or something like that.

If you could never have chosen not to do it, where are you free? This has nothing to do with the kind of free will that religious folks believe we have. Remember, just because we aren't constrained by external force doesn't mean we aren't compelled to choose only that option that is the most preferable given our particular circumstances. We're all different to a degree so what you may find preferable may not be what I find preferable.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point...he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
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.

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.”

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the
yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently, my
taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater
satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes
me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate
that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple —
I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”

It's all a world of words. I am still unable to connect the dots between them and the behaviors that I think I may or may not be free to choose.

The word free is misleading because everything we do we are compelled to do. Even scratching an itch, or changing position are all part of movement away from that which dissatisfies to a more satisfying position, which is life. We cannot move in a direction that is worse for ourselves [in our eyes] when a better option is available. Could you not satisfy an itch by scratching it in order to relieve the uncomfortable position you were in? Could you not change position when your arm falls asleep to relieve the uncomfortable position you are in? There's only one direction we can go and only one choice is possible at any given moment in time. I'll repeat this excerpt. Maybe you'll get it this time or maybe you won't. Whatever your response is could not have been any different.

The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

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

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

The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control.

Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions.

Autonomy, as I understand it, doesn't give me free will. It just means I am making my own decisions.

Yet the dictionary lists the following synonyms for it: choice, free will, self-determination, volition

You are either making decisions that you could have chosen not to make or you aren't.

You are making a false distinction between mindless matter (the domino effect where we have no say in what we choose because there's no will at all) and autonomy that gives us the ability to make choices.

I am making the only distinction that I was ever able to "choose" to make. In a determined universe.

True, but I'm trying to help you understand why the word autonomy doesn't give you free will so that maybe your question will be answered adequately.

I have a say the way tides have a say in rising and falling wholly in sync with the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon. Brain matter may extraordinary but it is no less in tune with the laws of matters.

Unlike the tides, I do something because I desire to do it. But I was never able to not desire to do it.

Yes, and your choice not to do something (or do something against your will) is also wholly in sync with the laws of matter because you can't be forced to do something you don't want to do.

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.”

In fact, when I stress that...

...everything that we think, feel, say and do is inherently intertwined of necessity in the unfolding material universe.

EVERYthing.

You respond...

Very true.

But then you seem to qualify that...

From moment to moment every movement is controlled by a law we have no control over because we are always moving from a position of dissatisfaction to a place of greater satisfaction, from point A to point B. If we were satisfied in remaining at point A, we would never move to another position, which is death.

...and I fail to grasp it. The movement from lesser to greater satisfaction is no less encompassed in everything. But human psychology has evolved such that "I" is able to convince itself that it is freely choosing to move as it does. Just as, in my dreams, I am convinced that I am calling the shots when in fact it is really only my brain creating everything in this dream world. And me in it.

Hmmm, I see why we're having problems. Do you think you could justify yourself by saying, your brain or neurons made you pull the trigger.

Justification is just another domino though.

You can say it is another domino as part of the unfolding, but when there is no justification for pulling the trigger, then we won't be able to pull the trigger [as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction], which also becomes part of the unfolding.

I can only justify or not justify that which the laws of matter propel me to. My "consent" is a given.

Great! Then that means you understand the second principle, and we can move forward.

You as the agent didn't give the consent?

In a determined universe [as I understand it] "I" give consent in the manner in which the heart gives consent to beat. The brain is just another internal organ in a body that is just another component of existence unfolding.

You can describe what's happening any way you want. What matters is that your explanation using your terminology is the same as my explanation using my terminology.

That's why the author wrote that NOTHING BUT NOTHING can make you do anything you don't give consent to, or anything against your will to do. This is very very important to understand before I can move forward.

Again, as though I am able to think this through...only this time I choose to understand your point.

You made an effort to listen to my point. I'm glad you understood it. Some people try to understand a point, but they can't. It's not of their choosing for if they could, they certainly would choose to understand.

Is that or is that not precisely the point that the free-will folks will make?

Being able to choose to listen to my point may be what free-will folks think of as free will, but it is anything but as you and I well know.

[iambiguous]

By defining determinism in this way, you are abdicating all responsibility for any choice made since, according to your definition, it's not you doing the choosing; you're just going along for the ride. Your definition of determinism differs from mine which is why we aren't on the same page.

From my frame of mind [given a wholly determined universe] we are not on the same page here and now because here and now we we never going to be.

If our brain is matter in sync with the laws that all other matter is in sync with then it is no less going along for the ride that is existence unfolding only as it ever can.

Like I was ever really free to choose another definition instead.

Thus...

The domino analogy is problematic because it presupposes the agent is nonexistent.

No, it presupposes that any agent/entity [from subatomic particulars to human beings to the multiverse] is quite the opposite of problematic. All is only as it was ever going to be given that all is only as it ever could have been.

It's not problematic in the sense that everything is mapped out the way it had to be mapped out, but it is problematic (which many philosophers worried about) in that a person could just excuse himself by saying, "I couldn't help shooting that person because my will is not free."

A person could not freely choose to excuse or not to excuse herself about anything.

That's what Johnathon Schooler's experiment tried to show when college students were told their will isn't free. But there is an interesting take on this which needs explaining.

And in this experiment were any of the thoughts, feelings, utterances or actions of any of the participants ever able to be other than what they were?

Basdically, this part:

The reason you're having a problem is because you are relinquishing the agent altogether, are you not?

As though my "relinquishing" is not in turn only as it ever must be. It's just that when the agent/entity evolves into the human brain/mind it necessarily acquires a psychological component that predisposes it to think that it is choosing freely. Again, in the manner in which I construe a determined universe. When, in fact, "I" may not be wholly determined at all.

Maybe the idea that we have free will is because we have choice, and people don't usually think beyond that unless they are interested in this topic and go deeper. Relinquishing the agent appears to be what you construe as determinism. I am saying that having agency does not negate determinism.

They go deeper or not only because they were not actually able to freely choose one or the other. The "choice" here is embedded psychologically in the illusion of autonomy. In the human brain, relinquishing or not is just another domino.

I don't think you think you are, but actually I think you are not taking into consideration that choices are made not by antecedent events that force a chess move; they are choices made in the present based on what a person is considering.

Unless, of course, the person in the present is considering only that which it was only ever able to consider. And then acting on that consideration in the only manner in which it was ever able to. Like imagining chess pieces with brains. They are aware of having moved as they do but they were never able to not move as they do.

That is true, they would be aware of having moved as they did and that they were never able to NOT move as they did. But before a move is made, they have a choice. Compatibilists call this free will, which it is not. The word 'choice' though is misleading for it makes it appear that there is more than one possibility. In actuality, this is a delusion since the choice that is made (out of necessity) has to be the choice that gives greater satisfaction after all options are considered.

Our quandary in a nutshell? What compatibilists call free will they are no less compelled to call free will. But you seem to zero in on the fact that unlike the chess pieces they do choose -- they do choose. Even though just as with chess pieces all of the moves that "I" make in the chess match were only ever going to be what they must be.

Gandhi was able to choose not to be killed (that was one of the choices available to him) but not at the cost of losing his freedom, and no ultimatum by his captors could make him do what he didn't want to do when unafraid of death. I'm not sure where your comment regarding conflicting goods and political power comes into play. We know the capacity to choose freely is false even though it often appears as if we're making a free choice.

What freedom in a wholly determined universe? If human history involving the choices that Gandhi made was always going to unfold as in fact it did, Gandhi was not able to choose not to be killed.

Conflicting goods and political economy are relevant only in a world where human autonomy does in fact exist. There is no way [in a No God world] to determine if Gandhi's cause was either inherently right or wrong. And, in the end, those who have the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors prevail.

So Ghandi moved in the only direction that he was ever able to move. You call this him moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Why? Because that is the only reaction that you were ever able to have.

Because I'm explaining a more accurate definition of determinism, and yes, it's the only reaction that I was ever able to have.

As though your explanation here is any less determined than your reaction.

This exchange is necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe and it embodies the "greater satisfaction" of both of us. But somehow you make it appear as though my reaction to all of this should be more in sync with your reaction. That somehow my missing your point is more egregious than you missing mine. Even though in choosing the points that we do we are necessarily in sync with our wholly determined existence. Necessarily in sync with whatever explains the existence of existence itself.

I'm not missing your point, and I'm not saying one is more egregious than another. I'm saying one is more accurate. You cannot leave out the agent, and yet you obviously have no choice but to believe that agency equals free will. That is wrong and that is why my definition of "greater satisfaction" is a more accurate definition. Nothing can cause you to make the choices you make even in a wholly determined universe. You make the choices you make in the direction of greater preference or satisfaction based on the options under consideration, and yet still part of a wholly determined universe.

How can you call one frame of mind here more accurate when both frames of mind were only what they were ever able to be? If I cannot not leave out the agent, and you cannot not note here that I do, what on earth does "accuracy" really mean?

Again, one of us is missing something in the other's argument. Not that we could ever have not missed it.

I chose not to read it because I could never have chosen not to not read it. Not because others compelled me to not read it but because all of my choices must be in sync with the manner in which all matter necessarily unfolds [including my brain/mind] in a wholly determined universe.

That necessary unfolding has to do with the only choice possible (i.e., the choice that is the most preferable, not the least preferable). That is what your brain/mind has no choice but to do.

For all practical purposes, calling something that could only ever have been preferable or more satisfying to someone misses the most important point: that nothing actually changes out in the world of human interactions. They still unfold only as they ever could have.

I agree. They had to be freaked out but that doesn't mean they have to continue to be freaked out out once they understand the true meaning of determinism and the amazing knowledge that lies behind that heremetically sealed door.

Okay, but, if, one day, they are not freaked out, it is only because their new understanding was always going to be a part of a future that could only ever be. The past, present and future of "I" --- how is it really different [for all practical purposes] from the past, present and future of those dominoes set up by an individual who was no less set up by the laws of nature. How [to nature] is "I" not just a thinking domino?

Because we are not just being knocked over by a domino. We are able to consider options, dominoes can't, and although the choices we make are not free, we are responsible for those choices, not in a judgmental or blameworthy way, but in a way that says we made the choice.

But we are not able to freely consider and then to choose options. The autonomous aliens note that we do in fact choose our behaviors, but they are the only behaviors that we are able to choose. Whereas the aliens could have freely chosen not to watch us interact at all.

And if their bosses insisted that they were obligated to watch us, they could be held responsible for choosing not to.

This is important as you will see if we ever get there. If you were a domino, you could not assume responsibility for falling over because you were being caused to fall by another domino. You will probably respond by saying that whether it was an external push or just part of the brain doing what it does, they are both part of the unfolding of deterministic law.

Yes, that is exactly what seems reasonable to me.

I am not disagreeing with that, but there is a difference in so far as responsibility. If you get pushed to the ground by someone, no one is going to say that you were responsible for falling. If you failed to tie your shoelaces and fall to the ground, someone will say it was your responsibility for falling. This doesn't mean it could have been any different. It's just an effort to show where the responsibility lies, nothing more.

Yes, but what does it mean to blame someone for pushing me if they were never able to not choose to push me? In a determined universe holding someone responsible would seem to be just another manifestation of that psychological freedom the human brain is able to propel us to believe is actually autonomy.

The political conflict is no different than any other conflict. People disagree due to their political, religious, and national persuasions, but this doesn't mean new policies can't be pursued. In fact, in the new world very little government will be needed and no one will be hurt by this lack of government. You can't even begin to envision how this is possible because you haven't read the book or understand the foundational principles that would make this possible.

Political conflict is very different from, say, the conflict that unfolds in a sporting event. In the later there is clearly a winner or a loser. In the former there is only those able to enforce a particular assessment of any particular conflicting good. At least until philosophers are able to tell us how all rational men and women are obligated to behave.

And if all policies will unfold only as they ever could have what does it mean to call them better or worse?

No, these [old policies] don't have to continue. But in however the [new policies prevail] it won't be because of anything that you and I and others were able to freely choose to do.

Absolutely true, but you think in terms of your input in the choices you make, making no difference because you're just a robot choosing without thought. That is not how it is.

If my thinking is only as it was ever able to be, that seems rather robotic to me. It's just that nature itself programed my brain to sustain a thinking mind that is not in the least autonomous.

The dominoes toppling over onto each other may not make it to the end. A mistake in setting them up was made. But [per nature] the one setting them up was never able to not make that mistake. For both the dominoes and the one setting them up the past, present and future are what they are. What they were only ever going to be. The same with war. Any war.

Everything was necessary, but now that we have knowledge (knowledge has always helped us to make progress in all fields of endeavor), we can change the trajectory of where we are headed and still be within the domain of determinism.

So we acquire knowledge that we were only ever going to acquire in order to change the trajectory of things that were only ever able to unfold as they do.

You are satisfied to be here otherwise you wouldn't be here. You are able to choose not to answer me, not to engage, not to argue, not to debate, etc. You have absolute control over walking away, and there is nothing I could do to convince you otherwise, if your mind is made up. Nothing has the power to make you do what you don't want to do, for over this you have absolute control, but this does not make your will free. I don't know if you grasp this or not.

But: I could only have been satisfied in a determined universe. I have "absolute control" only in the sense that you were compelled by the laws of matter to say this. You could never have chosen freely not to say it. My mind was made up from the moment that existence itself began to unfold only as it ever could have given these laws of matter.

Your mind was made up, but you didn't know what choice would be until it was chosen. It is true that we are predestined to do what we could not not do, but it's exciting because we don't know what those choices will be given all of the factors that will come into play on a day to day basis.

What difference does it make what I know here and now when what I finally do come to know is all that I was ever able to come to know?

And how is the feeling of "excitement" not just another manifestation of life on earth evolving into human brains able to feel excitement but not able to choose freely when and where to feel it. Or about what. Why does John feel excited about something that Jane views with dread? Did they freely choose any of this?

Either you or someone else will finally figure out a way to explain this gap between us.

So, in some distant future that could only ever have been what it is, this new world will have progressed such that behaviors that you find unappealling will have given way to those behaviors that you do?

Is that actually what you are saying? Even though as this all unfolds "we, as agents, have no say in what we choose."

Everything we do is following the laws of determinism, which only means we must choose, out of necessity, what gives us greater satisfaction.

This makes sense to me given my own rendition of determinism.

If you keep this in mind I can show you the extension of this knowledge, and why what gives us greater satisfaction will be altered due to beneficial changes in the environment.

This part does not. You will show me only what you never able not to show me and I will react to that in the only manner that I was ever able to.

Same thing tomorrow? next week? next month? next year? All the way up to the day we die? Nothing could have been done differently?

Absolutely true, but this does not mean that factors won't come into play that will cause great leaps in our progress, all within the domain of determinism.

So, until the day I die, everything that I think, feel, say and do is already embedded in the laws of nature. Okay, so how are these factors not also embedded in it?

Back again to you insisting that, "nothing can force us to choose something we don't want to choose." And then you acknowledging that all that we come to want is all that we could only have come to want.

Unless I am misunderstanding how you connect the dots here. Given that somehow I had the capacity to not misunderstand this.

This was explained in Chapter One. All it means is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Like I could have freely chosen to take or not to take the horse to water any more than the horse could have freely chosen to drink or not to drink.

Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

If the man is not free to make up his mind to either do or not to do something [or want to do or not to do something] this distinction makes no sense to me. At least not "for all practical purposes" in understanding human interactions. He must move in the direction of greater satisfaction and then when he does this somehow demonstrates his "absolute power" over...what exactly?

Nothing in his life could, is, or will be other than what it must be but...

But what?

[peacegirl]

By defining determinism in this way, you are abdicating all responsibility for any choice made since, according to your definition, it's not you doing the choosing; you're just going along for the ride. Your definition of determinism differs from mine which is why we aren't on the same page.

From my frame of mind [given a wholly determined universe] we are not on the same page here and now because here and now we we never going to be.

So, according to your frame of mind, is this a fruitless discussion that will continue to go in circles?

If our brain is matter in sync with the laws that all other matter is in sync with then it is no less going along for the ride that is existence unfolding only as it ever can.

I never said it was no less going along for the ride that is existence unfolding only as it ever can. I know you could never not have thought about what I'm saying any differently, but my reaction to you also couldn't have been different either. We are both moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. So why do you keep repeating this, as if there is disagreement? I hope others come forward who show interest in what I'm trying to convey because you won't let me move to Chapter Two, not literally, but because your questions compel me to answer them in the same repetitive way, all in sync with the laws of matter.

Like I was ever really free to choose another definition instead.

Thus...

The domino analogy is problematic because it presupposes the agent is nonexistent.

So because you were not free to choose another definition means anything other than what you did you could not not have done? I am not disputing that, but you won't let me show you why the choice to steal in our present environment (although unfree) can be prevented when the environmental conditions are also altered in accordance and in sync with the laws of nature.

No, it presupposes that any agent/entity [from subatomic particulars to human beings to the multiverse] is quite the opposite of problematic. All is only as it was ever going to be given that all is only as it ever could have been.

It's not problematic in the sense that everything is mapped out the way it had to be mapped out, but it is problematic (which many philosophers worried about) in that a person could just excuse himself by saying, "I couldn't help shooting that person because my will is not free."

A person could not freely choose to excuse or not to excuse herself about anything.

We both agree that nothing is freely chosen. Actually, under the changed conditions a person could not choose to excuse himself (for reasons you don't understand because I haven't been able to get that far), although that's the problem many philosophers worry about. They believe that a person could misuse the knowledge of having no free will to his advantage. He could hurt someone and excuse himself by saying, "I couldn't help myself because my will was not free to do otherwise." Do you see the problem?

That's what Johnathon Schooler's experiment tried to show when college students were told their will isn't free. But there is an interesting take on this which needs explaining.

And in this experiment were any of the thoughts, feelings, utterances or actions of any of the participants ever able to be other than what they were?

Of course not.

Basically, this part:

The reason you're having a problem is because you are relinquishing the agent altogether, are you not?

As though my "relinquishing" is not in turn only as it ever must be. It's just that when the agent/entity evolves into the human brain/mind it necessarily acquires a psychological component that predisposes it to think that it is choosing freely. Again, in the manner in which I construe a determined universe. When, in fact, "I" may not be wholly determined at all.

Maybe the idea that we have free will is because we have choice, and people don't usually think beyond that unless they are interested in this topic and go deeper. Relinquishing the agent appears to be what you construe as determinism. I am saying that having agency does not negate determinism.

They go deeper or not only because they were not actually able to freely choose one or the other. The "choice" here is embedded psychologically in the illusion of autonomy. In the human brain, relinquishing or not is just another domino.

We actually do have choices. Are you saying that you don't have a choice to be in this thread? Of course you have a choice. It's just not a free one. The illusion is that superficially it appears that we can choose one thing over another EQUALLY, but this is impossible when there are meaningful differences. It could be a choice over what to eat for breakfast, or it could be a more significant choice such as what state to live in. Regardless of the seriousness of the choice, we are always choosing the option that gives us greater satisfaction.

I don't think you think you are, but actually I think you are not taking into consideration that choices are made not by antecedent events that force a chess move; they are choices made in the present based on what a person is considering.

Unless, of course, the person in the present is considering only that which it was only ever able to consider. And then acting on that consideration in the only manner in which it was ever able to. Like imagining chess pieces with brains. They are aware of having moved as they do but they were never able to not move as they do.

That is true, they would be aware of having moved as they did and that they were never able to NOT move as they did. But before a move is made, they have a choice. Compatibilists call this free will, which it is not. The word 'choice' though is misleading for it makes it appear that there is more than one possibility. In actuality, this is a delusion since the choice that is made (out of necessity) has to be the choice that gives greater satisfaction after all options are considered.

Our quandary in a nutshell? What compatibilists call free will they are no less compelled to call free will.

They are no less compelled but that doesn't make their definition of free will correct. Until they understand that there is a better way than to hold people responsible by defining the term "free" in a way that keeps the status quo of blame and punishment intact, then they will look no further (in accordance with the unfolding of natural law).

But you seem to zero in on the fact that unlike the chess pieces they do choose -- they do choose. Even though just as with chess pieces all of the moves that "I" make in the chess match were only ever going to be what they must be.

We make the chess moves, and all of the moves that "you" make in the chess match were only ever going to be what they must be AFTER THE CHOICE IS MADE.

Gandhi was able to choose not to be killed (that was one of the choices available to him) but not at the cost of losing his freedom, and no ultimatum by his captors could make him do what he didn't want to do when unafraid of death. I'm not sure where your comment regarding conflicting goods and political power comes into play. We know the capacity to choose freely is false even though it often appears as if we're making a free choice.

What freedom in a wholly determined universe? If human history involving the choices that Gandhi made was always going to unfold as in fact it did, Gandhi was not able to choose not to be killed.

You're right, but that wasn't the point being stressed. Nothing they did to him could force Gandhi, against his will, to surrender and be spared death when the choice to die rather than give up his freedom was the choice that gave him greater satisfaction.

Conflicting goods and political economy are relevant only in a world where human autonomy does in fact exist. There is no way [in a No God world] to determine if Gandhi's cause was either inherently right or wrong. And, in the end, those who have the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors prevail.

Yes, those who are in power can enforce a particular set of behaviors, or they can make someone face the consequences. That's the world we're living in. But I'm not talking about the world we're living in. I'm talking about a new world.

So Ghandi moved in the only direction that he was ever able to move. You call this him moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Why? Because that is the only reaction that you were ever able to have.

Because I'm explaining a more accurate definition of determinism, and yes, it's the only reaction that I was ever able to have.

As though your explanation here is any less determined than your reaction.

It isn't any different, but my explaining a more accurate definition is important for the purposes of this thread.

This exchange is necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe and it embodies the "greater satisfaction" of both of us. But somehow you make it appear as though my reaction to all of this should be more in sync with your reaction. That somehow my missing your point is more egregious than you missing mine. Even though in choosing the points that we do we are necessarily in sync with our wholly determined existence. Necessarily in sync with whatever explains the existence of existence itself.

I'm not missing your point, and I'm not saying one is more egregious than another. I'm saying one is more accurate. You cannot leave out the agent, and yet you obviously have no choice but to believe that agency equals free will. That is wrong and that is why my definition of "greater satisfaction" is a more accurate definition. Nothing can cause you to make the choices you make even in a wholly determined universe. You make the choices you make in the direction of greater preference or satisfaction based on the options under consideration, and yet still part of a wholly determined universe.

How can you call one frame of mind here more accurate when both frames of mind were only what they were ever able to be? If I cannot not leave out the agent, and you cannot not note here that I do, what on earth does "accuracy" really mean?

There is no right and wrong when it comes to frames of mind.

Again, one of us is missing something in the other's argument. Not that we could ever have not missed it.

You are missing a lot of my points, not that you could ever have not missed them.

I chose not to read it because I could never have chosen not to not read it. Not because others compelled me to not read it but because all of my choices must be in sync with the manner in which all matter necessarily unfolds [including my brain/mind] in a wholly determined universe.

That necessary unfolding has to do with the only choice possible (i.e., the choice that is the most preferable, not the least preferable). That is what your brain/mind has no choice but to do.

For all practical purposes, calling something that could only ever have been preferable or more satisfying to someone misses the most important point: that nothing actually changes out in the world of human interactions. They still unfold only as they ever could have.

Yes, but there is practicality in understanding how, with new knowledge, we can veer in a different direction all in sync with the unfolding of natural law.

I agree. They had to be freaked out but that doesn't mean they have to continue to be freaked out out once they understand the true meaning of determinism and the amazing knowledge that lies behind that heremetically sealed door.

Okay, but, if, one day, they are not freaked out, it is only because their new understanding was always going to be a part of a future that could only ever be. The past, present and future of "I" --- how is it really different [for all practical purposes] from the past, present and future of those dominoes set up by an individual who was no less set up by the laws of nature. How [to nature] is "I" not just a thinking domino?

Because we are not just being knocked over by a domino. We are able to consider options, dominoes can't, and although the choices we make are not free, we are responsible for those choices, not in a judgmental or blameworthy way, but in a way that says we made the choice.

But we are not able to freely consider and then to choose options. The autonomous aliens note that we do in fact choose our behaviors, but they are the only behaviors that we are able to choose. Whereas the aliens could have freely chosen not to watch us interact at all.

And if their bosses insisted that they were obligated to watch us, they could be held responsible for choosing not to.

That's how free will works. It's being held responsible for not doing what the bosses insisted they watch. Sounds like us on Earth.

This is important as you will see if we ever get there. If you were a domino, you could not assume responsibility for falling over because you were being caused to fall by another domino. You will probably respond by saying that whether it was an external push or just part of the brain doing what it does, they are both part of the unfolding of deterministic law.

Yes, that is exactly what seems reasonable to me.

There's a difference. Brains can think; dominoes can't.

I am not disagreeing with that, but there is a difference in so far as responsibility. If you get pushed to the ground by someone, no one is going to say that you were responsible for falling. If you failed to tie your shoelaces and fall to the ground, someone will say it was your responsibility for falling. This doesn't mean it could have been any different. It's just an effort to show where the responsibility lies, nothing more.

Yes, but what does it mean to blame someone for pushing me if they were never able to not choose to push me? In a determined universe holding someone responsible would seem to be just another manifestation of that psychological freedom the human brain is able to propel us to believe is actually autonomy.

I can be autonomous in my choice to go on my own path without help from others. This doesn't grant me free will.

The political conflict is no different than any other conflict. People disagree due to their political, religious, and national persuasions, but this doesn't mean new policies can't be pursued. In fact, in the new world very little government will be needed and no one will be hurt by this lack of government. You can't even begin to envision how this is possible because you haven't read the book or understand the foundational principles that would make this possible.

Political conflict is very different from, say, the conflict that unfolds in a sporting event. In the later there is clearly a winner or a loser. In the former there is only those able to enforce a particular assessment of any particular conflicting good. At least until philosophers are able to tell us how all rational men and women are obligated to behave.

And if all policies will unfold only as they ever could have what does it mean to call them better or worse?

In total perspective they are not better or worse because everything unfolds according to natural law, but that being said there are policies that give more people sustenance and well-being than other policies.

No, these [old policies] don't have to continue. But in however the [new policies prevail] it won't be because of anything that you and I and others were able to freely choose to do.

Absolutely true, but you think in terms of your input in the choices you make, making no difference because you're just a robot choosing without thought. That is not how it is.

If my thinking is only as it was ever able to be, that seems rather robotic to me. It's just that nature itself programed my brain to sustain a thinking mind that is not in the least autonomous.

That is a confusing word. As I wrote before, autonomy can mean doing things without the need for help from others. It does not mean free will.

The dominoes toppling over onto each other may not make it to the end. A mistake in setting them up was made. But [per nature] the one setting them up was never able to not make that mistake. For both the dominoes and the one setting them up the past, present and future are what they are. What they were only ever going to be. The same with war. Any war.

Everything was necessary, but now that we have knowledge (knowledge has always helped us to make progress in all fields of endeavor), we can change the trajectory of where we are headed and still be within the domain of determinism.

So we acquire knowledge that we were only ever going to acquire in order to change the trajectory of things that were only ever able to unfold as they do.

Right.

You are satisfied to be here otherwise you wouldn't be here. You are able to choose not to answer me, not to engage, not to argue, not to debate, etc. You have absolute control over walking away, and there is nothing I could do to convince you otherwise, if your mind is made up. Nothing has the power to make you do what you don't want to do, for over this you have absolute control, but this does not make your will free. I don't know if you grasp this or not.

But: I could only have been satisfied in a determined universe. I have "absolute control" only in the sense that you were compelled by the laws of matter to say this. You could never have chosen freely not to say it. My mind was made up from the moment that existence itself began to unfold only as it ever could have given these laws of matter.

Your mind was made up, but you didn't know what choice would be until it was chosen. It is true that we are predestined to do what we could not not do, but it's exciting because we don't know what those choices will be given all of the factors that will come into play on a day to day basis.

What difference does it make what I know here and now when what I finally do come to know is all that I was ever able to come to know?

That's a fatalistic attitude. It makes a world of difference if what we do and come to know (although it was all that we were ever able to come to know) helps to make our lives better, more prosperous, and more peaceful.

And how is the feeling of "excitement" not just another manifestation of life on earth evolving into human brains able to feel excitement but not able to choose freely when and where to feel it. Or about what. Why does John feel excited about something that Jane views with dread? Did they freely choose any of this?

No they did not, but the desire for happiness and a sense of well-being is common to most of humanity.

Either you or someone else will finally figure out a way to explain this gap between us.

Or they won't.

So, in some distant future that could only ever have been what it is, this new world will have progressed such that behaviors that you find unappealling will have given way to those behaviors that you do?

You're getting warmer. What a thief may find preferable to steal in this world will be the least preferable choice in the new world. How this is accomplished I'm trying to explain.

Is that actually what you are saying? Even though as this all unfolds "we, as agents, have no say in what we choose."

We do have a say in what we choose but it has to be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This world of peace and brotherhood could not be accomplished if our will was free because we could choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available. But this is impossible.

Everything we do is following the laws of determinism, which only means we must choose, out of necessity, what gives us greater satisfaction.

This makes sense to me given my own rendition of determinism.

I'm glad we're in agreement.

If you keep this in mind I can show you the extension of this knowledge, and why what gives us greater satisfaction will be altered due to beneficial changes in the environment.

This part does not. You will show me only what you never able not to show me and I will react to that in the only manner that I was ever able to.

I am trying to explain that changes in the environment will elicit changes in human conduct. Does that make sense?

Same thing tomorrow? next week? next month? next year? All the way up to the day we die? Nothing could have been done differently?

Absolutely true, but this does not mean that factors won't come into play that will cause great leaps in our progress, all within the domain of determinism.

So, until the day I die, everything that I think, feel, say and do is already embedded in the laws of nature. Okay, so how are these factors not also embedded in it?

"Embedded" implies that we have no say in the choices we make; it's all done for us without our consent. It's like saying, I may as well do nothing because my choices are already made for me. That's fatalism, and not what this is about. Although our choices are not free, we get to decide which choice we find preferable based on our history, environment, heredity, our upbringing, our circumstances, etc.

Back again to you insisting that, "nothing can force us to choose something we don't want to choose." And then you acknowledging that all that we come to want is all that we could only have come to want.

Unless I am misunderstanding how you connect the dots here. Given that somehow I had the capacity to not misunderstand this.

You are missing the dots because the only thing that "nothing can force us to choose something against our will, means is that WE MUST GIVE CONSENT TO ALL THAT WE CHOOSE (WANT PRECEDES CHOICE) AND, ONCE CHOSEN, WAS ALL THAT WE COULD ONLY HAVE COME TO CHOOSE.

This was explained in Chapter One. All it means is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Like I could have freely chosen to take or not to take the horse to water any more than the horse could have freely chosen to drink or not to drink.

You're right, but the choice by the horse (although a horse doesn't choose between options like humans do) not to drink the water is the point I was trying to make. Although you and the horse did not choose freely, the principle that nothing could make the horse drink the water against his will, still holds.

Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

If the man is not free to make up his mind to either do or not to do something [or want to do or not to do something] this distinction makes no sense to me. At least not "for all practical purposes" in understanding human interactions. He must move in the direction of greater satisfaction and then when he does this somehow demonstrates his "absolute power" over...what exactly?

This is important to understand. Determinism implies that our past (whatever factors preceded our choice) made us choose a certain thing, but nothing can make us choose a certain thing unless we give permission for it to be chosen. We can't say "my past made or forced me to pull the trigger" because nothing has the power to usurp our choice not to pull the trigger and make us pull the trigger against our will, for over this we have absolute control. If you grasp these two principles, we can move forward.

Nothing in his life could, is, or will be other than what it must be but...

But what?

True, but as I just explained, we have a choice to do or not do something. Once the choice is made (whatever choice that is), we could not have chosen otherwise.

[iambiguous]

You couldn't conceive of an existential contraption on the same page, if seeking difference between disposition and predisposition. I hope to explain this .


A predisposition, once differentiated from merely a disposition, can not entail anything on the order of dispositing factors, dice they are not contraptions, other than natural ones.

However, natural phenomenon can not be the product of existential markers, by definition.

Best I can do.

Again, technically, in the manner in which a serious philosopher might approach these relationships, this may well be a brilliant observation. But given my own inclination to bring assessments of this sort out into the world of human interactions, I don't really have a clue as to how it might be relevant.

So, in terms of disposition and predisposition [as you understand them], was there ever a possibility that you might have freely chosen 1] not to post what you did or 2] that, after thinking about it some more, you might have freely chosen to post something else altogether?

[iambiguous]

First this:

"...nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will."

Yet, from my frame of mind, in a determined universe, everything compels us to do what we do.

That is very true.

In that everything in the universe is an inherent, necessary component of existence itself. In other words, if that is actually true.

It is definitely true.

But then this:

"Blame" here is just another domino.

Until people learn that it isn't useful. Then it won't be just another domino.

The point in this exchange that one of us keeps missing.

People cannot freely choose to learn that it isn't helpful. In other words, what any particular individual either learns or does not learn here is necessarily included in the part about everything -- everything -- being determined.

We could never have not wanted to be here because it gave us greater satisfaction TO BE HERE. When the options provided to us give us a better choice than to be here, we will no longer choose to be here, in the direction of greater satisfaction.

But it could never have not wanted to give us greater satisfaction. Everything being determined leaves absolutely nothing out regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do. Perceived options would seem to be embedded in but the illusion of human autonomy.

If we didn't want to be here, we would choose NOT to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction.

And this [to me] is precisely the point that the free will folks will make. When you make it however I just get confused all over again.

There's nothing to be confused about. It's really rather simple but you're making it confusing because you're thinking that if we make choices as autonomous individuals (i.e., without external constraint), then that's what free will is, but that's not what free will is.

Note to others:

Anyone here also not confused by the points she makes? I am myself compelled by the laws of matter [in a determined universe] to be confused by them, but somehow she makes it appear [to me] as though I am still responsible for being confused.

That, in other words, I could somehow choose of my own volition to think them through again and not be confused.

Instead, around and around we go:

What you need to bear in mind is that the agent (the I, the self, the decision maker) is responsible for making his decisions because nothing other than the agent can force a choice on him without his permission.

Unlike the domino, the agent "I" chooses to topple over in behaving in particular ways. But like the domino, it topples over only as it ever and always must.

So, sure, if you focus on the word "choose" then "I" am clearly not a domino. But nothing changes. The reality that is existence unfolds for both the domino and "I" in the only way that was ever possible, permissible given a complete understanding of the laws of matter.

The only difference is that we, as humans, are able to contemplate before a choice is made. It doesn't change the direction we must go, or the fact that life unfolds according to natural law.

Always the emphasis on choosing what we do. The fact of it as witnessed by the autonomous aliens. And not the fact that from their point of view we are really just "choosing" to do what we do.

If you had a choice, wouldn't you choose joy over sorrow, peace over war, health over sickness, sustenance over poverty? If you could choose either/or, would you really be given a choice?

And, in a determined universe, I do choose here. But only what I was ever going to choose. Only what I was ever able to choose. Whereas in an universe with some measure of human autonomy, the things we choose are [in my view] largely existential contraptions. Different things bring different people joy. Different people profit by or are killed in war. Wealth and poverty are intertwined in our global economy. Some are not able to choose health because they literally cannot afford to.

I'm lost again. How is their reaction to this "more careful clarification" not in turn on par with them having been deceived before? They were either always going to be helped by it or they weren't.

Who is saying anything could be any different? But I'm hoping that with further clarification people will want to learn more to see how this law of our nature plays out hypothetically and eventually realistically.

But: How is further clarification not in the same boat as the previous clarification?

It is in the same boat, but sometimes it doesn't become clear until further clarification is made. Haven't you ever read a book a second time and got more out of it than the first time?

But I didn't freely choose to read the book either the first time or the second. Clarification here [to me] is just another of nature's dominoes. I didn't read the book the second time and, of my own volition, garner new insights. These new insights were always going to be perceived by me the second time around.

You say it is up to me but is it ever really up to me to choose not to be repetitive?

It is up to you, but only if you want to be less repetitive.

But how are the things that I want not also inherently embedded in the fact that everything is determined? If in fact they are.

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently, my taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple — I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”

This sort of example makes a distinction that I am unable to grasp in a determined universe.

On the one hand, genetically, your body is allergic to red apples. That is clearly embedded in biological imperatives. It's not like one day you decided to be allergic to them.

But the fact that you chose to eat one, discovered that you are allergic, and then chose not to eat them again is no less a sequence that is determined. The biological imperatives are entirely intertwined in everything that we choose. In that everything that we choose is wholly determined. It's just that psycholoically we are hard-wired to make this distinction in the first place.

Biologically our greater satisfaction revolves around not eating red apples. But in choosing to eat or not eat them that is not less determined. In fact, for some, a greater satisfaction can revolve around choosing to die. So, they choose to eat a ton of red apples hoping that this kills them. But this too is no less determined.

But only to the extent it can be demonstrated that we do in fact live in a wholly determined universe.

The word free is misleading because everything we do we are compelled to do.

So you are compelled to post this indicating one point of view, and I am compelled to read it reacting from a different point of view. Both choices reflecting that which our brains construe to be a "greater satisfaction" for each of us.

Even scratching an itch, or changing position are all part of movement away from that which dissatisfies to a more satisfying position...

That's not the point for me. The need to scratch an itch is embedded in the fact that biologically this happens to be what the evolution of life on earth has led to. Who actually knows what the first creature was who felt an itch. But the human brain is able to ponder it on a level that no other creature can. But: in pondering it [and scratching it] is there any capacity on the part of "I" to do so freely?

Does a mosquito freely choose to bite Jim prompting him to freely choose to scratch it? If, in a universe where everything is determined, how are these events the same or different. In particular, given that whatever the mosquito and Jim do they were always only going to do it.

I still recall the the time in Vietnam when I was retuning to our MACV from the B34 green berets camp and ran into a group of VC and/or NVA soldiers. I was just as few feet from them hiding behind a log when I had the mother of all itches. But all I could do was lie there motionless until they left. The urge to scratch became almost unbearable. But I just endured it given the possible consequences.

So, here, what was I freely in control of and what was only going to unfold as it ever could?

How is an assessment of this sort...

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly.

...relevant to my experience above?

Then back to this:

Autonomy, as I understand it, doesn't give me free will. It just means I am making my own decisions.

Yet the dictionary lists the following synonyms for it: choice, free will, self-determination, volition

You are either making decisions that you could have chosen not to make or you aren't.

You are making a false distinction between mindless matter (the domino effect where we have no say in what we choose because there's no will at all) and autonomy that gives us the ability to make choices.

I am making the only distinction that I was ever able to "choose" to make. In a determined universe.

True, but I'm trying to help you understand why the word autonomy doesn't give you free will so that maybe your question will be answered adequately.

What I'm arguing is true, but...not quite. I think that you are compelled to help me understand the word autonomy in a wholly determined universe. Just as I am compelled to understand [react to] your help as I do.

But I still seem to be going about it the wrong way. I am not reacting to autonomy and free will as you do. And [apparently] it is more reasonable that I react to them as you do rather than that you react to them as I do.

Again, citing an example...

I have a say the way tides have a say in rising and falling wholly in sync with the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon. Brain matter may be extraordinary but it is no less in tune with the laws of matters.

Unlike the tides, I do something because I desire to do it. But I was never able to not desire to do it.

Yes, and your choice not to do something (or do something against your will) is also wholly in sync with the laws of matter because you can't be forced to do something you don't want to do.

But how [here] are the laws of nature in compelling me to think, feel, say and do the things I do, not to be construed in turn as forcing me to do them?

Hmmm, I see why we're having problems. Do you think you could justify yourself by saying, your brain or neurons made you pull the trigger.

Justification is just another domino though.

You can say it is another domino as part of the unfolding, but when there is no justification for pulling the trigger, then we won't be able to pull the trigger [as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction], which also becomes part of the unfolding.

Here and now, I think of that in this manner...

I was always going to pull the trigger. Period. There is no getting around the fact that, in a determined universe, the trigger would be pulled by me. We can go on and on in discussing things like satisfaction and justification and circumstances and motivation and intention, but...but the trigger was never not going to be pulled by me.

In a determined universe [as I understand it] "I" give consent in the manner in which the heart gives consent to beat. The brain is just another internal organ in a body that is just another component of existence unfolding.

You can describe what's happening any way you want. What matters is that your explanation using your terminology is the same as my explanation using my terminology.

Only I am not at all convinced that the terminology used in my description comports with what is in fact true. I'm still no less inclined -- intuitively? -- to believe that human autonomy is a factor in the things that I think, feel, say and do. And, if that is the case, the crucial distinction I then make is between I in the either/or world and "i" in the is/ought world.

So, this part...

Being able to choose to listen to my point may be what free-will folks think of as free will, but it is anything but as you and I well know.

...is still no less problematic to me.

[peacegirl]

First this:

"...nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will."

Yet, from my frame of mind, in a determined universe, everything compels us to do what we do.

That is very true.

In that everything in the universe is an inherent, necessary component of existence itself. In other words, if that is actually true.

It is definitely true.

But then this:

"Blame" here is just another domino.

Until people learn that it isn't useful. Then it won't be just another domino.

The point in this exchange that one of us keeps missing.

It's missing because you don't yet understand why blame is preventing the very thing that it is purporting to do.

People cannot freely choose to learn that it isn't helpful. In other words, what any particular individual either learns or does not learn here is necessarily included in the part about everything -- everything -- being determined.

True. The people who understand this discovery will unfreely choose to learn that it isn't useful.

We could never have not wanted to be here because it gave us greater satisfaction TO BE HERE. When the options provided to us give us a better choice than to be here, we will no longer choose to be here, in the direction of greater satisfaction.

But it could never have not wanted to give us greater satisfaction. Everything being determined leaves absolutely nothing out regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do. Perceived options would seem to be embedded in but the illusion of human autonomy.

We have options that we consider on a daily basis, and we can do things autonomously and not have free will. This is just more of the same.

If we didn't want to be here, we would choose NOT to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction.

And this [to me] is precisely the point that the free will folks will make. When you make it however I just get confused all over again.

There's nothing to be confused about. It's really rather simple but you're making it confusing because you're thinking that if we make choices as autonomous individuals (i.e., without external constraint), then that's what free will is, but that's not what free will is.

Note to others:

Anyone here also not confused by the points she makes? I am myself compelled by the laws of matter [in a determined universe] to be confused by them, but somehow she makes it appear [to me] as though I am still responsible for being confused.

No iambiguous, some people won't understand what I'm talking about. You may be one. I'm not blaming you for being confused.

That, in other words, I could somehow choose of my own volition to think them through again and not be confused.

I never said you could choose of your own volition to not be confused. If you're confused it's not of your own volition whatsoever. You can't tell yourself to understand if you don't. Volition only means you did the choosing. I went to the party of my own volition (of my own free will), nobody forced me to go.

Instead, around and around we go:

What you need to bear in mind is that the agent (the I, the self, the decision maker) is responsible for making his decisions because nothing other than the agent can force a choice on him without his permission.

There is nothing contradictory here.

Unlike the domino, the agent "I" chooses to topple over in behaving in particular ways. But like the domino, it topples over only as it ever and always must.

So, sure, if you focus on the word "choose" then "I" am clearly not a domino. But nothing changes. The reality that is existence unfolds for both the domino and "I" in the only way that was ever possible, permissible given a complete understanding of the laws of matter.

You say nothing changes but it changes dramatically. Reality unfolds in the only way possible, but the trajectory changes when the environment changes, all in accordance and in sync with natural law, that is, if people understand the principles of this law and bring this knowledge to light. If not, then that also is according to the laws of nature. But, you need to remember that people move in the most satisfying direction, not in the least. When they learn there is a better way to control behavior to where no one will ever want to hurt another with a first blow, they will, by definition, want to create this kind of world if it is, in fact, capable of being created.

The only difference is that we, as humans, are able to contemplate before a choice is made. It doesn't change the direction we must go, or the fact that life unfolds according to natural law.

Always the emphasis on choosing what we do. The fact of it as witnessed by the autonomous aliens. And not the fact that from their point of view we are really just "choosing" to do what we do.

Choosing is not equivalent to autonomy, the way you are defining it. I may choose in the direction of greater satisfaction to be very dependent. I may choose to be independent because I find this more satisfying. But in terms of autonomy being defined as having free will, we don't have this kind of autonomy.

If you had a choice, wouldn't you choose joy over sorrow, peace over war, health over sickness, sustenance over poverty? If you could choose either/or, would you really be given a choice?

And, in a determined universe, I do choose here. But only what I was ever going to choose. Only what I was ever able to choose.

That is true, but you did have and still have a choice every moment of time. The choice you make is the choice you could never not have made, but we don't know what choice that will be until you make it.

Whereas in an universe with some measure of human autonomy, the things we choose are [in my view] largely existential contraptions. Different things bring different people joy. Different people profit by or are killed in war. Wealth and poverty are intertwined in our global economy. Some are not able to choose health because they literally cannot afford to.

Human autonomy or free will does not exist. It's an existential contraption because people believe they have free choice when no one has the kind of autonomy where they could choose otherwise.

I'm lost again. How is their reaction to this "more careful clarification" not in turn on par with them having been deceived before? They were either always going to be helped by it or they weren't.

Who is saying anything could be any different? But I'm hoping that with further clarification people will want to learn more to see how this law of our nature plays out hypothetically and eventually realistically.

But: How is further clarification not in the same boat as the previous clarification?

It is in the same boat, but sometimes it doesn't become clear until further clarification is made. Haven't you ever read a book a second time and got more out of it than the first time?

But I didn't freely choose to read the book either the first time or the second. Clarification here [to me] is just another of nature's dominoes. I didn't read the book the second time and, of my own volition, garner new insights. These new insights were always going to be perceived by me the second time around.

It was not of your own volition or free will. I tried to clarify the term "volition" to make you see that it is only a colloquial usage. It doesn't mean you actually have this free will or volition.

You say it is up to me but is it ever really up to me to choose not to be repetitive?

It is up to you, but only if you want to be less repetitive.

But how are the things that I want not also inherently embedded in the fact that everything is determined? If in fact they are.

The things you want ARE inherently embedded in the things you will ultimately choose in the direction of greater satisfaction.

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently, my taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple — I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”

This sort of example makes a distinction that I am unable to grasp in a determined universe.

On the one hand, genetically, your body is allergic to red apples. That is clearly embedded in biological imperatives. It's not like one day you decided to be allergic to them.

Correct.

But the fact that you chose to eat one, discovered that you are allergic, and then chose not to eat them again is no less a sequence that is determined. The biological imperatives are entirely intertwined in everything that we choose. In that everything that we choose is wholly determined. It's just that psycholoically we are hard-wired to make this distinction in the first place.

Biologically our greater satisfaction revolves around not eating red apples. But in choosing to eat or not eat them that is not less determined. In fact, for some, a greater satisfaction can revolve around choosing to die. So, they choose to eat a ton of red apples hoping that this kills them. But this too is no less determined.

But only to the extent it can be demonstrated that we do in fact live in a wholly determined universe.

I don't know if you understood the excerpt. The guy was trying to prove that he could move in the direction of dissatisfaction by eating the red apple that he was extremely allergic to, but in this example his choice to eat the red apple gave him greater satisfaction to prove his point. But his example failed the test. The conditions under which he would have normally eaten the yellow apple were changed by his desire to prove that he was not moving toward satisfaction when, in fact, he was.

The word free is misleading because everything we do we are compelled to do.

So you are compelled to post this indicating one point of view, and I am compelled to read it reacting from a different point of view. Both choices reflecting that which our brains construe to be a "greater satisfaction" for each of us.

Correct.

Even scratching an itch, or changing position are all part of movement away from that which dissatisfies to a more satisfying position...

That's not the point for me. The need to scratch an itch is embedded in the fact that biologically this happens to be what the evolution of life on earth has led to. Who actually knows what the first creature was who felt an itch. But the human brain is able to ponder it on a level that no other creature can. But: in pondering it [and scratching it] is there any capacity on the part of "I" to do so freely?

You don't do anything freely as in "free will."

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’

Does a mosquito freely choose to bite Jim prompting him to freely choose to scratch it? If, in a universe where everything is determined, how are these events the same or different. In particular, given that whatever the mosquito and Jim do they were always only going to do it.

They are always going to do it, but there is a difference between a mosquito biting Jim (which doesn't involve choosing) and Jim's scratching it, which also doesn't involve choosing to scratch the itch. He doesn't think should I scratch or not scratch. He just scratches because he's uncomfortable. He is moving from a dissatisfying position (itching) to a more satisfying position. Not all movements require contemplation yet still are in the direction of satisfaction. Mosquitoes don't think about what they're doing, they're just following their nature.

I still recall the the time in Vietnam when I was retuning to our MACV from the B34 green berets camp and ran into a group of VC and/or NVA soldiers. I was just as few feet from them hiding behind a log when I had the mother of all itches. But all I could do was lie there motionless until they left. The urge to scratch became almost unbearable. But I just endured it given the possible consequences.

So, here, what was I freely in control of and what was only going to unfold as it ever could?

How is an assessment of this sort...

It unfolded the way it could only have unfolded. You had an itch but you didn't want to be seen, so you held back from scratching in an effort to be quiet, which gave you greater satisfaction than to be found out. In other words, it was the lesser of two evils (to endure the itch) than to be caught. It's amazing what we can endure when the alternative is even worse.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly.

...relevant to my experience above?

Then back to this:

Autonomy, as I understand it, doesn't give me free will. It just means I am making my own decisions.

Yet the dictionary lists the following synonyms for it: choice, free will, self-determination, volition

You are either making decisions that you could have chosen not to make or you aren't.

I guess the word autonomy can be thought of in different ways. That's why we have different definitions for the same word. If you're using autonomy to mean free will, we don't have autonomy just like we don't have free will. It's just a psychological thought process that makes us think we have it because it feels that we can choose one option or another with the same amount of compulsion.

You are making a false distinction between mindless matter (the domino effect where we have no say in what we choose because there's no will at all) and autonomy that gives us the ability to make choices.

I am making the only distinction that I was ever able to "choose" to make. In a determined universe.

True, but I'm trying to help you understand why the word autonomy doesn't give you free will so that maybe your question will be answered adequately.

What I'm arguing is true, but...not quite. I think that you are compelled to help me understand the word autonomy in a wholly determined universe. Just as I am compelled to understand [react to] your help as I do.

I have a choice to help you or not help you. At this moment I choose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to help you, but I could change my mind if different reasons for not helping you come into play. The choice is still mine to make, and whatever that choice turns out to be, it is the choice had to be. If B (not helping you was an impossible choice under these circumstances), I was not free to choose A (helping you). But this only becomes an impossible choice after the choice is made, not before. Then you can say it was wholly determined. No one knows all of the factors that goes into a prediction as to how someone is going to react, but accurate prediction is not necessary to prove that will is not free.

But I still seem to be going about it the wrong way. I am not reacting to autonomy and free will as you do. And [apparently] it is more reasonable that I react to them as you do rather than that you react to them as I do.

Again, citing an example...

I have a say the way tides have a say in rising and falling wholly in sync with the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon. Brain matter may be extraordinary but it is no less in tune with the laws of matters.

Unlike the tides, I do something because I desire to do it. But I was never able to not desire to do it.

And you are correct. Looking back, everything we have chosen came from a desire to do it and everything we desire and do could never have been any different once it has been done. There is no parallel universe where my choice could have been any different than it was, IOW.

Yes, and your choice not to do something (or do something against your will) is also wholly in sync with the laws of matter because you can't be forced to do something you don't want to do.

But how [here] are the laws of nature in compelling me to think, feel, say and do the things I do, not to be construed in turn as forcing me to do them?

Because we only have the present. The past is gone. Determinism contains the idea that our past, even if it's a second ago, forced us to make a choice but this is inaccurate since we only have the present. If you desire, please read this excerpt again. It's important to understand because it will help you understand the second law or principle that nothing can make you do anything against your will.

Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.

Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already.

As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

Hmmm, I see why we're having problems. Do you think you could justify yourself by saying, your brain or neurons made you pull the trigger.

Justification is just another domino though.

You can say it is another domino as part of the unfolding, but when there is no justification for pulling the trigger, then we won't be able to pull the trigger [as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction], which also becomes part of the unfolding.

Here and now, I think of that in this manner...

I was always going to pull the trigger. Period. There is no getting around the fact that, in a determined universe, the trigger would be pulled by me. We can go on and on in discussing things like satisfaction and justification and circumstances and motivation and intention, but...but the trigger was never not going to be pulled by me.

That is absolutely true, but we can't know that until you pull the trigger.

In a determined universe [as I understand it] "I" give consent in the manner in which the heart gives consent to beat. The brain is just another internal organ in a body that is just another component of existence unfolding.

It is, but that doesn't mean we are dominoes. We are still part of the unfolding of natural law, but as you observed, we are able to contemplate. This is just a way to accurately describe what is going on. It doesn't alter the fact that we are part of nature and its unfolding.

You can describe what's happening any way you want. What matters is that your explanation using your terminology is the same as my explanation using my terminology.

Only I am not at all convinced that the terminology used in my description comports with what is in fact true. I'm still no less inclined -- intuitively? -- to believe that human autonomy is a factor in the things that I think, feel, say and do. And, if that is the case, the crucial distinction I then make is between I in the either/or world and "i" in the is/ought world.

The "I" in the either/or world is very different from the "I" in the is/ought, but I don't see where it's a crucial distinction. Anyway, this is off on a tangent because in the new world there will be no "oughts", so it's a non issue.

So, this part...

Being able to choose to listen to my point may be what free-will folks think of as free will, but it is anything but as you and I well know.

...is still no less problematic to me.

I don't see it as problematic. Why do you?

[iambiguous]

From my frame of mind [given a wholly determined universe] we are not on the same page here and now because here and now we we never going to be.

So, according to your frame of mind, is this a fruitless discussion that will continue to go in circles?

According to my frame of mind, I have no way to ascertain this definitively. I merely make the assumption that in a wholly determined universe [as "I" understand it here and now], every thought, feeling, utterance and behavior on our part was/is/will be only what they could/can/will ever have been. And that would certainly include this exchange.

This computer technology that permits is to have this discussion doesn't consciously choose to sustain it. It's a piece of technology that was programed by someone consciously to sustain it. But: Was the programmer's choice/"choice" not just a manifestation of nature having evolved into life having evolved into human brains that are in turn no less in sync with the laws of matter?

The mystery here is always matter as mind as matter. And how the dots are connected between that and the explanation for existence itself. Which, admittedly, I certainly have no capacity to grasp.

Thus:

If our brain is matter in sync with the laws that all other matter is in sync with then it is no less going along for the ride that is existence unfolding only as it ever can.

I never said it was no less going along for the ride that is existence unfolding only as it ever can. I know you could never not have thought about what I'm saying any differently, but my reaction to you also couldn't have been different either.

How is this then "for all practical purposes" not you and I going around and around in circles? Up to this point in the exchange. By nature's design though, not because of anything that we freely choose to do.

We are both moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. So why do you keep repeating this, as if there is disagreement? I hope others come forward who show interest in what I'm trying to convey because you won't let me move to Chapter Two, not literally, but because your questions compel me to answer them in the same repetitive way, all in sync with the laws of matter.

There you go again [from my frame of mind], asking me why I keep repeating something that I was never free to not repeat in the first place. I don't let you move to chapter two because I was [again, up to this point in the exchange] never able to let you.

But: Who knows what nature has in store for the future of this exchange.

But: whatever that is it won't be because of anything that you and I choose autonomously to do. Right?

Unless, of course, we really do have some measure of autonomy here. And I'm certainly willing to speculate that this is in fact the case. But how do I determine that beyond all doubt?

A person could not freely choose to excuse or not to excuse herself about anything.

We both agree that nothing is freely chosen. Actually, under the changed conditions a person could not choose to excuse himself (for reasons you don't understand because I haven't been able to get that far), although that's the problem many philosophers worry about. They believe that a person could misuse the knowledge of having no free will to his advantage. He could hurt someone and excuse himself by saying, "I couldn't help myself because my will was not free to do otherwise." Do you see the problem?

Misuse. Hurt. Choose. Believe. See. Excuse.

How are these not "action" words that you are compelled in a determined universe to put in this order? You typing them, me reading and reacting to them. Only as it ever could have been.

That's what Johnathon Schooler's experiment tried to show when college students were told their will isn't free. But there is an interesting take on this which needs explaining.

And in this experiment were any of the thoughts, feelings, utterances or actions of any of the participants ever able to be other than what they were?

Of course not.

Of course of course not. And now we're stuck again. But only because here and now we were never able not to be stuck. We can only hope that nature unfolds such that we are no longer stuck. Though even that will have nothing to do with anything that we freely choose to make us unstuck.

Maybe the idea that we have free will is because we have choice, and people don't usually think beyond that unless they are interested in this topic and go deeper. Relinquishing the agent appears to be what you construe as determinism. I am saying that having agency does not negate determinism.

They go deeper or not only because they were not actually able to freely choose one or the other. The "choice" here is embedded psychologically in the illusion of autonomy. In the human brain, relinquishing or not is just another domino.

We actually do have choices. Are you saying that you don't have a choice to be in this thread? Of course you have a choice. It's just not a free one.

The circle again. The computer doesn't consciously choose to sustain this thread, but, consciously, we do. But, as with the computer, we remain wholly in sync with the laws of nature.

The illusion is that superficially it appears that we can choose one thing over another EQUALLY, but this is impossible when there are meaningful differences. It could be a choice over what to eat for breakfast, or it could be a more significant choice such as what state to live in. Regardless of the seriousness of the choice, we are always choosing the option that gives us greater satisfaction.

And nature applauds us for choosing what she compels us to choose. Only nature here is embedded in the profoundest mystery of all: teleology.

Is there a "purpose" behind the laws of matter unfolding only as they ever can? Which most "choose" to call God?

Damned if I know.

Our quandary in a nutshell? What compatibilists call free will they are no less compelled to call free will.

They are no less compelled but that doesn't make their definition of free will correct. Until they understand that there is a better way than to hold people responsible by defining the term "free" in a way that keeps the status quo of blame and punishment intact, then they will look no further (in accordance with the unfolding of natural law).

The circle on steroids? They can only understand what they are compelled to understand but their understanding is wrong because it is not in snyc with what you were compelled to understand.

But you seem to zero in on the fact that unlike the chess pieces they do choose -- they do choose. Even though just as with chess pieces all of the moves that "I" make in the chess match were only ever going to be what they must be.

We make the chess moves, and all of the moves that "you" make in the chess match were only ever going to be what they must be AFTER THE CHOICE IS MADE.

This is the part that [over and over again] I keep missing. You are pointing out something very profound here that keeps going over my head; or I am reacting to it in even more profoundly...and that keeps going over yours. The moves are always going to be what they could only ever have been, but unlike with the chess pieces themselves, I am conscious of having made them. Even more problematically, "I" am then able to delude myself into thinking that the moves were all entirely of my own volition.

Thus when we bring this down to earth...

Gandhi was able to choose not to be killed (that was one of the choices available to him) but not at the cost of losing his freedom, and no ultimatum by his captors could make him do what he didn't want to do when unafraid of death. I'm not sure where your comment regarding conflicting goods and political power comes into play. We know the capacity to choose freely is false even though it often appears as if we're making a free choice.

What freedom in a wholly determined universe? If human history involving the choices that Gandhi made was always going to unfold as in fact it did, Gandhi was not able to choose not to be killed.

You insist...

You're right, but that wasn't the point being stressed. Nothing they did to him could force Gandhi, against his will, to surrender and be spared death when the choice to die rather than give up his freedom was the choice that gave him greater satisfaction.

And I'm back to those autonomous aliens noting the history of our species unfolding and marveling at how most of us are able to convince ourselves that our own part in it was more or less thought through and acted out autonomously. Meanwhile "in reality" Gandhi and all of those folks around him were intertwined in the historical necessity of matter unfolding only as it ever could have down on earth.

Because I'm explaining a more accurate definition of determinism, and yes, it's the only reaction that I was ever able to have.

As though your explanation here is any less determined than your reaction.

It isn't any different, but my explaining a more accurate definition is important for the purposes of this thread.

Again: Entirely per nature's design?

How can you call one frame of mind here more accurate when both frames of mind were only what they were ever able to be? If I cannot not leave out the agent, and you cannot not note here that I do, what on earth does "accuracy" really mean?

There is no right and wrong when it comes to frames of mind.

And yet over and again [from my frame of mind] your frame of mind seems to suggest that in not "choosing" to understand all of this as you do, I am the problem here.

This part...

Again, one of us is missing something in the other's argument. Not that we could ever have not missed it.

You are missing a lot of my points, not that you could ever have not missed them.

Note to nature:

Help me to understand this as she does. Either that or help her to understand this as I do. Or, rather, as "I" "think" "I" "do" "here and now".

But we are not able to freely consider and then to choose options. The autonomous aliens note that we do in fact choose our behaviors, but they are the only behaviors that we are able to choose. Whereas the aliens could have freely chosen not to watch us interact at all.

And if their bosses insisted that they were obligated to watch us, they could be held responsible for choosing not to.

That's how free will works. It's being held responsible for not doing what the bosses insisted they watch. Sounds like us on Earth.

No, it sounds like interactions in their own autonomous world. Down on earth bosses go about the business of being bosses autonomically, all the while convinced that they are freely choosing to do what they have come to think is the right thing [or the profitable thing] to do. Their entirely illusory freedom.

...what does it mean to blame someone for pushing me if they were never able to not choose to push me? In a determined universe holding someone responsible would seem to be just another manifestation of that psychological freedom the human brain is able to propel us to believe is actually autonomy.

I can be autonomous in my choice to go on my own path without help from others. This doesn't grant me free will.

Then we [continue] to understand determinism in different ways. Fortunately, we can both note that [up to now] we were never really free to understand it in the same way. Instead, we "chose" to understand it in conflicting ways.

To wit:

So we acquire knowledge that we were only ever going to acquire in order to change the trajectory of things that were only ever able to unfold as they do.

Right.

Here it's like we are circling the circle that we are going around and around in itself. You say "right" as though that explains...what exactly? It is certainly beyond my grasping. While never able not to be so.

Your mind was made up, but you didn't know what choice would be until it was chosen. It is true that we are predestined to do what we could not not do, but it's exciting because we don't know what those choices will be given all of the factors that will come into play on a day to day basis.

What difference does it make what I know here and now when what I finally do come to know is all that I was ever able to come to know?

That's a fatalistic attitude. It makes a world of difference if what we do and come to know (although it was all that we were ever able to come to know) helps to make our lives better, more prosperous, and more peaceful.

Yes, the autonomous aliens note that the choices we make in our wholly determined segment of the universe do make our lives more or less better, prosperous and peaceful. But then they note that this has absolutely nothing to do with choices freely made. Instead, what we chose was in fact fated by the laws of nature.

And how is the feeling of "excitement" not just another manifestation of life on earth evolving into human brains able to feel excitement but not able to choose freely when and where to feel it. Or about what. Why does John feel excited about something that Jane views with dread? Did they freely choose any of this?

No they did not, but the desire for happiness and a sense of well-being is common to most of humanity.

Why? Because the evolution of matter on earth has culminated in human brains able to delude "I" into thinking it has some measure of autonomous control over these desires and feelings of well-being.

So, in some distant future that could only ever have been what it is, this new world will have progressed such that behaviors that you find unappealling will have given way to those behaviors that you do?

You're getting warmer. What a thief may find preferable to steal in this world will be the least preferable choice in the new world. How this is accomplished I'm trying to explain.

But only to the extent that matter unfolding into the future allows for this. The thief [here and now or there and then] is literally just along for the ride. Preferences are just more dominoes toppling over in the brains of those convinced that they are really choosing freely here. But that too is entirely of nature's design.

We just don't why that is the case if that is the case.

Is that actually what you are saying? Even though as this all unfolds "we, as agents, have no say in what we choose."

We do have a say in what we choose but it has to be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This world of peace and brotherhood could not be accomplished if our will was free because we could choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available. But this is impossible.

So, out in the world that we live in here and now, the struggle between those inclined toward captialism as the font of greater satisfaction, and those inclined toward socialism, reflects what exactly?

If all are embedded in a future that will unfold only as it ever could unfold, what does it really mean to speak of satisfaction when the sense of satisfaction embedded in conflicting goods here was only ever going to be what it was too?

Everything we do is following the laws of determinism, which only means we must choose, out of necessity, what gives us greater satisfaction.

This makes sense to me given my own rendition of determinism.

I'm glad we're in agreement.

Until we get to the actual existential implications of this when we choose our thoughts, feelings, utterances and behaviors. In my rendition everything -- including the choices themselves -- is wholly determined.

But I cannot even wholly determine if that itself is true. Then...

If you keep this in mind I can show you the extension of this knowledge, and why what gives us greater satisfaction will be altered due to beneficial changes in the environment.

This part does not. You will show me only what you were never able not to show me and I will react to that in the only manner that I was ever able to.

I am trying to explain that changes in the environment will elicit changes in human conduct. Does that make sense?

But you and I and all the rest of us here are inherently at one with this unfolding environment which is nature unfolding necessarily into a future that can only ever be given that time itself is but another manifestation of the laws of matter.

Nothing escapes it. Nothing transcends it.

So, until the day I die, everything that I think, feel, say and do is already embedded in the laws of nature. Okay, so how are these factors not also embedded in it?

"Embedded" implies that we have no say in the choices we make; it's all done for us without our consent.

No, to me, embedded suggests this: that "the say we have", "the choices we make", "the consent we give" is inherently, necessarily in sync with nature unfolding into the only future the laws of matter permit. Then we can get into a squabble over whether or not this is "fatalistic".

Fatalism: "the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable."

Well, if the laws of nature propel all matter into a future that is necessarily in sync with these laws, and our brain is just another manifestation of this matter, how are our choices then not fated to be what they must be?

If the man is not free to make up his mind to either do or not to do something [or want to do or not to do something] this distinction makes no sense to me. At least not "for all practical purposes" in understanding human interactions. He must move in the direction of greater satisfaction and then when he does this somehow demonstrates his "absolute power" over...what exactly?

This is important to understand. Determinism implies that our past (whatever factors preceded our choice) made us choose a certain thing, but nothing can make us choose a certain thing unless we give permission for it to be chosen.

The factors that procede our choice make us choose what we do. So how is our permission to do something not but one of those factors in turn?

We can't say "my past made or forced me to pull the trigger" because nothing has the power to usurp our choice not to pull the trigger and make us pull the trigger against our will, for over this we have absolute control. If you grasp these two principles, we can move forward.

But we can't not say that if in fact we do say that, right? Again, it would seem [to me] that in a wholly determined universe all of the factors in our brain and all of the factors out in the world come together to compel us to choose only that which we are "fated" to choose by the laws of matter.

Nothing in his life could, is, or will be other than what it must be but...

But what?

True, but as I just explained, we have a choice to do or not do something. Once the choice is made (whatever choice that is), we could not have chosen otherwise.

I truly do appreciate your attempts to make me understand this, but it makes no sense to me given the manner in which I am trying to convey to you the manner in which I think of a wholly determined universe.