New Discovery

[Ecmandu]

You stated outright that your definition of determinism is THE accurate one (as a universal qualifier) which means: for all possible beings in existence

Don't play games with me here, your exact words are only 6 short posts back.

Give me this definition and stop playing games.

Ecmandu, I am not playing games. You have had an aggressive attitude toward me from day one. We're adults and hopefully we can enter into a calm conversation without verbal attacks. It's clear that determinism rubs you the wrong way, and I do understand. I would feel the same way if I thought that we had no say in anything we do because the external (what you call determinism) gives a person no say, or makes him a non-entity.

I'm upset with you because I have a perfect definition of determinism, which includes "if you know everything that's going to happen to you before it happens and yet can change none of it, even though it might be highly undesirable to you, then you're in a deterministic system"

However, this is just a subset of knowing every reason why you know everything you know.

For another example: this exactvneuron in my brain moved to that spot because Phil farted

Once perfect deterministic knowledge hits 100%, it's impossible for the being to be sentient, as I demonstrated with logical catatonia.

Since we are aware that we exist, we demonstrate self evidently that we are not completely determined, as a 100% determined system has no choice but to be itself. I put all my cards on the table here and you still haven't taken the time to define determinism since it was requested that this minimal amount of effort on your part would keep the thread on topic, and provide interest on your part in this thread continuing along these lines.

Instead of leaving it an open question whether you are projecting your fear that you may be wrong onto me, perhaps, you can simply engage like a person who's interested in getting to the truth.

What my argument and definition does is to take the limit of the only hypothetical state of consciousness that can prove determinism, and show self evidently that it cannot achieve this state of consciousness without not existing.

[Exuberant Teleportation]

You stated outright that your definition of determinism is THE accurate one (as a universal qualifier) which means: for all possible beings in existence

Don't play games with me here, your exact words are only 6 short posts back.

Give me this definition and stop playing games.

Ecmandu, I am not playing games. You have had an aggressive attitude toward me from day one. We're adults and hopefully we can enter into a calm conversation without verbal attacks. It's clear that determinism rubs you the wrong way, and I do understand. I would feel the same way if I thought that we had no say in anything we do because the external (what you call determinism) gives a person no say, or makes him a non-entity.

But, according to Baruch Spinoza, if You could sufficiently detach from the external, and be ruled by mind power rather than stimuli beating down on Our sense organs, then that's closer to Free Will, to be determined into action by Your own imagination, and all of the infinite places that it can lead.

Rationality is where it's at. If we rationalize Our passions, a major part of the "effects" (cause and effect, determinism), then We can understand why We choose to do things. It would take an accurate understanding of human potential to the highest nature, and a lot of logic, a lot of thought, but the inner life of the heart gives us the self-fulfillment and determination to see projects through, to do anything that We would will.

You have to believe in God too, above all else, because with God comes the complete destiny for an endless Future. God makes everything free, especially Our Wills. So, it's actually NOT all determined.

[peacegirl]

You stated outright that your definition of determinism is THE accurate one (as a universal qualifier) which means: for all possible beings in existence

Don't play games with me here, your exact words are only 6 short posts back.

Give me this definition and stop playing games.

Ecmandu, I am not playing games. You have had an aggressive attitude toward me from day one. We're adults and hopefully we can enter into a calm conversation without verbal attacks. It's clear that determinism rubs you the wrong way, and I do understand. I would feel the same way if I thought that we had no say in anything we do because the external (what you call determinism) gives a person no say, or makes him a non-entity.

I'm upset with you because I have a perfect definition of determinism, which includes "if you know everything that's going to happen to you before it happens and yet can change none of it, even though it might be highly undesirable to you, then you're in a deterministic system"

I did not say that. No one can know what's going to happen before it happens.

However, this is just a subset of knowing every reason why you know everything you know.

For another example: this exactvneuron in my brain moved to that spot because Phil farted

Once perfect deterministic knowledge hits 100%, it's impossible for the being to be sentient, as I demonstrated with logical catatonia

Very strange logic if I must say so. I'm having a hard time even understanding your idea of determinism.

Since we are aware that we exist, we demonstrate self evidently that we are not completely determined,

Maybe not according to your definition.

as a 100% determined system has no choice but to be itself.

Who said you didn't have a choice?

I put all my cards on the table here and you still haven't taken the time to define determinism since it was requested that this minimal amount of effort on your part would keep the thread on topic, and provide interest on your part in this thread continuing along these lines.

Stop trying to make me the bad guy. How many posts have you given, and how many have I? You are very impatient.

Instead of leaving it an open question whether you are projecting your fear that you may be wrong onto me, perhaps, you can simply engage like a person who's interested in getting to the truth.

This is laughable. Projection? Interested in getting at the truth?

What my argument and definition does is to take the limit of the only hypothetical state of consciousness that can prove determinism, and show self evidently that it cannot achieve this state of consciousness without not existing.

Only with your definition which is flawed. Can you entertain the possibility that you are wrong? Maybe then we can have a friendly discussion. Until then, we can't.

[Ecmandu]

Then you just don't understand determinism at all.

My limit argument (disproof through self evident definitions) means that there must also be an inferential disproof of determinism that I have yet to discover.

By the way: in the absence of your definition, which you did AGAIN !! (Are you kidding me!?!?), means that we haven't even begun the discussion that you stated many posts ago you could have with me.

[peacegirl]

Then you just don't understand determinism at all.

But I do.

My limit argument (disproof through self evident definitions) means that there must also be an inferential disproof of determinism that I have yet to discover.

Your disproof is not accurate because your definition through self-evident definitions is inaccurate.

By the way: in the absence of your definition, which you did AGAIN !! (Are you kidding me!?!?), means that we haven't even begun the discussion that you stated many posts ago you could have with me.

No we haven't but not because I did anything AGAIN. I gave the first three chapters of my book which defined determinism accurately. So don't tell me I failed to give a definition. You immediately disagreed with greater satisfaction by mistaking it for greater pleasure. You were so sure I was wrong. Really?

[Ecmandu]

Then you just don't understand determinism at all.

But I do.

My limit argument (disproof through self evident definitions) means that there must also be an inferential disproof of determinism that I have yet to discover.

Your disproof is not accurate because your definition through self-evident definitions is inaccurate.

By the way: in the absence of your definition, which you did AGAIN !! (Are you kidding me!?!?), means that we haven't even begun the discussion that you stated many posts ago you could have with me.

No we haven't but not because I did anything AGAIN. I gave the first three chapters of my book which defined determinism accurately. So don't tell me I failed to give a definition. You immediately disagreed with greater satisfaction by mistaking it for greater pleasure. You were so sure I was wrong. Really?

Satisfaction is a pleasurable state of being derived from a particular accomplishment ... it's a subset of pleasure, pleasure is the superset.

Besides, the same argument applies, people have vastly mutually exclusive orientations to what satisfaction is for them.

I hate to break it to you, I have been using the kindergarten version of my proof, and this conversation is going nowhere.

How on earth does someone take three pages to define determinism ... sounds to me like you don't want to be understood.

Edit: sorry, three CHAPTERS!!!??, not pages!!

[peacegirl]

Then you just don't understand determinism at all.

But I do.

My limit argument (disproof through self evident definitions) means that there must also be an inferential disproof of determinism that I have yet to discover.

Your disproof is not accurate because your definition through self-evident definitions is not accurate.

By the way: in the absence of your definition, which you did AGAIN !! (Are you kidding me!?!?), means that we haven't even begun the discussion that you stated many posts ago you could have with me.

No we haven't but not because I did anything AGAIN. I gave the first three chapters of my book which defined determinism accurately. So don't tell me I failed to give a definition. You immediately disagreed with greater satisfaction by mistaking it for greater pleasure. You were so sure I was wrong. Really?

Satisfaction is a pleasurable state of being derived from a particular accomplishment ... it's a subset of pleasure, pleasure is the superset.

No one is disagreeing that pleasure over pain is something we all want. But the term "greater satisfaction" doesn't just apply to pleasure. For example, what if we have to choose between going to a job we dislike or getting evicted? In that case we would choose the lesser of two evils (or the least dissatisfying option), neither of which bring us pleasure. Life is always moving away from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of greater satisfaction or we would stay in one place and never make a move.

Besides, the same argument applies, people have vastly mutually exclusive orientations to what satisfaction is for them.

That is true.

I hate to break it to you, I have been using the kindergarten version of my proof, and this conversation is going nowhere.

If that's how you feel you can leave the thread. No one is forcing you to be here.

How on earth does someone take three pages to define determinism ... sounds to me like you don't want to be understood.

Edit: sorry, three CHAPTERS!!!??, not pages!!

Three chapters Ecmandu. The first chapter explains why man's will is not free. The second explains the discovery. The third chapter shows how this discovery works in real life.

[Ecmandu]

Your entire book in a nutshell is this: have hope for the automation that we all are, the lack of freewill means that everything is great! It will all work out for the best.

I loathe that stance.

It is constantly used to abuse people.

It's been used for thousands of years, be it god, or just every oppressor who has ever lived.

[peacegirl]

Your entire book in a nutshell is this: have hope for the automation that we all are, the lack of freewill means that everything is great! It will all work out for the best.

That's not how it's being used. Why are you jumping to conclusions?

I loathe that stance.

How does lack of free will mean that everything is great?

It is constantly used to abuse people.

It's been used for thousands of years, be it god, or just every oppressor who has ever lived.

I guess if an oppressor wants to oppress he can use one of many beliefs to justify his actions. This discovery prevents oppression of all kinds.

[Ecmandu]

Your entire book in a nutshell is this: have hope for the automation that we all are, the lack of freewill means that everything is great! It will all work out for the best.

That's not how it's being used. Why are you jumping to conclusions?

I loathe that stance.

How does lack of free will mean that everything is great?

It is constantly used to abuse people.

It's been used for thousands of years, be it god, or just every oppressor who has ever lived.

I guess if an oppressor wants to oppress he can use one of many beliefs to justify his actions. This discovery prevents oppression of all kinds.

Peacegirl, your entire thesis in that book is that the automation is greater satisfaction, so, based in this, peace is what is and what will be, regardless of what we think of as choices, life is great because we're greater satisfaction robots.

[peacegirl]

Your entire book in a nutshell is this: have hope for the automation that we all are, the lack of freewill means that everything is great! It will all work out for the best.

That's not how it's being used. Why are you jumping to conclusions?

I loathe that stance.

How does lack of free will mean that everything is great?

It is constantly used to abuse people.

It's been used for thousands of years, be it god, or just every oppressor who has ever lived.

I guess if an oppressor wants to oppress he can use one of many beliefs to justify his actions. This discovery prevents oppression of all kinds.

Peacegirl, your entire thesis in that book is that the automation is greater satisfaction, so, based in this, peace is what is and what will be, regardless of what we think of as choices, life is great because we're greater satisfaction robots.

It's true that we are compelled to move in one direction only. We cannot move in the direction that gives us less satisfaction [in our eyes] when a better alternative is available. But to say this turns us into greater satisfaction robots is misleading because we're not being forced to choose by an external force that does not allow for choice.

You talk about the book as if you read it.

“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnston, but in order for me to
reveal my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its
hiding place because they are related to each other.”

“What is this theory?” he asked.

“You see, Mr. Johnston, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”

“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me
that man’s will is not free?”

“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnston. I don’t believe it; I know
this for a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door
marked ‘Man’s Will is Not Free,’ just like the invariable laws of the
solar system were concealed behind the door marked ‘The Earth is
Round’ — until some upstart scientist opened it for a thorough
investigation.”

“I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it
make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be
affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if
the will of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery,
consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors
that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as
long as the door marked ‘The Earth Is Round’ was never opened
thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the
undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to
discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”

“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of
the most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any
discoveries to change the world.”

“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none
of them had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there.
Most people do not even know it is a theory since it is preached by
religion, government, even education as if it is an absolute fact.”

“Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have
discovered but whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it
cannot be valid because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank
you very much for coming out but I’m not interested in discussing
this matter any further.” And he would not let me continue

[Ecmandu]

For someone who claims to know something for a mathematical fact, a simple set theory argument about limits is unfortunately unfathomable to you.

Let's try this again:

You're making an inferential proof, not a proof from limits.

I'm making better than an inferential proof, I'm making a proof from limits.

Hypothetically!!! (By definition)

The absolute deterministic stance is this:

You know every reason why you know what you know, and all of those reasons are defined as outside of you.

If that hypothetical by definition is true, then, what does that do to this hypothetical being?

It forces it so that the being cannot possibly comprehend why it can act in any way upon anything, in any way. There is no otherness with which this being can possibly discern it's own existence relative to. At absolute determinism, it's impossibly for the being to be sentient. I'm not speaking about approach here, strictly, the limit.

What is deep about this proof, is that it proves the absence of omniscience, and also proves that because of this absence we have at least SOME measure of freewill. We don't know every reason why we know what we know (omniscience -- the limit!!)

Thus, all information is not 100% determined for sentient, even hypothetically, beings.

[peacegirl]

For someone who claims to know something for a mathematical fact, a simple set theory argument about limits is unfortunately unfathomable to you.

Let's try this again:

You're making an inferential proof, not a proof from limits.

I'm making better than an inferential proof, I'm making a proof from limits.

Hypothetically!!! (By definition)

The absolute deterministic stance is this:

You know every reason why you know what you know, and all of those reasons are defined as outside of you.

If that hypothetical by definition is true, then, what does that do to this hypothetical being?

It forces it so that the being cannot possibly comprehend why it can act in any way upon anything, in any way. There is no otherness with which this being can possibly discern it's own existence relative to. At absolute determinism, it's impossibly for the being to be sentient. I'm not speaking about approach here, strictly, the limit.

What is deep about this proof, is that it proves the absence of omniscience, and also proves that because of this absence we have at least SOME measure of freewill. We don't know every reason why we know what we know (omniscience -- the limit!!)

Thus, all information is not 100% determined for sentient, even hypothetically, beings.

Determinism does not mean you have to know every reason why you know what you know, therefore the rest of your proof doesn't fly. I never heard of such a definition. I don't think this is proof of free will at all although it is fine to say you acted freely, which only means you chose without external constraint. I am not even sure what you think free will is.

[Ecmandu]

That's why I used the word hypothetically!!

I'm showing the LIMIT!!

It's a thought experiment.

Now!

In that absence of a limit proof, you have to use something called an inferential proof (which is what you're asserting)

Limit proofs are much more powerful than inferential proofs.

An example of an inferential proof is that the counting numbers are all in what's called a well ordered (sequential) set.

1,2,3,4,5,6... etc

Now this actually doesn't have a limit proof because we can't get to the end.

It's called an inferential proof, because we know it's true, but we can't prove it, and we know we can't prove it.

The proof I'm giving you is much more powerful than an inferential proof (which you are attempting but haven't proven (that you really have an inferential proof))

I'm giving a limit proof. Those are incontrovertible

[peacegirl]

That's why I used the word hypothetically!!

I'm showing the LIMIT!!

It's a thought experiment.

Now!

In that absence of a limit proof, you have to use something called an inferential proof (which is what you're asserting)

Limit proofs are much more powerful than inferential proofs.

An example of an inferential proof is that the counting numbers are all in what's called a well ordered (sequential) set.

1,2,3,4,5,6... etc

Now this actually doesn't have a limit proof because we can't get to the end.

It's called an inferential proof, because we know it's true, but we can't prove it, and we know we can't prove it.

The proof I'm giving you is much more powerful than an inferential proof (which you are attempting but haven't proven (that you really have an inferential proof))

I'm giving a limit proof. Those are incontrovertible

One of us is wrong. Your attempt to prove determinism impossible because of a limit proof based on an invalid premise, does not in any way prove freedom of the will. But if you believe you're right, the more power to you.

[Ecmandu]

According to you, the solution to world peace is finding our true nature, but then you further argue that we have no choice.

So... my question to you, from the perspective of an absolute determinist, why bother making this thread if you are correct? It's illogical from your argument, to make a thread that tries to teach people what you've proven (even if you don't post the thread) all of them will learn what you posted (by your proof)?!?!?

You are your own argument against determinism.

Even if you don't listen to me....

Listen to you !!!!!!

[peacegirl]

According to you, the solution to world peace is finding our true nature, but then you further argue that we have no choice.

So... my question to you, from the perspective of an absolute determinist, why bother making this thread if you are correct? It's illogical from your argument, to make a thread that tries to teach people what you've proven (even if you don't post the thread) all of them will learn what you posted (by your proof)?!?!?

Huh? What does my desire to make a thread discussing how world peace can be achieved by sharing the proof illogical?

You are your own argument against determinism.

Even if you don't listen to me....

Listen to you !!!!!!

My argument, according to you, is against determinism because I created a thread about determinism?

[Ecmandu]

According to you, the solution to world peace is finding our true nature, but then you further argue that we have no choice.

So... my question to you, from the perspective of an absolute determinist, why bother making this thread if you are correct? It's illogical from your argument, to make a thread that tries to teach people what you've proven (even if you don't post the thread) all of them will learn what you posted (by your proof)?!?!?

Huh? What does my desire to make a thread discussing how world peace can be achieved by sharing the proof illogical?

You are your own argument against determinism.

Even if you don't listen to me....

Listen to you !!!!!!

My argument, according to you, is against determinism because I created a thread about determinism?

It's illogical because nobody has a choice according to your proof, so, you sharing the proof suggests that people do have a choice. In contradicting yourself, by virtue of at a minimum, parsimony, you proved that you don't even believe your own proof.

[peacegirl]

According to you, the solution to world peace is finding our true nature, but then you further argue that we have no choice.

So... my question to you, from the perspective of an absolute determinist, why bother making this thread if you are correct? It's illogical from your argument, to make a thread that tries to teach people what you've proven (even if you don't post the thread) all of them will learn what you posted (by your proof)?!?!?

Huh? What does my desire to make a thread discussing how world peace can be achieved by sharing the proof illogical?

You are your own argument against determinism.

Even if you don't listen to me....

Listen to you !!!!!!

My argument, according to you, is against determinism because I created a thread about determinism?

It's illogical because nobody has a choice according to your proof, so, you sharing the proof suggests that people do have a choice. In contradicting yourself, by virtue of at a minimum, parsimony, you proved that you don't even believe your own proof.

Of course people have a choice otherwise what would be the point of deliberation? But the choice, once it's decided upon, could not have been otherwise since we can only move in one direction.

[Ecmandu]

That's one of the most classic freewill arguments that exists !!

Honestly, I think you are very confused!!

You say a person can make a choice (that's not determinism but the way !!!')

Then you say that once they make a choice, it couldn't have been any other way!!

Well yeah!! No shit!!

If we travel back in time to our exact past, we will just be us in our exact past.

This argument you're presenting is a CLASSIC freewill argument!!! Whoa!?! Like seriously, this is ...

Umm never mind ...

So here's the deal.

Yes, when a choice (freewill) is made, a singularity occurs at that decision point and makes it so that AFTER that point, that no other decision COULD have been made.!!!

*deep sigh*

[peacegirl]

That's one of the most classic freewill arguments that exists !!

Honestly, I think you are very confused!!

Peacegirl: I’m not confused at all. Having choices does not mean they are free choices so this is not an argument for free will.

Ecmandu: You say a person can make a choice (that's not determinism but the way !!!')

Peacegirl: Making choices that can only go in one direction IS why man’s will is not free. Not only that, there is no scientific way you can prove a person was free to choose otherwise.

Ecmandu: Then you say that once they make a choice, it couldn't have been any other way!!

Well yeah!! No shit!!

If we travel back in time to our exact past, we will just be us in our exact past.

This argument you're presenting is a CLASSIC freewill argument!!! Whoa!?! Like seriously, this is ...

Umm never mind ...

So here's the deal.

Yes, when a choice (freewill) is made, a singularity occurs at that decision point and makes it so that AFTER that point, that no other decision COULD have been made.!!

*deep sigh*

Sorry but being able to make choices does not make them free.

[Ecmandu]

That's one of the most classic freewill arguments that exists !!

Honestly, I think you are very confused!!

Peacegirl: I’m not confused at all. Having choices does not mean they are free choices so this is not an argument for free will.

Ecmandu: You say a person can make a choice (that's not determinism but the way !!!')

Peacegirl: Making choices that can only go in one direction IS why man’s will is not free. Not only that, there is no scientific way you can prove a person was free to choose otherwise.

Ecmandu: Then you say that once they make a choice, it couldn't have been any other way!!

Well yeah!! No shit!!

If we travel back in time to our exact past, we will just be us in our exact past.

This argument you're presenting is a CLASSIC freewill argument!!! Whoa!?! Like seriously, this is ...

Umm never mind ...

So here's the deal.

Yes, when a choice (freewill) is made, a singularity occurs at that decision point and makes it so that AFTER that point, that no other decision COULD have been made.!!

*deep sigh*

Sorry but being able to make choices does not make them free.

Yeah, that's true, every choice is bound by restraints.

If I like smoking cigarettes while taking a walk, I need an able body, with good lungs, cigarettes and a lighter. There is no such thing as a choice without restriction. It's impossible.

That doesn't mean that you are using the term absolute determinism correctly. Quite the contrary, you're defining a modicum of freewill as absolute determinism, and thus, this whole thread is absurd.

[peacegirl]

That's one of the most classic freewill arguments that exists !!

Honestly, I think you are very confused!!

Peacegirl: I’m not confused at all. Having choices does not mean they are free choices so this is not an argument for free will.

Ecmandu: You say a person can make a choice (that's not determinism but the way !!!')

Peacegirl: Making choices that can only go in one direction IS why man’s will is not free. Not only that, there is no scientific way you can prove a person was free to choose otherwise.

Ecmandu: Then you say that once they make a choice, it couldn't have been any other way!!

Well yeah!! No shit!!

If we travel back in time to our exact past, we will just be us in our exact past.

This argument you're presenting is a CLASSIC freewill argument!!! Whoa!?! Like seriously, this is ...

Umm never mind ...

So here's the deal.

Yes, when a choice (freewill) is made, a singularity occurs at that decision point and makes it so that AFTER that point, that no other decision COULD have been made.!!

*deep sigh*

Sorry but being able to make choices does not make them free.

Yeah, that's true, every choice is bound by restraints.

I'm not talking about the conditions that are required for a choice to be made.

If I like smoking cigarettes while taking a walk, I need an able body, with good lungs, cigarettes and a lighter. There is no such thing as a choice without restriction. It's impossible.

That is true because the conditions necessary have not been met. How can you smoke a cigarette if you don't have a cigarette? This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and I think you know it. By the way, you don't need an able body or good lungs to smoke.

That doesn't mean that you are using the term absolute determinism correctly. Quite the contrary, you're defining a modicum of freewill as absolute determinism, and thus, this whole thread is absurd.

Just because we can make choices without external restraint does not grant us free will. There is no modicum of free will and please don't misrepresent what I'm saying just because you don't understand yet.

We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false. So without any further ado, let us begin.”

[Ecmandu]

Ahh.. you had trouble with the quote function before (I just noticed it!)

That's why I never try embedded quotes. I'm horrible at it.

So basically, you're stating that determinism can only go in one direction.

Yet, its self evident that people make mutually exclusive choices for satisfaction constantly.

That's a contradiction right there.

Care to clear that one up?

[Ecmandu]

Double post