peacegirl wrote: The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated.
iambiguous wrote: What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.
Right? Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.
peacegirl wrote: WRONG
iambiguous wrote: Now, of course, you will have to articulate how the author defines WRONG. Only then can we compare it to our own definition. In order to determine if it is in sync. And, if not, then, by defintion, ours is WRONG.
peacegirl wrote: Wrong in an objective sense, not in "nothing is wrong" if it's in sync with the laws of matter. I guess you think nothing can be wrong.
iambiguous wrote:How can the laws of nature applicable to all matter not be in sync with objectivity regarding this matter unfolding from the past into the present into the future? Only as it must.
The laws of nature are in sync only as they must, but by the way you are defining determinism, you are holding the past responsible for your actions, which is false since nothing from the past can cause you to do anything since we only have the present. IOW, how can the past make you do anything when this word doesn't define anything real?
iambiguous wrote:My point is that given our understanding of the laws of nature applicable to mindless matter, we can create things like the computer and the internet. You do the right things and they exists. You do the wrong things and they don't.
But what of mindful matter? What of human brains in the is/ought world and in discussions such as this? How do we demonstrate right and wrong then?
I answered this. There is no right and wrong except for this hurting of others.
As these miraculous changes become a reality religion comes to an
end along with evil because one was the complement of the other.
Religion came into existence out of necessity, but when all evil
declines and falls and God reveals Himself as the creator as well as the
deliverer of all evil, it must also, out of necessity, come to an end.
It is important to recognize that religion gets displaced only because
mankind will no longer need its services since God, our Creator (this
world is no accident), is answering our prayers. Of what value is
having an institution that asks mankind to have faith in God, to have
faith that one day God will reveal that He is a reality, when He does
this by answering our prayers and delivering us from all evil? Is it
possible for a minister to preach against sin when there is no further
possibility of committing a sin? Is it possible to desire telling others
what is right, when it is mathematically impossible for them to do
what is wrong? However, there is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire
hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those
schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope
with a hostile environment that will no longer be.
iambiguous wrote: How does the author demonstrate 1] that his own political prejudices regarding human interactions are necessarily in sync with progressive behavior and 2] that this progressive future will unfold [must unfold] when enough of us down the road "choose" to embrace his discovery...requiring nature itself to be in sync with his own understanding of the best of all possible worlds years -- decades? centuries? -- from now.
How does he actually demonstrate this in ways that experiments can be conducted, experiences can be probed, predictions can be made, results can be replicated by others, in the course of applying his discovery to the things that they either "choose" in a determined universe or choose in a world where some measure of autonomy does in fact exist.
Where's the proverbial beef?!
I gave you the first three chapters. Did you even attempt to read them? Can you explain the two-sided equation? I already explained that if the formula is correct, then the real life application is a step away and cannot fail whether it's in a simulated environment, or the world environment.
iambiguous wrote:That, in my view, is basically how words work in the author's "discovery". They are attached through definitions to other words defending the meaning of more words still.
peacegirl wrote: What makes up a definition, and who says your definition is the most accurate?
iambiguous wrote:Again, a definition in regard to what? And my point is that there are definitions for the words we use here able to be linked to the world around us. Definitions that seem to be applicable to all of us.
But what about the definitions of "determinism" and "free will" and "compatibilism"? How do we pin down the one and only definition that all of us must use when confronting behaviors we either "choose" given the psychological illusion of free will or choose because somehow it can be demonstrated that the matter we call the human brain is qualitatively different from all other matter that comes before it.
The human brain is qualitatively different than other species but this has nothing to do with the fact that we are part of the natural world and function within it.
iambiguous wrote:It's like the words "freedom" and "justice". There are the objective dictionary definitions, and then the subjective interpretations we give to those definitions in regards to actual human interactions in particular contexts.
That is true. The more specific we are in defining these terms, the better we can communicate.
iambiguous wrote:We just don't know if those subjective interpretations themselves are not in fact embedded/embodied as well in the illusion of human autonomy.
We have the autonomy, or freedom, to make choices when nothing external is constraining us. Call it autonomy if you will. It doesn't matter. What matters is that once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise. This has enormous implications FOR OUR BENEFIT.
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.iambiguous wrote:But where is the part where the meaning is intertwined in actual contexts in which it is demonstrated how human brains are either choosing things of our own volition or are "choosing" things [like definitions] that nature has compelled them to?
peacegirl wrote: You're back to the same old false dichotomy that says either you are forced by nature, or you are doing things of your own volition. You are doing things of your own volition but that volition (or desire) but for the 100th time, that desire is not free to choose what it doesn't prefer.
iambiguous wrote:Oh, indeed. Meaning we are back to the extent to which you and the author are able to demonstrate that what we prefer is not in turn only that which nature has compelled us to prefer.
Again, we could not not prefer what we prefer, but nature didn't cause us to prefer it, just as the past didn't cause us to prefer it. We preferred what we preferred because of the many things that influenced our choice at that moment including our heredity, our environment, our brain state, etc.
iambiguous wrote:You argue that...
peacegirl wrote: I don't think it's that difficult to see the validity of his statement that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It's not rocket science.
Okay, why can we
only move in the direction of greater satisfaction if not because nature compels us to? Just as nature compelled us to invent rocket science.
Our nature compels us to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. We can't escape our nature, but nature, the way you're defining it, doesn't
cause anything.
iambiguous wrote:you wish to give "I" here some mysterious quality/capacity not present in the interactions of mindless matter. At the moment of "choosing", this capacity becomes vital to you. And it makes "I" a very different kind of domino in nature. While at the same time you seem to concur that what does unfold involving "I" could not have unfolded any other way than how nature compels it to unfold.
The "I" is important in the discussion of determinism. It's inaccurate to say nature forced you make a particular choice. This is the problem with the definition since nothing can make you do what you make up your mind not to do. I've said this countless times. When you say nature made you choose this or that, you are shifting your responsibility to nature, as if you played no part in the decision.
iambiguous wrote:I still don't grasp this distinction you make if the human brain is no less subject to the laws of matter.
It's a subtle difference but an important one. If I get knocked down by a crane, I played no part in the decision. That's similar to the domino example, but when I choose between options, I am making the decision in the direction of greater satisfaction, not something external to me (the way you describe nature forcing a decision on me).
iambiguous wrote:I'm just willing to acknowledge myself that lifeless matter evolving into living matter evolving into brains evolving into the self-conscious "I" is truly mind-boggling. How to explain it?!!!
I think your premise is preventing you from understanding the true definition. How do you know lifeless matter turned into living matter that turned into self-consciousness? I really don't need you to answer this. Just something to think about.
iambiguous wrote:But that just takes me and my ilk back to the mystery of existence itself. Whereas you and your ilk just shrug off the biggest questions of all. No, we don't have answers for them but the answers have noting to do with what you know to be true about everything else.
And, besides, what you believe about everything else is the part that brings you comfort and consolation.
What can I say iambiguous? Existence itself is a miracle in my view. It's nice to ponder where we came from, why we're here, and where we're going but again just because we don't have the answers (and we may never) does not mean this discovery can't change our world for the better. Of course it brings me comfort and consolation, and hope for a better world but that's not why I cling to it. I cling to it because it's a genuine discovery.
iambiguous wrote:All the while insisting that none of this is not at the behest of nature's immutable laws.
peacegirl wrote: He never said that. It is at the behest of nature's immutable laws but nature is not a separate entity that is forcing you, against your will. All this arguing over this ones simple and true statement. NOTHING CAN FORCE A PERSON TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, IF IT'S AGAINST HIS WILL TO DO.
iambiguous wrote:Or: Your own "I" is necessarily intertwined in nature. Your "I" and nature are inherently inseparable from the laws of matter. And, as a result of that, nature compelled you to insist above that, NOTHING CAN FORCE A PERSON TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, IF IT'S AGAINST HIS WILL TO DO.
As though your "will" is, once again, defined by you as both a part of but not a part of nature.
It's how you're defining nature, once again. You are misconstruing the different meanings. It is obvious that we are obeying the laws of our nature, but "nature" (the way you're defining it) isn't holding the puppet strings, just like God isn't holding the puppet strings that would cause me to do something without my consent.
peacegirl wrote: It's really okay iambiguous. If his definition of determinism doesn't work for you because you believe your definition is more accurate, by all means stick to your definition.
iambiguous wrote:So, nature has compelled you to be, what, condescending here?

I'm not being condescending. I'm being truthful. You keep telling me his definition is just another intellectual contraption. If you believe that, then please stick to the definition that you believe is correct. What more can I do?
iambiguous wrote:It's not a question of my sticking to my definition so much as the extent to which the author is able to demonstrate that the manner in which he sticks to his own reflects a very different manifestation of nature
It does not iambiguous. You're creating something that isn't there.
iambiguous wrote:In other words, the extent to which his own movement in the direction of greater satisfaction reflects the way nature really works with respect to free will and the human brain.
It works exactly the same except for the fact that he makes the point that nature doesn't cause. The past doesn't cause. God doesn't cause. The Big Bang doesn't cause. The first cause is misleading. We live in the present, and our choices are based on the considerations of the moment using our past memories to influence our choices in the here and now. This is a tougher concept to explain than I ever imagined.
iambiguous wrote:So far his "demonstration" revolves around definitions and intellectual contraptions. Nothing able to be tested by, say, the folks who work with actual brains making actual choices in real time.
Each individual can see for himself that he is always moving away from dissatisfaction of some kind to something that offers greater satisfaction even if it's the lesser of two evils, or the least painful.
iambiguous wrote:Still, the progressive future brimming with peace and prosperity can never be off the hook. That's guaranteed by the definition the author gives to the words in his discovery.
peacegirl wrote: Obviously, if the principles are inaccurate, then the discovery would be false, but the principles are not wrong. If you think they are, stick with your definition and don't pursue this knowledge. I won't hold you responsible.
iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, as I and others keep pointing out, the beauty of this sort of argument is that the proof will only become manifest long after we are all dead and gone.
That's true, but wouldn't it be exciting to see this discovery gain traction? To know what's possible because it's being recognized? And don't forget, you as iambiguous may not be here, just as I won't, but "we" will be here. I know you don't get it, but don't blow him off just because you don't get it at first.
imbiguous wrote:So none of us are actually around to hold the others responsible. At least with the laws of matter relating to things like global warming we can imagine a considerably more tangible future. For our children, one side or the other will have shown to be closer to the objective truth. Definitions and intellectual assumptions give way to whatever the actual reality is. The liberal and conservative renditions of what constitutes a "progressive future" for humankind will be exposed once and for all.
Especially when there will be no need for government as we know it. Obviously science will confirm or deny man's contribution to global warming. The difference between this world and the new world is that there will be no need for laws to enforce behavior that is for the greater good (the good for our planet as a whole), especially when no one will be held responsible or blamed for not doing their part.
iambiguous wrote:Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that [your] own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to [you] is that it is not
what [you] believe is true that matters nearly as much as
that [you] believe that all others are obligated to share in that belief.
Another
psychological embodiment of this:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
Firstly, it's not a belief. Secondly, no one is telling anyone what to believe if they don't see it for themselves.
peacegirl wrote: This has nothing to do with obligation. If people see the soundness of these principles, they will, of their own accord, desire to learn more. If not, then not. I have no control over what people are interested in. I'm hoping that there is interest and people will want to spread word about this knowledge so it can be carefully investigated. He even mentioned that at the end of the book.
iambiguous wrote:But obligations themselves would have everything to do with nature evolving into minds evolving into mental, emotional and psychological states that are no less compelled by the laws of matter.
What you really have no control over is, well, anything at all. And that is because the laws of matter encompass the human brain pondering the things it is able to delude itself into believing that it does have some measure of control over. Like the words we are exchanging here.
peacegirl wrote: We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, which is why will is not free.
iambiguous wrote:And here we are again. From my frame of mind, we have no control over what gives us greater satistifaction because...because control here is embedded in the laws of matter.
In nature itself.
I have no autononous control over the words that I am now typing.
The word control is misleading as well as free and cause. We really have no control over any of our choices. We have options to pick from but our choice is never free. We can say yes or no over the words we have yet to type or not to type depending on what is our preference. It's okay to say I chose to type this of my own free will as long as it's qualified to mean nothing external was constraining me from making the choice to type. I chose this freely. We have NO choice over words that we've already typed because we could not have done otherwise now that the choice was made. If you choose right now to stop typing, if that's your desire, you can stop because the choice is still under consideration.
iambiguous wrote: Instead, nature's laws have created a matter -- "I" -- able to deluded itself into believing that it does have autonomous control over the words it is now typing.
But you do have control over the words you type only in the sense that you (the "I" that distinguishes you from everyone else) is not being forced by anything external. The "I"s ability to choose therefore (what you consider autonomous control) is not a delusion because it is YOU making the choice. You find this difficult because you are defining determinism as nature forcing you to choose what you might otherwise not, and therefore autonomy as a deception made up in our brains. Obviously, we are not autonomous in a free will sense, but we do have the ability to think, ponder, deliberate, contemplate, consider the pros and cons of each choice, all in the direction of greater satisfaction which offers us only one possible choice each and every moment of time.
iambiguous wrote:But what [so far] nature has not provided me with is an argument able to settle it once and for all. Though it has compelled others [like you] to be convinced that how they see everything is how everyone else is obligated to see it too.
Go figure nature, right?
Do you not see what you're doing? You're shifting your responsibility to nature, as if nature is this entity that is forcing a choice on you WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. That's not how it works.
iambiguous wrote:Then back to the really nitty-gritty part here:
I challenge you to note even one thing here that folks like us [here and now] can do to verify this account. Something that is beyond all doubt "scientifically confirmed" to be true about this future.
peacegirl wrote: For starters read the book. Maybe you will still have doubts but it will give you a much better understanding.
iambiguous wrote:No, for starters...
"I challenge you to note even one thing here that folks like us [here and now] can do to verify this account. Something that is beyond all doubt "scientifically confirmed" to be true about this future."And then, finally, once again...
iambiguous wrote:I'm sorry, but I'm compelled to be honest: How seriously can I take this? Even if I did possess some measure of autonomy, this is basically the sort of la la land New Age conjecture that has been coming at us now for decades. Why? Because in a postmodern world where everyone is craving something -- anything -- that can take the place of all the old traditional, denominational Gods, stuff like this is just, well, "thought up".
This is an unfair accusation because this knowledge was not just thought up. It was anything but just thought up. It took this man's entire adult life to recognize the significance of what he discovered.
INTRODUCTION
Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20 century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in
the 20 century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21
century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by
our world’s leading scientists]. When first hearing this prophesy,
shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with
contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a
statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading
and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten
a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous
months in the deepest analysis and I made a finding that was so
difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its
full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it
into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose
of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the
nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this
mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every
way for his benefit bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that
if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without
demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your
skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of
science fiction for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit
of hurt that exists in human relation) must decline and fall the very
moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This natural law,
which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully
behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the
development of our present age was required to find it.
By discovering
this well concealed law and demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic
change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing
what will be called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of
nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and
all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is
difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what
I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried
to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the
reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as
impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which
is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and
compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems
to be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can only
be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark
between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human
life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a
sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an
unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to
suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or
have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.
The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his
mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who
dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and
unfounded.
Down through history there has always been this skepticism before
certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that
they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also
be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this
reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong
because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the
mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to
predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist
who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison when
he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right. Einstein
when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right
— and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they
were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive
or dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive
over something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four.
Just bear in mind how many times in the course of history has the
impossible (that which appeared to be) been made possible by
scientific discoveries which should make you desire to contain your
skepticism enough to investigate what this is all about.
iambiguous wrote:Thought up in order to convince oneself that there really is a substitute for God in what may well be an essentially meaningless universe. The whole point is to feel comforted and consoled in believing it in and of itself.
It's really just another rendition of Scientology to me. Only its intention are more idealistic. It's not just something "thought up" to make a lot of money.
peacegirl wrote: This work has nothing to do with Scientology, which tells people what to do. This knowledge tells no one what to do. And it certainly isn't about making a lot of money.
iambiguous wrote:It has everything to do with a frame of mind that makes startling assumptions about the past, present and future...and then offers up no hard evidence to confirm that what is believed to be true in the heads of the adherents, is able to be demonstrated such that all reasonable men and women have no choice but -- for all practical purposes -- to accept that the teachings are able to be made applicable to their day to day lives here and now.
There's enough hard evidence in the book for it to be given the attention it deserves. This has nothing to do with assumptions or what is believed to be true in the heads of the adherents.