• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

Can anybody tell me why man's will is not free, according to the author? No one will come forward; I can bet on that. We have literally gotten nowhere.
Can you tell us?

I'd say we collectively are just fine, it is you who is getting nowhere.

From modern psychology and neuroscience there is a view that the old free will - determinism black and white dichotomy is inadequate and does not fit.
According to the definition, there is no compatibility. We either could not do otherwise, or we could do otherwise. Determinism states that once you choose A, you could not have chosen B. Free will states that once you choose A, you could have chosen B. Two different schools of thought.

Yes, according to the definitions. Pint being the definitions do not really match modern psychology and neuroscience How decisions are made in the brain. From what I read logic in the brain is a form of fuzzy logic. Neurons do not act like Aristotelian logic or binary electronic logic gates.

Metaphysics is about definitions and abstract constructs based on the definitions. Logically consistent no logical fallacies, yet having nothing to do with physical reality.

Syllogisms can be logically consistent, conclusion follows from premises but have no relation to reality.

Lessans could have made logical conclusions and arbitrary definitions about observation yet none of it based in actual paschal reality.

Real time vision is an arbitrary definition. Free will in all its variations are arbitrary definitions not subject to experimental proof.
 
Why are you bringing this garbage up again, Pood? You keep repeating the same thing. Are you that desperate?

Garbage? So you admit his claims about falling in love with each other’s sex organs and homosexual vanishing are garbage?

I bring it up because that is what he wrote.
 
Can anybody tell me why man's will is not free, according to the author? No one will come forward; I can bet on that. We have literally gotten nowhere.
Can you tell us?

I'd say we collectively are just fine, it is you who is getting nowhere.

From modern psychology and neuroscience there is a view that the old free will - determinism black and white dichotomy is inadequate and does not fit.
According to the definition, there is no compatibility. We either could not do otherwise, or we could do otherwise. Determinism states that once you choose A, you could not have chosen B. Free will states that once you choose A, you could have chosen B. Two different schools of thought.

Yes, according to the definitions. Pint being the definitions do not really match modern psychology and neuroscience How decisions are made in the brain. From what I read logic in the brain is a form of fuzzy logic. Neurons do not act like Aristotelian logic or binary electronic logic gates.

Metaphysics is about definitions and abstract constructs based on the definitions. Logically consistent no logical fallacies, yet having nothing to do with physical reality.

Syllogisms can be logically consistent, conclusion follows from premises but have no relation to reality.

Lessans could have made logical conclusions and arbitrary definitions about observation yet none of it based in actual paschal reality.

Real time vision is an arbitrary definition. Free will in all its variations are arbitrary definitions not subject to experimental proof.
Why are you going back to that topic? I just posted one page to see if there was any curiosity, and of course there was none.
 
Can anybody tell me why man's will is not free, according to the author?

Why don’t YOU do that? Earlier you said it is too complex to summarize! Why, then, would you expect US to do what you say can’t be done?
 
The term 'walking wounded' is used as metaphor for those who are emotionally damaged.
Another assumption.
It is not about who is right or wrong, it is about protecting an image of Lessans.
I wouldn't need to protect him if people actually understood what he was talking about. They would protect him. :)
Not an assumption, experience. I did not know anyone who was sexually abused, but we listen to women and men abused from childhood who are affected for life. Emotionally and physically abused kids can still feel a loyalty to the abuser.

Wherever you go nobody 'understands' Lessans. You refuse to elaborate and answer questions.

Like I said you have a communication problem. People do not have to like you to be taken seriously

First and foremost you have to appear to understand what it is you are presenting, which you do not.

It is to your detriment if you are trying to make a case.

For me the forum is informal ad I get things wrong sometimes, but I have nothing to prove and there are no consequences. I an not trying to push an ideology.

On the other hand you are here and elsewhere to present, prove, and convince others of an ideology.
Your online demeanor matters. Appearing knowledgeable and conversant in your topic matters.
I'm trying to find the page where I posted Chapters One and Two because I don't want to do it again.
Who cares, you are not listening to what people say. The book appears to us nonsensical. Posting more of the book is pointless for you.

We expect you to explain it to us clearly. You are the expert, if you can't explain how are we supposed to get it from the book if you don't?
It is not pointless. I will post one page and see if anyone can ask a relevant question. I'm sure they will just say, " It's not true" without any explanation. Of course, Pood and bilby will say it's wrong from the very beginning because they believe that the past exists, and his definition is based on the fact that the present is ALL that exists. They might as well put cotton in their ears.

We do not say it is wrong from the very begining because the past exists. :rolleyes:
 
Why are you bringing this garbage up again, Pood? You keep repeating the same thing. Are you that desperate?
That’s not what he said. You are twisting his words because you never read the book. Admit it!
Garbage? So you admit his claims about falling in love with each other’s sex organs and homosexual vanishing are garbage?

I bring it up because that is what he wrote.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WROTE!
 
Chapter One: The Hiding Place

<snip>

If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. 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 further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Yup. The above sounds like … compatibilism.

So, I do what I want to do because … that is what I want to do.

Great! Would my will be free if I did what I didn’t want to do? But if I did what I did not want to do, then that means that I did want to do that! So it is impossible to do what I don’t want to do, unless forced, say at gunpoint.

So that is compatibilism.
 
Why are you bringing this garbage up again, Pood? You keep repeating the same thing. Are you that desperate?
That’s not what he said. You are twisting his words because you never read the book. Admit it!
Garbage? So you admit his claims about falling in love with each other’s sex organs and homosexual vanishing are garbage?

I bring it up because that is what he wrote.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WROTE!

It’s not what he wrote???

I have the actual text on my computer!
 
Not what he wrote, eh?

Oh, golly, look!! H/T to ChuckF, the True Steward of the Authentic text.

Just because you took this stuff OUT of the text does not mean he did not WRITE it.

IMG_0156.jpeg
 
People fall in love with each other’s sexual organs! Falling in love takes place after, not before, sexual intercourse! Ninety-eight percent of “homo-sexual” intercourse comes into existence because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex!

This is what he wrote! And you took it out of the latest iteration of the book.

Why did you take it out, and why do you deny what he clearly wrote?
 
Last edited:
Back to the topic?

Take a random sample of 1000 people and give them a choice to make.

Prove experimentally not logically or by assumptions or observations that they are not exhibition free will and are exhibiting determinism.

To do that you have have to define what the measurable parameters of determinism are that make the decisions deterministic.

Determinism is x,y,z, What makes a decision deterministic is a,b,c.

Do ta and we will have something to talk about. Nit abstract hand waving and claims.
 
In my view determinism and free will are basically the same thing. You cannot have the latter without the former.
 
The term 'walking wounded' is used as metaphor for those who are emotionally damaged.
Another assumption.
It is not about who is right or wrong, it is about protecting an image of Lessans.
I wouldn't need to protect him if people actually understood what he was talking about. They would protect him. :)
Not an assumption, experience. I did not know anyone who was sexually abused, but we listen to women and men abused from childhood who are affected for life. Emotionally and physically abused kids can still feel a loyalty to the abuser.

Wherever you go nobody 'understands' Lessans. You refuse to elaborate and answer questions.

Like I said you have a communication problem. People do not have to like you to be taken seriously

First and foremost you have to appear to understand what it is you are presenting, which you do not.

It is to your detriment if you are trying to make a case.

For me the forum is informal ad I get things wrong sometimes, but I have nothing to prove and there are no consequences. I an not trying to push an ideology.

On the other hand you are here and elsewhere to present, prove, and convince others of an ideology.
Your online demeanor matters. Appearing knowledgeable and conversant in your topic matters.
I'm trying to find the page where I posted Chapters One and Two because I don't want to do it again.
Who cares, you are not listening to what people say. The book appears to us nonsensical. Posting more of the book is pointless for you.

We expect you to explain it to us clearly. You are the expert, if you can't explain how are we supposed to get it from the book if you don't?
It is not pointless. I will post one page and see if anyone can ask a relevant question. I'm sure they will just say, " It's not true" without any explanation. Of course, Pood and bilby will say it's wrong from the very beginning because they believe that the past exists, and his definition is based on the fact that the present is ALL that exists. They might as well put cotton in their ears.

We do not say it is wrong from the very begining because the past exists. :rolleyes:
Huh? You make feel as if I actually know something about philosophy. I was talking about the assertions in the book being based on abstract unproven definitions,.

What do you ken by the past exists?

To me the past is a prior state of the inverse. An hour ago the Earth was in different spot, and the entire solar system was in a different spot in the universe. The past. An ho0r ago yur brqain was in different state, hat state has cone and gone,

We carry memories of the past, but the physical state of he brain as in chemical states of neurons are always in the present,. Perhaps more correct to say the atoms and molecules in the body are in constant change. Chemical energy in the body is constantly burned.

That the physical past and future may all exist at the same time is a matter of speculative cosmology and philosophy. Alternative views on reality.

You watch the hands of a clock go around. When is the exact now you experience? Quantify it.
 
Chapter One: The Hiding Place

<snip>

If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. 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 further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Yup. The above sounds like … compatibilism.

So, I do what I want to do because … that is what I want to do.

Great! Would my will be free if I did what I didn’t want to do? But if I did what I did not want to do, then that means that I did want to do that! So it is impossible to do what I don’t want to do, unless forced, say at gunpoint.

So that is compatibilism.
No Pood, you could die before doing what you don’t want to do.
 
In my view determinism and free will are basically the same thing. You cannot have the latter without the former.

That has been debated for centuries. Libertarians disagree, incompatibilists disagree.....who is right? Everyone thinks that they are right.

In the case of instant vision, projection and determinism as a means to world peace, there is no debate, it's just a bad idea.
 
No Pood, you could die before doing what you don’t want to do.

Did I say different? :shrug:

You do what you don’t want to do only if someone or something is forcing you to.

That’s compatibilism!
 
Why are you bringing this garbage up again, Pood? You keep repeating the same thing. Are you that desperate?
That’s not what he said. You are twisting his words because you never read the book. Admit it!
Garbage? So you admit his claims about falling in love with each other’s sex organs and homosexual vanishing are garbage?

I bring it up because that is what he wrote.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WROTE!

It’s not what he wrote???

I have the actual text on my computer!
I know what he wrote. I have the book. You completely misunderstood him, ON PURPOSE. You joined the bandwagon along with Maturin. It was sickening.
 
Not what he wrote, eh?

Oh, golly, look!! H/T to ChuckF, the True Steward of the Authentic text.

Just because you took this stuff OUT of the text does not mean he did not WRITE it.

View attachment 53795
What he said was true; maybe not 98%, but many people fall out of love and become gay. What's the big deal? Do you live behind a rock?
 
In my view determinism and free will are basically the same thing. You cannot have the latter without the former.

That has been debated for centuries. Libertarians disagree, incompatibilists disagree.....who is right? Everyone thinks that they are right.

In the case of instant vision, projection and determinism as a means to world peace, there is no debate, it's just a bad idea.
DBT, you are mixing his discoveries up. Stick with his first discovery, which is why we can be prevented from striking a first blow.
 
Back
Top Bottom