According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[steve_bank]

Proverbs fro the bible. Words to live by.

"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling." (Proverbs 16:18)

"Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance." (Proverbs 1:5)

"The tongue can bring death or life; those who love to talk will reap the consequences." (Proverbs 18:21)

Buddhist

"The mind is everything; what you think, you become."

"Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?

"The root of suffering is attachment."

"Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have."

Islam

"Knowledge is not what is memorized. Knowledge is what benefits." .

 

[DBT]

Quote
To successfully interact with objects in the environment, sensory evidence must be continuously acquired, interpreted, and used to guide appropriate motor responses. For example, when driving, a red light should motivate a motor command to depress the brake pedal. Single-unit recording studies have established that simple sensorimotor transformations are mediated by the same neurons that ultimately guide the behavioral response. However, it is also possible that these sensorimotor regions are the recipients of a modality-independent decision signal that is computed elsewhere. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging and human observers to show that the time course of activation in a subregion of the right insula is consistent with a role in accumulating sensory evidence independently from the required motor response modality (saccade vs manual). Furthermore, a combination of computational modeling and simulations of the blood oxygenation level-dependent response suggests that this region is not simply recruited by general arousal or by the tonic maintenance of attention during the decision process. Our data thus raise the possibility that a modality-independent representation of sensory evidence may guide activity in effector-specific cortical areas before the initiation of a behavioral response.


The principle of Free Will as an aspect of brain function? Hardly. Information acquisition and processing are the means and mechanisms of thought and response.

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER ONE (BEGINNING AT POST 1,021)

. . . 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 beneficial or harmful 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 a more satisfying alternative.

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 with doing this when he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction in doing one thing than in 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 that 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. 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 forgo 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 meant 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 knew 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, for 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 have liked 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 previously available, 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.

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER TWO

THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION​

Once it is established as an undeniable law that man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off, which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will — corollary, slide rule, or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the base metals of human nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age, even though it presents what appears to be an insurmountable problem, for how is it possible not to blame people who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t want to? The solution, however, only requires the perception and extension of relations, which cannot be denied, and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God, which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have, not only without hurting a living soul but while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. You can prepare yourselves to say goodbye to all the hurt and evil that came into existence out of necessity. However, the problems that confront us at this moment are very complex, which makes it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate yet related manner. God, not me, is finally going to reveal the solution.

Since time immemorial, the two opposing forces of good and evil compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God responsible for all the good in the world and Satan responsible for the evil, while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in human relations must come to a peaceful end. The absolute proof that man’s will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that this law can control man’s actions only by obeying this corollary, for then everything that came into existence which caused us to blame and punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth. Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun.

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work our problem backwards, which means that every step of the way will be a forced move, which will become a loose end, and only when all these ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key, that we are given the means to unlock the solution. As an example of working a problem backwards, follow this: If you were told that a woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent half of what she had in each, and came out of the last place absolutely broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store that broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there. Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in, giving her three just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out of the penultimate store, this added to the three gives her four, which represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this process eight more times, it is absolutely undeniable that she must have begun her spending spree with $3,069. As we can see from this example, when a key fact is available from which to reason, it is then possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic. At first glance, it appears impossible not to blame an individual for murder, or any heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact, it can be seen that these acts of evil are not condoned with the understanding that man’s will is not free but prevented. Regardless of someone’s opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of the answer to the problem I just gave, an opinion that would have to be based upon a logical conclusion, as is that of our experts when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our lives, we know the answer is correct because the reasoning that follows from this key fact is scientifically sound.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards, we can officially launch the Golden Age, which necessitates the removal of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule, which God has given us as a guide. By now, I hope you understand that the word “God” is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil, using the word “God” only as a symbol for the former. Actually, no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction, and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will, it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing as far as reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God (NOTE: ADDED FOR CLARIFICATION; GOD USED IN THIS CONTEXT IS NOT A PERSONAL GOD BUT THE INVARIABLE LAWS THAT DIRECT EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES THAT WE ARE AT LAST GETTING TO UNDERSTAND) does not change the fact that He (i.e, the invariable laws) is a reality.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

Could you hide your copy and paste? It would make it easier to scroll the thread.

Or post it on your thread you started.

An immutable law of nature.''Don't look back the bears may be gaining on you'.

The predator-prey dynamic balance in the wild. Our problem as hums is our capacity for invention led to sconce which has taken us out of any natural dynamic balance and population equilibrium. The limit is the ecosystem itself. As we see today.

Mass consumption of recurses on a unprecedented scale.

I do not think there is any cure or philosophy that will change that. As it always has nature will trun its course.

The global free market economy as it is is based on investment expecting future profit on investment, which requires economic growth.

The roots of that go far back in history of civilizations. China while still calling itself communist is for all practical purposes is free market capitalist.

The thousands of years of economic inertia is not going to be changed by any philosophy.

All that is nothing new or original on my part.

As to posting the book. There have been thousands years of philosophy. What has shaped human civilizations is economics. Any philosophy that ignores that is a waste of time.

Note that your father having the time to study and time to write and you posting here today is all based in the economic system. And that is generally based on greed and self interest.

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER TWO CONT. . . (Chapter One: Starting on Post 2,021)

Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that He is a reality.

You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun may be inaccurate, but I know it is part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God; therefore, we must assume, because of certain things, that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this assumption, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe based on the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets, and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction, although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system, only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man, which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation, for nothing in this universe, when seen in total perspective, is evil, since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will — Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ, and even those who nailed him to the cross — but God has a secret plan that is going to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did? To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we are at last getting to understand — which includes the mankind as well as the solar system — just follow this: Here is versatile man; writer, composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief, etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of necessity, and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the entire world, which perception was utterly impossible without the development and absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of history, have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite principle of “an eye for an eye” by refusing to defend himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because she was willing to cheat to get what she wanted, while he was willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge, nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for being an atheist, but not for being a God-intoxicated man. The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality, but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump for joy?

There is no comparison between Spinoza and me. He was a gentle man; I am not. He refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone can gain an advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me, I’d fight him tooth and nail. If an aggressive country were to start a war before this knowledge is released, it is only natural that we would fight back with everything we’ve got. Turning the other cheek under these conditions could lead to further harm, which is why most people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” I personally would derive greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those who have done, or would do, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct.

Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us, something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you punch me, I might get greater satisfaction in punching you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to strike me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER TWO CONT... (Chapter One: Starting on Post 2,021)

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what they were doing, and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.

If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him to retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that to do either, he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then he is given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by the laws of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our basic principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you will, is not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when not to do so makes matters worse for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the very first blow. Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form of retaliation, for this is a source of satisfaction, which is the direction life is compelled to take. Therefore, this knowledge cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame that man has been compelled to live with all these years as a consequence of crimes committed and many other forms of hurt; yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied, for man is truly not to blame for anything he does, notwithstanding, so a still deeper analysis is required. Throughout history, no one has ever known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is absolutely no way this new world — a world without war, crime, and all forms of hurt to man by man — can be stopped from coming into existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can be brought to light.

We have been growing and developing just like a child from infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free, it would lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other factors as the cause. If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine that had slipped a cog in generating him. It is also true that if it had not been for the development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of this coming Golden Age. Yet even though we have been brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction (or this invariable law of God) states explicitly, as we perceive these mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES. This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the mathematical corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to anything after it is done — only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies before something is done and not after. Does this mean we can blame someone after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the same problem that man has faced since time immemorial: how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our penal code? How is it humanly possible not to judge, not to criticize, not to blame, not to punish those criminal acts when we know that man was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to? If someone killed my loved one, how is it possible not to hate the individual responsible, not to judge this as an act of evil, not to desire some form of revenge? I still don’t understand how not blaming will prevent a man from hurting his fellowman if this is his desire. Though this may be an undeniable corollary, how is it humanly possible not to hold someone responsible for murder, rape, the killing of six million people, etc.? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these crimes or give the offender a mere slap on the wrist? Besides, what will prevent someone from blaming and punishing even though will is not free if it gives him greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is certainly not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no blame.”

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER TWO CONT..(Chapter One: Starts on Post 2,021)

This has always been the greatest stumbling block that kept free will on the throne until the present time. It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason God’s commandment does not apply to anything after it is done, only before, is that it has the power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was previously necessary. At this juncture, I shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of important facts that must be understood before continuing.

To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, (for this seems mathematically impossible since it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a deconfusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what has made up his mind not to do. He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and heredity but prefers this action because, at that moment, he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.

Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another that which 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 that he has mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move in the direction of greater satisfaction. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Think about this once again: Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for freedom to prefer nonviolence, turning the other cheek as a solution to their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, which means that his preference gave him satisfaction at that moment, for one reason or another.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much confusion: Although man’s will is not free, there is absolutely nothing — not environment, heredity, God, or anything else — that causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him to commit a crime; it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused; consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but remember, his particular environment is different because he himself is different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once he chooses to act on his desire, whether it is a minor or more serious crime, he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his desires. Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part, if not all, the responsibility, which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do.

You see it happen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you made me do,” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and not wishing to be blamed, the boy quickly searches for an excuse to shift the responsibility to something that does not involve him. Why else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and punishment he doesn’t want. A great deal of confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another, he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications that deterred philosophers from conducting a thorough investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend requests clarification on certain critical points.

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve this enigmatic corollary, but it seems to me that this knowledge would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his responsibility?”

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER TWO: THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the fear of punishment and public opinion, which judged his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong. But this is inaccurate simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when you know that you will not be blamed for what you do.

In other words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others. The very act of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the behavior unacceptable in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you for satisfaction to think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action. If you do what others judge to be right, is it necessary to lie or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me elaborate for greater understanding.

If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody, is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him? This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way, and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?”

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something judged wrong, is that right?”

“I agree with this.”

“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you for satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action; otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong, you would not have to do these things, right?”

“You are right again.”

“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one is going to question your conduct in any way because you know that they must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it possible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done, when you also know that no one is blaming you?”

“Why are you smiling?”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I agree that it is not possible.”

“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility, right?”

 

[bilby]

If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way, and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?

Yes, it is not just possible, it's commonplace. It's not reasonable or fair, but it's assuredly possible.

Your father's imaginary interlocutor is such a sycophantic toady, and so lacking in a basic grasp of reality, that I want to imagine punching him in his imaginary face.

I guess when nobody is prepared to believe your bullshit, imagining someone who is easily impressed is the only way to avoid disappointment. It's incredibly sad and pathetic, though.

 

[steve_bank]

Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction, although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system, only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man, which is now being permanently removed.

Theosophy comes to mod and other traditions.

Hidden and divine wisdom. Wisdom and knowledge of the ancients revealed.

Theosophy, founded by Helena Blavatsky, is a spiritual movement blending Western esotericism (Neoplatonism, Gnosticism) with Eastern philosophies (Hinduism, Buddhism) to find universal truths, emphasizing reincarnation, karma, and spiritual evolution, and directly influencing many modern spiritual ideas like New Age beliefs. Similar traditions, often part of the broader "Ageless Wisdom," include Anthroposophy (from Steiner), Christian Theosophy (Böhme), and general esoteric movements focusing on hidden knowledge, universal brotherhood, and inner development, all exploring the "divine wisdom" behind diverse religions.

What is the basic philosophy of Krishnamurti?
He believed in total awareness as being essential for a free mind. Human beings always learned from their past, and it was important that they looked inwards and freed themselves from self-perpetuated torment. It was also necessary that they avoided repression.

Mathematically demonstrated? proven? Still don't see any proof other than the kind of proof Christians use to cl,aim god exists.

Peacegirl, what books were on his bookshelf? Krishnamurti?

It would take me some work, if I went through your book in detail I could probably trace all the influences.

Someone knowledgeable in the non mainstream traditions or what is lumped as New Age would probably see it.

New Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New Age is a range of spiritual or religious practices and beliefs that rapidly grew in Western society during the early 1970s. Its highly eclectic and unsystematic structure makes a precise definition difficult. Although many scholars consider it a religious movement, its adherents typically see it as spiritual or as a unification of mind, body, and spirit, and rarely use the term New Age themselves. Scholars often call it the New Age movement, although others contest this term and suggest it is better seen as a milieu or zeitgeist.

Your book is one of many.

Transforming the world. Nothing new under the sun.

Rosicrucianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rosicrucianism (/ˌroʊzɪˈkruːʃəˌnɪzəm, ˌrɒzɪ-/) is a spiritual and cultural movement influenced by Esoteric Christianity and Hermeticism that arose in early modern Europe in the early 17th century after the publication of several texts announcing to the world a new secret society. Rosicrucianism is symbolized by the Rose Cross or Rosy Cross. There have been several Rosicrucian (or Rosicrucian-inspired) organizations since the initial movement was founded, including the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross (1750s–1790s), the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia (1865–present), and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (1887–1903).

In the early 17th century, the manifestos caused excitement throughout Europe by declaring the existence of a secret brotherhood of alchemists and sages who were preparing to transform the arts and sciences, and religious, political, and intellectual landscapes of Europe. Wars of politics and religion ravaged the continent. The works were re-issued several times, followed by numerous pamphlets, favorable or otherwise. Between 1614 and 1620, about 400 manuscripts and books were published which discussed the Rosicrucian documents.

Prophets come and go. Some traditions persist like Rosicrucian.

 

[peacegirl]

If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way, and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?

Yes, it is not just possible, it's commonplace. It's not reasonable or fair, but it's assuredly possible.

Your father's imaginary interlocutor is such a sycophantic toady, and so lacking in a basic grasp of reality, that I want to imagine punching him in his imaginary face.

I guess when nobody is prepared to believe your bullshit, imagining someone who is easily impressed is the only way to avoid disappointment. It's incredibly sad and pathetic, though.

This is the dumbest response yet. If your mother told you to take off your shoes when you come in the house, and you did it exactly as she asked, are you telling me that it would be possible for her to blame you for doing exactly as she asked (unless there was a miscommunication of some sort)? You aren't even making sense.

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER TWO: THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

. . . “This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility, right?”

“You are absolutely correct.”

Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others. But once it is realized, as a matter of positive knowledge, that man will not be held responsible for what he does since his will is not free (don’t jump to conclusions, follow the reasoning — my problem is difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically impossible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done simply because you know that no one is blaming you. To paraphrase this another way: Once it is realized that no one henceforth will blame your doing whatever you desire to do, regardless of what is done, because your action will be considered a compulsion over which you have no control, it becomes mathematically impossible to blame something or someone for what you know you have done or shift your responsibility in any way because you know that no one is blaming you.

Being constantly criticized by the standards that prevailed, man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He blamed various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that were considered wrong because he didn’t like to assume full responsibility for being in the wrong. But the very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his will is not free, regardless of what is done, and there will be no more criticism or blame, regardless of his actions, man is also prevented from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does, prevented from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is not being given an opportunity to do so, which compels him, completely beyond control, but of his own free will, not only to assume full responsibility for everything he does but to be absolutely honest with himself and others. How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged or blamed, in other words, when you are not being given an opportunity to lie, and how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free will, man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong and get away with murder in a figurative sense — the very things our new knowledge positively prevents.

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will, as did everything else. Consequently, you have come to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these words, which judge the actions of others, are accurate. How was it possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed in free will? But in reality when murder is committed, it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life considered better for himself under circumstances that included the judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too was neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction.

Neither the government nor the murderer is to blame for what each judged better under their particular set of circumstances, but whether they will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free, it would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.

“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it were not for the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary? In the previous example, it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”

 

[bilby]

If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way, and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?

Yes, it is not just possible, it's commonplace. It's not reasonable or fair, but it's assuredly possible.

Your father's imaginary interlocutor is such a sycophantic toady, and so lacking in a basic grasp of reality, that I want to imagine punching him in his imaginary face.

I guess when nobody is prepared to believe your bullshit, imagining someone who is easily impressed is the only way to avoid disappointment. It's incredibly sad and pathetic, though.

This is the dumbest response yet

There's no need to put headlines on your posts, but when you do, they should get some formatting to indicate that they are not a part of the text body.

If your mother told you to take off your shoes when you come in the house, and you did it exactly as she asked, are you telling me that it would be possible for her to blame you for doing exactly as she asked (unless there was a miscommunication of some sort)?

No, I am telling you that if my boss tells me that he wants something done a certain way, and I never fail to do it that way, it is possible (indeed, commonplace) for him to blame me for doing what he wants me to do.

I am not sure how you could possibly have failed so spectacularly to understand that; It was crystal clear in my post, and the text you seem unable to parse is yours (or your fathers), not mine.

You aren't even making sense.

Tell it to your mirror.

 

[Jarhyn]

I will note, I believe Bilby has as well, that many people come through here advertising certain rather religious points of view through various lenses.

I figure it's easy enough to tell the ones who are "false prophets" is to really to look at big questions: do they support scientific test-based medicine and healthcare; do they support fascists?

 

[peacegirl]

If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way, and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?

Yes, it is not just possible, it's commonplace. It's not reasonable or fair, but it's assuredly possible.

Your father's imaginary interlocutor is such a sycophantic toady, and so lacking in a basic grasp of reality, that I want to imagine punching him in his imaginary face.

I guess when nobody is prepared to believe your bullshit, imagining someone who is easily impressed is the only way to avoid disappointment. It's incredibly sad and pathetic, though.

This is the dumbest response yet

There's no need to put headlines on your posts, but when you do, they should get some formatting to indicate that they are not a part of the text body.

I'm not sure what you mean. I just put the chapter heading that I'm posting. What is wrong with that?

If your mother told you to take off your shoes when you come in the house, and you did it exactly as she asked, are you telling me that it would be possible for her to blame you for doing exactly as she asked (unless there was a miscommunication of some sort)?

No, I am telling you that if my boss tells me that he wants something done a certain way, and I never fail to do it that way, it is possible (indeed, commonplace) for him to blame me for doing what he wants me to do.

So if your boss says can you please write up a memo, and you write it up, you're saying it is commonplace for him to then blame you by saying, "Why did you write up the memo? Come on bilby, I can't waste my time like this.

I am not sure how you could possibly have failed so spectacularly to understand that; It was crystal clear in my post, and the text you seem unable to parse is yours (or your fathers), not mine.

You aren't even making sense.

Tell it to your mirror.

Look, I'm not going to answer your posts. They are filled with such vitriol, probably because you don't like the vaccine fiasco or his claim about the eyes. Too bad. Just leave me alone then. I'll talk to others, not you.

 

[steve_bank]

Interpreting

It was thought atoms had energy, and Eisenstein made a revolutionary discovery showing how it is mathematically true.

I too like Einstein made a revolutionary discovery showing mathematically that free will does not exist. Eureka!!! Gadzooks!!! Sound the trumpets, I have saved the world!!!

A more modern example.

Timothy Leary a Harvard professor who got into LSD turned it into a mystical experience and had a following. He preached that if the world was dosed with LSD the world would be transformed.

Timothy Leary, a psychologist and writer, became a famous advocate for psychedelic drugs like LSD in the 1960s counterculture, promoting them for spiritual insight and therapeutic potential, famously coining "Turn on, tune in, drop out" and co-authoring
The Psychedelic Experience, while establishing the League for Spiritual Discovery to explore LSD's use in meditation and consciousness expansion

Yes, Timothy Leary was fired from Harvard in May 1963, along with colleague Richard Alpert (Ram Dass), due to controversies surrounding his psychedelic research, specifically the Harvard Psilocybin Project, where he administered psilocybin and LSD to students and inmates, raising ethical concerns and questioning the scientific rigor of his studies

.
Prophets out to transform the world have always been around,.

 

[bilby]

I'm not going to answer your posts. They are filled with such vitriol

I am not laughing at your risable logic with vitriol. You are hilarious.

You should stop posting at all, until you have learned how to think. You are abysmally bad at it.

Or don't. We could all use a laugh.

 

[pood]

Reliably predicting things such as planetary orbits, comets, landing spacecraft on distant planets, etc, supports causality. That events happening now are causally related to past events, where if the links are strong enough, we have causal determinism.....or at least adequate determinism.

I believe your statement gives away too much.

To begin, I believe we both agree that the predictability of given activity is immaterial to the question of whether the given activity could be otherwise than it is as a result of antecedent activity. While some folks argue that predictability follows from Determinism, others disagree. All Incompatibilists agree, however, that the truth of Determinism (if true) forecloses alternatives without regard to the ability of anyone to predict the determined activity.

Secondly, I have an issue with the words "if the links are strong enough." Antecedent activity that is closest in time and proximity to subsequent activity are simply the most obvious of the nearly infinite antecedent activity that coalesces to cause the activity in question. To credit the activity that is closest in time and proximity is akin to attributing the weight of a single straw to breaking a camel's back, when the fact is that every straw is a causal antecedent, as is the age of the camel, the activities of the camel that contributed to the strength of the camel's back, the strength of the force of gravity at the location in which the came is standing, and innumerable other antecedents that combine to cause the instant of camel back collapse.

Determinism posits that the collapse of the camel's back was inevitable at the precise time and location it occurred as a result of all antecedent activity from the beginning of time (Big Bang?) to the moment of collapse. To characterize the antecedent causes of activity as "adequate" within the paradigm of Determinism denigrates their inevitability.

I understand that you are trying to make a point to folks who refuse to understand, much less appreciate the paradigm, but that is no reason to cater to their ignorance, as it feeds into their contrary and unsupportable contentions.

I meant causal links, as in causal determinism;

''Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other.''

Which is fundamentally how compatibilists define determinism, yet some on this forum try to deny or circumvent the given terms.

That's all.

Since I reject that definition of causal determinism in toto, for reasons I have repeatedly explained, I am not trying to deny or circumvent anything.

A brief recap:

Necessity is solely a matter of logic and not physics.

The laws of nature are not laws at all.

Therefore the definition given above is fatally flawed

 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER TWO CONT...: THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

. , , If it were not for the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary? In the previous example, it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”

“This is a thoughtful question, but it is like asking if it is mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would you do if it is done? How is it possible for the father to be hurt by an intentional act, as in the previous example, when this behavior would never be a source of satisfaction? Contained in this question is an assumption that deliberate hurt will continue. As we proceed with the investigation, you will understand more clearly why this deliberate hurt to others will be prevented by the basic principle.”

“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far, I still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered, and how is it humanly possible for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his conduct?”

“We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon — but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?”

“I certainly would be justified.”

“And we have also agreed that this is the principle of ‘an eye for an eye,’ correct?”

“Correct.”

“Which means that this principle, ‘an eye for an eye,’ does not concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but only with justifying punishment or retaliation; is this also true?”

“Yes, it is.”

“And the principle of turning the other cheek — doesn’t this concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck, not the first cheek?”

“That is absolutely true.”

“Therefore, our only concern is preventing the desire to strike this first blow, for if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

“It’s very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can even see that relation.”

“Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has already been established (don’t jump to conclusions), you would have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that correct?”

“Not if I planned a perfect crime.”

“The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn’t know who to blame, but if he did, you could expect that he would desire to strike back. Consequently, his desire to retaliate ‘an eye for an eye’ is an undeniable condition of our present world, as is also your awareness that there is this element of risk involved, however small. This means that whenever you do anything at all that is risky, you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of certain desires. You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or electrocuted, shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, being criticized, reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have you, but this is the price you are willing to pay if caught. Can you disagree with this?”

“I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to plan a perfect crime and never get caught?”

“I am not denying the possibility, but you can never know for certain; therefore, the element of risk must exist when you do anything that hurts another.”

“Then I agree.”

“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword, which will reveal my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles, ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.”