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

[peacegirl]

Decline and Fall of All Evil

p. 50 Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life, pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment, and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

The government holds each person responsible for obeying the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility. But how is it possible for someone to obey that which, under certain conditions, appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people; we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO—but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.

“It’s amazing; all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied, but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that? He brought out something I never would have thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do—this is an extremely crucial point—he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. 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 that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because, in order to be developed and have meaning, it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction, which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system, but these systems are not caused by; they are these laws.

 

[DBT]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Off can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.

I do want to say at this point that the standard definition of determinism is causing problems. The idea that the past is causing the present is false since the past is gone and cannot cause us to do anything. We learn from the past and make decisions always in the present, but this is a completely different animal than being forced by previous events to do what we do, which Pood was trying to elucidate. This is a true modal fallacy. There is no necessity such that we have to choose a particular option that determinism would push on us, but this is just a problem with definition and in no way grants us free will. If you can accept that all we have is the present (even temporarily), I can move on and explain, according to this author, why man's will is not free, which leads to the discovery itself: the two-sided equation. Are you game?

If past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions of world, it's not determinism. The past is not sitting there causing current conditions, it is now the present state of the world.

I didn't say that past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions, but the past does not cause...The memory of what just occurred allows us, in the present, to use that information to contemplate, ponder, ruminate, and ultimately to decide. Now that you brought this up, I have no choice but to cut and paste. I take that back. I have a choice, but it gives me greater satisfaction to cut and paste in the hope that certain things can be clarified. Once I act on my decision, I could not have done otherwise because anything other than the choice I made would have been less preferable or satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go given my inborn nature. I hoped that people would have read the first three chapters, but this isn't happening, which is forcing me (or compeling me to find another way to get my points across) even if I have to spoonfeed it to everyone. Unfortunately, my discussing the first and second chapters, which are fundamental, are not going to be in the right order and will create more questions than would have been necessary if people had just taken the time to read.

Causality is a word we use in reference to how a deterministic system evolves from past to present and future states, ie. Causal Deteminism.

You feel a need to light a fire, you strike a match and apply the flame to your kindling and a fire springs to life, where each state leads to the next.

 

[peacegirl]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Off can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.

I do want to say at this point that the standard definition of determinism is causing problems. The idea that the past is causing the present is false since the past is gone and cannot cause us to do anything. We learn from the past and make decisions always in the present, but this is a completely different animal than being forced by previous events to do what we do, which Pood was trying to elucidate. This is a true modal fallacy. There is no necessity such that we have to choose a particular option that determinism would push on us, but this is just a problem with definition and in no way grants us free will. If you can accept that all we have is the present (even temporarily), I can move on and explain, according to this author, why man's will is not free, which leads to the discovery itself: the two-sided equation. Are you game?

If past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions of world, it's not determinism. The past is not sitting there causing current conditions, it is now the present state of the world.

I didn't say that past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions, but the past does not cause...The memory of what just occurred allows us, in the present, to use that information to contemplate, ponder, ruminate, and ultimately to decide. Now that you brought this up, I have no choice but to cut and paste. I take that back. I have a choice, but it gives me greater satisfaction to cut and paste in the hope that certain things can be clarified. Once I act on my decision, I could not have done otherwise because anything other than the choice I made would have been less preferable or satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go given my inborn nature. I hoped that people would have read the first three chapters, but this isn't happening, which is forcing me (or compeling me to find another way to get my points across) even if I have to spoonfeed it to everyone. Unfortunately, my discussing the first and second chapters, which are fundamental, are not going to be in the right order and will create more questions than would have been necessary if people had just taken the time to read.

Causality is a word we use in reference to how a deterministic system evolves from past to present and future states, ie. Causal Deteminism.

You feel a need to light a fire, you strike a match and apply the flame to your kindling and a fire springs to life, where each state leads to the next.

I get that, but it is important to clarify what these words actually mean in reference to determinism. Striking a match is done in the present. The past is not lighting the match. Each state leads to the next, as you stated, but when we talk about determinism, it is misleading to say that the past causes the present. It does not. Two plus two does not cause four. It is that already. By the same token, we remember what just happened, which then allows us to use that information to make choices in the present. This is important, as you will soon see, because it leads to the two-sided equation, which is the core of the discovery.

 

[DBT]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Off can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.

I do want to say at this point that the standard definition of determinism is causing problems. The idea that the past is causing the present is false since the past is gone and cannot cause us to do anything. We learn from the past and make decisions always in the present, but this is a completely different animal than being forced by previous events to do what we do, which Pood was trying to elucidate. This is a true modal fallacy. There is no necessity such that we have to choose a particular option that determinism would push on us, but this is just a problem with definition and in no way grants us free will. If you can accept that all we have is the present (even temporarily), I can move on and explain, according to this author, why man's will is not free, which leads to the discovery itself: the two-sided equation. Are you game?

If past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions of world, it's not determinism. The past is not sitting there causing current conditions, it is now the present state of the world.

I didn't say that past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions, but the past does not cause...The memory of what just occurred allows us, in the present, to use that information to contemplate, ponder, ruminate, and ultimately to decide. Now that you brought this up, I have no choice but to cut and paste. I take that back. I have a choice, but it gives me greater satisfaction to cut and paste in the hope that certain things can be clarified. Once I act on my decision, I could not have done otherwise because anything other than the choice I made would have been less preferable or satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go given my inborn nature. I hoped that people would have read the first three chapters, but this isn't happening, which is forcing me (or compeling me to find another way to get my points across) even if I have to spoonfeed it to everyone. Unfortunately, my discussing the first and second chapters, which are fundamental, are not going to be in the right order and will create more questions than would have been necessary if people had just taken the time to read.

Causality is a word we use in reference to how a deterministic system evolves from past to present and future states, ie. Causal Deteminism.

You feel a need to light a fire, you strike a match and apply the flame to your kindling and a fire springs to life, where each state leads to the next.

I get that, but it is important to clarify what these words actually mean in reference to determinism. Striking a match is done in the present. The past is not lighting the match. Each state leads to the next, as you stated, but when we talk about determinism, it is misleading to say that the past causes the present. It does not. Two plus two does not cause four. It is that already. By the same token, we remember what just happened, which then allows us to use that information to make choices in the present. This is important, as you will soon see, because it leads to the two-sided equation, which is the core of the discovery.

Yes but in a deterministic system it it the events of the past that lead to, shape and form the actions you do now.

 

[peacegirl]

You need to clearly and concisely describe the knowledge that you say can transform human behaviour.

I’m asking you to please read the link I gave you. Off can discuss all of the ramifications. This is the only way you’ll get a full picture of how this change in environment increases responsibility. In fact, the mere thought of hurting someone, under the changed conditions, becomes difficult to even contemplate, thereby preventing any action that could lead to what is not desired.

I asked a specific question. 'Read the link doesn't address the question.' I have read some of what the authors has said, but haven't seen anything that addresses the question I asked.

I thought that having a deep understanding of his work, you could explain it clearly and concisely.

Please explain, don't just say 'read the link.

What specific question did you have that you are demanding an answer to? I will refer you to the book for a deep understanding that cannot be reduced to a few sentences. If you think this means that this is all talk, then don’t read it. I’m not going to be put on trial for not answering your questions in a way that will be imprecise because an equation cannot be half-baked. A complete understanding requires you to see how everything comes together like a jigsaw puzzle. Hearing me give you the answers you want in a few words will lead to more questions and on and on. I know you want to make sure this discovery is real and not a pipe dream. All I can do is reassure you it is as real as it gets.

I'm not demanding an answer. I'm just asking for a clearer explanation of the authors method for transforming human nature for the better. If you don't want to explain, fine, no problem.

I'm just not clear on how it's supposed to work.

I am not sure how I can answer you without using the book as a guide. This is why I gave the link to the first three chapters which is foundational and sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Making the claims he did are already suspect. I don’t want to add to everyone’s suspicion by sabotaging his demonstration, which has to be in the exact order it was written or people are going to get confused and tell me was wrong only because it was not explained clearly.

You can use the book as a guide. Your explanation of the authors discoveries should be based on what is written in the book, just in the form of a clear summary of his key elements for transforming human behaviour.

I’m trying but I cannot leave gaps just because you demand a shortened summary. I will not risk it for fear that this discovery will be thrown out for no other reason that it was not explained correctly due to your requirements. Mind you, we are in agreement overall so let’s not ruin it for what we agree on.

I do want to say at this point that the standard definition of determinism is causing problems. The idea that the past is causing the present is false since the past is gone and cannot cause us to do anything. We learn from the past and make decisions always in the present, but this is a completely different animal than being forced by previous events to do what we do, which Pood was trying to elucidate. This is a true modal fallacy. There is no necessity such that we have to choose a particular option that determinism would push on us, but this is just a problem with definition and in no way grants us free will. If you can accept that all we have is the present (even temporarily), I can move on and explain, according to this author, why man's will is not free, which leads to the discovery itself: the two-sided equation. Are you game?

If past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions of world, it's not determinism. The past is not sitting there causing current conditions, it is now the present state of the world.

I didn't say that past conditions of the world do not evolve into current and future conditions, but the past does not cause...The memory of what just occurred allows us, in the present, to use that information to contemplate, ponder, ruminate, and ultimately to decide. Now that you brought this up, I have no choice but to cut and paste. I take that back. I have a choice, but it gives me greater satisfaction to cut and paste in the hope that certain things can be clarified. Once I act on my decision, I could not have done otherwise because anything other than the choice I made would have been less preferable or satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go given my inborn nature. I hoped that people would have read the first three chapters, but this isn't happening, which is forcing me (or compeling me to find another way to get my points across) even if I have to spoonfeed it to everyone. Unfortunately, my discussing the first and second chapters, which are fundamental, are not going to be in the right order and will create more questions than would have been necessary if people had just taken the time to read.

Causality is a word we use in reference to how a deterministic system evolves from past to present and future states, ie. Causal Deteminism.

You feel a need to light a fire, you strike a match and apply the flame to your kindling and a fire springs to life, where each state leads to the next.

I get that, but it is important to clarify what these words actually mean in reference to determinism. Striking a match is done in the present. The past is not lighting the match. Each state leads to the next, as you stated, but when we talk about determinism, it is misleading to say that the past causes the present. It does not. Two plus two does not cause four. It is that already. By the same token, we remember what just happened, which then allows us to use that information to make choices in the present. This is important, as you will soon see, because it leads to the two-sided equation, which is the core of the discovery.

Yes but in a deterministic system it it the events of the past that lead to, shape and form the actions you do now.

Absolutely true! But determinism does not always involve contemplating options. I just changed positions because my arm was falling asleep. This did not involve anything more than a movement away from a position that was dissatisfying or uncomfortable to a more satisfying or comfortable position. Every single movement we make is in this direction from scratching an itch to taking a morning walk to deciding which college to attend, to what career we want to pursue, etc. There are no exceptions to this invariable law. But to clarify, this law is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not force anything on us without our permission.

 

[DBT]

Determinism isn't about contemplation. What you contemplate and what you do is set by antecedents, as is your arm falling asleep and the following act of getting it moving.

So, given a deterministic system, what has the author proposed. as the agency for transforming human behaviour?

 

[peacegirl]

Determinism isn't about contemplation. What you contemplate and what you do is set by antecedents, as is your arm falling asleep and the following act of getting it moving.

What we contemplate and what we decide as a result of that contemplation are the antecedents. Set means that the antecedents (the things we are considering that are also set by our brainstate) are used as we contemplate which option is best given our set of circumstances. Why have the attribute of contemplation if we don't get to contemplate? We contemplate the choices we have at our disposal every day, all day. "Hmm, what should I eat for breakfast? Should I have eggs or cereal? I think eggs are healthier, but I'm in the mood for cereal." Which one it will be is dependent on the one that is the most compelling when comparing meaningful differences. This pushes me in one direction, the direction that offers the "greater satisfaction." My thoughts are like this: "I haven't been eating healthy this week, so I'm going to choose eggs even though I would enjoy the cereal more." Eggs win today because my wanting to be healthy is greater than my tastebuds; tomorrow eggs may lose because my strength to resist my desire for something sweet has weakened, so I cave. It goes like this: If I cannot choose B (eating the cereal) because it gives me less satisfaction under the circumstances, A (eating eggs) is not a free choice given the definition of determinism (the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is the motion of all life). Dogs don't have this attribute, but humans do. We are also part of that process called "agency." We, as conscious agents, get to make decisions. We are not zombies where the past overrides any thoughts we may have usurping our participation. We are not separate from our brains; we are our brains. Once again, this does not mean that the decisions we make are separate from our brainstate. We and our brainstate are one and the same.

agent - a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect:
"these teachers view themselves as agents of social change"

agency - a thing or person that acts to produce a particular result:

1. "the movies could be an agency molding the values of the public"
2. law

So, given a deterministic system, what has the author proposed. as the agency for transforming human behaviour?

You have to continue to see where his observations lead if you're interested. I cannot put everything down at once.