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

[peacegirl]

If you can refute the author’s observations about how we become “physically” not socially conditioned by words due to a projecting function of the brain (which you conveniently ignore), you’ll have a point. His observations came from a completely different angle which offers a novel way of looking at light and sight. Right off the bat, people take umbrage but if they analyze his reasoning carefully, they will see his claim is not beyond possibility.

Real-time seeing was ruled out hundreds of years ago and has no chance of being right. They eyes are a sense organ.

His observations, not those that were ruled out hundreds of years ago, offer a new understanding.

He made no observations, He simply made outlandish, foolish claims that are demonstrably false.

You can't keep using this as a reason to ignore his findings.

He made no findings.

He actually did.

As to the “projecting function of the brain,” whatever that is actually supposed to be according to the author,

Whoa, if you don't know what it means, according to the author, then you have failed to understand his demonstration, which couldn't have been any more clear. Could it be because you don't want to understand?

it has nothing to do with light or sight. Yes, we all “project” onto others are own biases and conditioning, if that is what he means, but once again, this has nothing to do with light and sight.

Peacegirl: Again, you are missing what the brain does. It is a physical conditioning that allows this standard to be internalized. Yes, biases that have conditioned you are seen with your very eyes as a true reflection of reality. This is not something that can be avoided because these words are part of our culture. The only way to remove this unjust discrimination is to remove the words that have created it. Do you not understand that words have everything to do with this physical conditioning?

The answer to this problem is to remove everything from the environment that makes one person feel superior or inferior over differences that are nothing but a projection of our realistic imagination. In other words, all words that project personal likes and dislikes onto the screen of undeniable substance, which then create a standard for everyone, must be removed for this problem to be solved. These words have become so ingrained in our culture that it is necessary for me to clarify, once again, why they are not a symbol of reality and why they must become obsolete.

Wrong Pood. I made a distinction between social conditioning and physical conditioning. I even showed where a person can be told how delicious a certain food is, but if he doesn't like it, nothing can condition him to like it. He can acquire a taste for a certain food, but this is different than being conditioned by words. The same goes for hearing. A person can be told how wonderful a classical piece is but that will not condition him to like it if is not his cup of tea. It is a personal preference. The same goes for smell. If someone says how great the smell of a certain perfume is and to try it, but if he doesn't like it, he cannot be conditioned to like it. Even when it comes to touch, if a person says something feels good (a deep massage for example) but this other person doesn't like the feeling, he cannot be conditioned to like it if he doesn't. Again, he can acquire a liking for it, but this is not the same thing as being conditioned by words. But when it comes to the eyes, it's a completely different story. People are categorized as either beautiful or ugly or in between these extremes. It is believed that this beauty and ugliness is being transmitted through light as it reaches our eyes. This standard has taken the place of personal likes and dislikes and has hurt many people in believing they are inferior physiognomic productions. To summarize: This "physical" conditioning is due to the projecting function of the brain that was never before understood. You say it's just conditioning, but the question is, how does this physical, not social, conditioning occur? You can't just handwave it away.

tl;dr

Please stop discussing this with me.

 

[peacegirl]

If you can refute the author’s observations about how we become “physically” not socially conditioned by words due to a projecting function of the brain (which you conveniently ignore), you’ll have a point. His observations came from a completely different angle which offers a novel way of looking at light and sight. Right off the bat, people take umbrage but if they analyze his reasoning carefully, they will see his claim is not beyond possibility.

Real-time seeing was ruled out hundreds of years ago and has no chance of being right. They eyes are a sense organ.

His observations, not those that were ruled out hundreds of years ago, offer a new understanding.

He made no observations, He simply made outlandish, foolish claims that are demonstrably false.

You can't keep using this as a reason to ignore his findings.

He made no findings.

He actually did.

As to the “projecting function of the brain,” whatever that is actually supposed to be according to the author,

Whoa, if you don't know what it means, according to the author, then you have failed to understand his demonstration, which couldn't have been any more clear. Could it be because you don't want to understand?

it has nothing to do with light or sight. Yes, we all “project” onto others are own biases and conditioning, if that is what he means, but once again, this has nothing to do with light and sight.

Peacegirl: Again, you are missing what the brain does. It is a physical conditioning that allows this standard to be internalized. Yes, biases that have conditioned you are seen with your very eyes as a true reflection of reality. This is not something that can be avoided because these words are part of our culture. The only way to remove this unjust discrimination is to remove the words that have created it. Do you not understand that words have everything to do with this physical conditioning?

The answer to this problem is to remove everything from the environment that makes one person feel superior or inferior over differences that are nothing but a projection of our realistic imagination. In other words, all words that project personal likes and dislikes onto the screen of undeniable substance, which then create a standard for everyone, must be removed for this problem to be solved. These words have become so ingrained in our culture that it is necessary for me to clarify, once again, why they are not a symbol of reality and why they must become obsolete.

Wrong Pood. I made a distinction between social conditioning and physical conditioning. I even showed where a person can be told how delicious a certain food is, but if he doesn't like it, nothing can condition him to like it. He can acquire a taste for a certain food, but this is different than being conditioned by words. The same goes for hearing. A person can be told how wonderful a classical piece is but that will not condition him to like it if is not his cup of tea. It is a personal preference. The same goes for smell. If someone says how great the smell of a certain perfume is and to try it, but if he doesn't like it, he cannot be conditioned to like it. Even when it comes to touch, if a person says something feels good (a deep massage for example) but this other person doesn't like the feeling, he cannot be conditioned to like it if he doesn't. Again, he can acquire a liking for it, but this is not the same thing as being conditioned by words. But when it comes to the eyes, it's a completely different story. People are categorized as either beautiful or ugly or in between these extremes. It is believed that this beauty and ugliness is being transmitted through light as it reaches our eyes. This standard has taken the place of personal likes and dislikes and has hurt many people in believing they are inferior physiognomic productions. To summarize: This "physical" conditioning is due to the projecting function of the brain that was never before understood. You say it's just conditioning, but the question is, how does this physical, not social, conditioning occur? You can't just handwave it away.

tl;dr

Please stop discussing this with me.

Pood, you are accusing him of something he didn't say... or imply. He didn't say people can't find commonalities that they find essential for choosing a mate or the closeness they may feel because of this commonality. Those are the considerations one has to decide, if those requirements are important to them before making a lifelong commitment. The bottom line is to find a partner that they would never want to leave, or hurt, and these principles help them do that. You misunderstood everything he wrote and now you're spreading misinformation.

 

[peacegirl]

Why haven’t you responded pood? This doesn’t exempt you from offering an explanation to a fair question. Not answering does nothing to give you credibility.

 

[peacegirl]

Why haven’t you responded pood? This doesn’t exempt you from offering an explanation to a fair question. Not answering does nothing to give you credibility.

 

[peacegirl]

Why haven’t you responded pood? This doesn’t exempt you from offering an explanation to a fair question. Not answering does nothing to give you credibility.

I have explained ad nauseam that doing something of “one’s own accord” does not grant someone free will. That’s the very first thing the author said in his proof. Did you even try to understand why he said what he said or were you just being dismissive because it doesn’t match up with your idea of compatibilism? It’s okay if you don’t answer. Either way, I will post when I have something relevant to say and your ghosting me will not help you. Here is what he said that you ignored;

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove, conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that WHAT WE DO OF OUR OWN FREE WILL (OF OUR OWN DESIRE BECAUSE WE WANT TO) IS DONE ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY, NOT OF OUR OWN FREE WILL. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we establish undeniable proof that free will is false. NOTE: That goes for compatibilist free will as well as libertarian free will. You cannot define free will in this debate to mean anything other than you “could have done otherwise.” The other uses of the word “free” don’t even apply.

 

[peacegirl]

Why haven’t you responded pood? This doesn’t exempt you from offering an explanation to a fair question. Not answering does nothing to give you credibility.

I have explained ad nauseam that doing something of “one’s own accord” does not grant someone free will. That’s the very first thing the author said in his proof. Did you even try to understand why he said what he said or were you just being dismissive because it doesn’t match up with your idea of compatibilism? It’s okay if you don’t answer. Either way, I will post when I have something relevant to say and your ghosting me will not help you. Here is what he said that you ignored;

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove, conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that WHAT WE DO OF OUR OWN FREE WILL (OF OUR OWN DESIRE BECAUSE WE WANT TO) IS DONE ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY, NOT OF OUR OWN FREE WILL. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we establish undeniable proof that free will is false. NOTE: That goes for compatibilist free will as well as libertarian free will. You cannot define free will in this debate to mean anything other than you “could have done otherwise.” The other uses of the word “free don’t even apply.

 

[peacegirl]

I have to disagree with you DBT on your explanation as to why will is not free, even though we both agree that it's not. Your explanation is insufficient, and why, I believe, people are up in arms. First of all, you keep using the standard definition of determinism that says the past causes the present which causes the future. But as this author explained, the word cause is misleading, for the past is a memory, not something tangible that can cause anything. It just presents, through our ability to remember, those options that are now being considered in the next decision that is made, and it certainly doesn't mean that the past caused a person to do what he didn't want to do. As the author wrote: 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. You seem to be saying that something other than the individual IS responsible (in this case his brain, not the agent or the part of himself that is conscious of what he is doing.) Do you ever mention the term "agent" in your argument, or does your argument deny that there is any agent or agency at all? Of course, if the brain decides before the agent has an opportunity to consciously deliberate which decision is the most preferable, that would make the agent free of responsibility, but how can the brain be separated from the "I" that houses that brain? IOW, how can the brain decide without the agent's participation in that decision? There obviously are exceptions such as a situation where a person had a brain tumor or was hypnotized and was being controlled by another agent's commands? Please explain. It's really no surprise that these two ideologies will never meet the way they are defined.

 

[bilby]

I have explained ad nauseam that doing something of “one’s own accord” does not grant someone free will. That’s the very first thing the author said in his proof

You need to learn the difference between "explained" and "asserted".

And that asserting something contradictory as a premise enables one to reach any conclusion, regardless of its truth or falsity.

Doing something of “one’s own accord” does not grant someone free will; Rather it describes someone exercising free will.

Being a canine does not grant someone doghood. But that doesn't imply that "canine" is not a synonym for "dog".

 

[peacegirl]

I have explained ad nauseam that doing something of “one’s own accord” does not grant someone free will. That’s the very first thing the author said in his proof

You need to learn the difference between "explained" and "asserted".

I hope you're joking. He explained CLEARLY why "doing something of one's own accord" does not mean we have free will in the sense that we could have done otherwise. The free will definition compatibilists use can be used colloquially but it still does not mean a person, given his environment and genetics, could have done otherwise at any given moment in time.

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.’

And that asserting something contradictory as a premise enables one to reach any conclusion, regardless of its truth or falsity.

There was nothing asserted in the premise that was contradictory, so a conclusion can be drawn to its falsity or truth.

Doing something of “one’s own accord” does not grant someone free will; Rather it describes someone exercising free will.

No bilby. That's what he was trying to explain. This is the problem with this debate. You as a compatibilist try to merge free will (the free will that says, "I could have done otherwise" (in some other many worlds interpretation maybe, or modal logic) but not with the real world where we live and exist) with determinism that says, "I could not have done otherwise." Right there we see a contradiction. There is no denying that we can do something of our own accord (i.e., because we want to). The biggest problem is with the definition of determinism which states that the past causes the present which then turns into the past which then causes the future when the past cannot cause anything if all we have is the present. I know there are people who think we can go back in a time machine and all kinds of theories and conjectures that are mucking things up and making it very hard for this author to be heard. Meanwhile, it is the overlooked gem because it has a solution to many of the problems plaguing mankind. It's not just theory; it has practical application.

Being a canine does not grant someone doghood. But that doesn't imply that "canine" is not a synonym for "dog".

Where does this analogy help clarify how the phrase "free will" is being used and how it is a strawman of sorts?

 

[peacegirl]

This 10-year-old article comes close to what author was trying to demonstrate, which is a breath of fresh air. All of this division is due to definition, which means nothing when it comes to reality.

An argument against free will: freedom of choice, but not of will​

12/30/2015

A central issue in the free will debate is confusion and disagreement about how the term is defined. The topic is clarified considerably when we distinguish freedom of choice from freedom of will. I argue that while rational agents may have freedom of choice, they cannot have freedom of will. Furthermore, freedom of choice alone is insufficient for free will; freedom of will is also required. Thus, rational agents cannot have free will.

I have noticed that some proponents of free will actually define it as what I term freedom of choice. Freedom of choice refers to the rational agent’s ability to choose between multiple courses of action in accordance with their will, independent of exterior factors. This is distinct from freedom of action and thus it is unimportant whether or not the agent is physically able to carry out the planned actions. It is clear that humans generally do have freedom of choice: we are free to make decisions based on our will. If this is what is meant by free will, then indeed humans have free will.

An argument against free will: freedom of choice, but not of will

A central issue in the free will debate is confusion and disagreement about how the term is defined. The topic is clarified considerably when we distinguish freedom of choice from freedom of will. I...

www.sciencesnail.com

The author clarified the same thing using different words:

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.

 

[peacegirl]

I just lowered the cost of the digital book [temporarily] to a bare minimum. I am hoping to get interested readers without price getting in the way. If people purchase the book, I’m hoping there will be more interest through word of mouth. I really don't think people these days have the patience to read long books if they haven't been highly recommended (which I'm hoping will occur in time), because soundbites don't work when the concepts are new and require careful analysis.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times: Lessans, Seymour, Rafael, Janis: 9780692318355: Amazon.com: Books

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times [Lessans, Seymour, Rafael, Janis] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

www.amazon.com

 

[peacegirl]

I just lowered the cost of the digital book [temporarily] to a bare minimum. I am hoping to get interested readers without price getting in the way. If people purchase the book, I’m hoping there will be more interest through word of mouth. I really don't think people these days have the patience to read long books if they haven't been highly recommended (which I'm hoping will occur in time), because soundbites don't work when the concepts are new and require careful analysis.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times: Lessans, Seymour, Rafael, Janis: 9780692318355: Amazon.com: Books

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times [Lessans, Seymour, Rafael, Janis] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

www.amazon.com

Why the laughter bilby? You're the one who doesn't read. All you're doing is displaying your ignorance.

 

[bilby]

Why the laughter bilby?

Because you are, hilariously, still trying to flog your book.

You're the one who doesn't read.

I read so much it's practically pathological.

All you're doing is displaying your ignorance.

Nobody's buying what you are selling. Neither literally, nor figuratively.

 

[Crumb]

I'm glad to see you lowered the price. You should keep it there or even lower. If you really think this book contains the secret to improve the lives of everyone in the world you would be giving it away for free.

 

[peacegirl]

Why the laughter bilby?

Because you are, hilariously, still trying to flog your book.

You're the one who doesn't read.

I read so much it's practically pathological.

So what is his first discovery bilby? You should have a clue.

All you're doing is displaying your ignorance.

Nobody's buying what you are selling. Neither literally, nor figuratively

Nah, it they bought it literally -- because they understood it '' they would buy it figuratively after seeing how this new world could actually be a possibility. It certainly is something to examine before throwing it out, considering the state of the world we're in.

 

[peacegirl]

Srsly bilby, why can't you pause for just a second to rethink your dislike for this book because you don't believe it's possible to eliminate war and crime. I get it, but it behooves you to give the author the benefit of the doubt just for a moment (you don't have to agree but you do have to give him a chance) in order to make an objective decision as to the soundness or unsoundness of his findings. Isn't that fair, or am I missing something?

 

[pood]

People are compelled of their own free will not to buy the book. They are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, away from the book. Remember, man’s will is not free.

 

[peacegirl]

People are compelled of their own free will not to buy the book. They are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, away from the book. Remember, man’s will is not free.

Yes they are, and there is no blame at all, but hopefully they will change their mind with information that compels them to rethink what they believe is junk.

 

[pood]

You changed the former horrific font to a standard text font. Now the book should sell like hot cakes.

 

[peacegirl]

You changed the former horrific font to a standard text. Now the book should sell like hot cakes.

Pood, please stop it! This has nothing to do with font, which is form. It may make the text clearer for some, but this has nothing to do with content. I think you know this, so why are you conflating the two?