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

[pood]

So I ask again: how is an alternate choice or action possible in the face of inevitability? Which means everything that happens within a deterministic system, happens necessarily, inevitably, implacably.

For the hundredth time: Because stuff in a deterministic system does NOT happen NECESSARILY. It happens CONTINGENTLY. (And I don’t care if Marvin Edwards endorsed yoiur version of physical necessity — I’m not Marvin Edwards. I recognize only LOGICAL necessity.)

Necessary truths are confined to those propositions that are true at all (logically) possible worlds, and false at no (logically) possible world.

“Triangles have three sides” is a NECESSARY truth — true at all possible worlds. It CANNOT be false.

“Today I picked Coke over Pepsi” is a CONTINGENT truth — true at some possible worlds, false at others. This just MEANS, as a matter of logic, that is possible for me to have picked Pepsi over Coke, even though in fact I picked Coke. And it will always remain true, even after the fact, that I COULD HAVE picked Pepsi, even though I picked Coke.

Humans in a deterministic system receive deterministic inputs that present an array of OPTIONS. All those options are fully within our power to choose. I chose Coke over Pepsi, but nothing — certainly not the invisible beast Hard Determinism — was staying my hand from picking Pepsi.

I hope you know that's not what DBT is saying. Now you're presenting a strawman.

That is exactly what he is saying. He agrees completely with Jerry Coyne, another hard determinists, who calls us “meat robots.”

Since I can imagine a world in which I picked Pepsi without logical contradiction, my choosing Coke is by definition CONTINGENT — could have been otherwise, and WOULD HAVE been otherwise, under slightly different antecedent conditions.

It doesn't have to be a necessary truth like a triangle with 3 sides for your choice to be necessary based on your movement in the direction of "greater" satisfaction. The drinking of either is contingent based on the factors being considered, but this does not mean you would have been able to choose otherwise. This is a logical trap. It isn't causal in the sense that fire causes smoke but rather it is causal in that you COULD NOT have chosen otherwise given those same conditions, not under slightly different antecedent conditions. That would present a new set of conditions which is not what we are discussing.

WOULD not choose otherwise under the same conditions, not COULD NOT.

Gravity operates universally and the same without known exception, but gravity is still a CONTINGENT truth about the world, because one can imagine, without logical contradiction, a world in which things fall up. So gravity is true at some possible worlds and false at others.

When I output the choice “Coke,” I am PART OF the deterministic system, and I, and I alone, deterministically output “Coke” as the end of a deterministic chain. I NEED determinism to be true in order to that, or anything, because otherwise none of my choices would be reliable.

Finallly, and to repeat yet again, this business about “you could not have done other than what you did,” stated after the fact, is a red herring, because there is only one time line, one history. This means that “could not have done otherwise” collapses to, “did not do otherwise,” and that is simply — compatibilism.

The fact that there is only one timeline, and one history only goes to show that whatever was chosen could not have been otherwise.

It shows nothing of the kind. It only shows that what was chosen, was chosen.

You cannot prove that it could have been any other way.

It is not for me to show that. It is for you to show it could not have been any other way.

It is not a red herring or distraction. It is what is proven to be the case. It doesn't matter what language you use; you cannot go back in time (if anyone believes in time machines, this discovery isn't for them), undo what has already been done, and show that your compatibilist notion of free will -- that conjures up a different outcome -- could have happened, except through your faulty logic. Therefore, compatibilism fails once again.

It doesn’t conjure up a different outcome. It says that under the SAME circumstance, a person will do the SAME thing. It just denies that he MUST do that thing. That is your burden of proof, to show that he MUST.

Because if we could replay the history of the world right up the the present moment, the EXACT history of the world, right up the present moment, and I still pick Coke — great! Why would I do otherwise? That is what I WANTED to do, at that time, under those conditions. Nothing in this experiment, if it hypothetically could be run, would empirically or logically show that I HAD TO pick Coke.

Of course, I have explained all this, many times.

That you chose Coke IS THE REASON you could not have chosen Pepsi at that time, and under those conditions.

Of course I could have chosen Pepsi. I just preferred Coke.

There is no experiment that could ever prove that you could have chosen the less satisfying choice, which was Pepsi at that moment in time. IOW, since Pepsi was out of the question given your options, choosing Coke was not a free choice.

I never said that we would PREFER, what we find UNPREFERABLE. We prefer what we prefer, by definition. So what?

 

[pood]

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

Hi Janis!

I'm super busy so I may have to refer to the endless thread on FF ….

Thirteen years and counting.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, did you read this post? As I explained in it, we can accept your premise “man’s will is not free” arguendo. Read the post I just linked if you have not done so already, and get on with your argument. For reasons I explained, at this point, you do not need to PROVE your premise that “Man’s will is not free.” That comes later.

That's fine, but I have posted Chapter Two and Three. Did you read anything? Do you understand the two-sided equation? You seem to understand some of it but not all. Do you understand why, under changed environmental conditions, man can find no satisfaction being responsible for a serious accident (let's say where children were killed by his carelessness), let alone being responsible for intentionally taking chances that could hurt someone due to collateral damage?

Peacegirl, I’ve read all this stuff and understand the author’s argument. Please present the argument for others. Notice that posting by others has slipped to virtually nothing. Present your premises and conclusion to see if the argument is valid. If it is, then we can test whether it is sound (all premises true). This is the only way you are going to attract contributors, and not by pasting up walls of text.

I believe you read some of it and I believe you are trying, but I know now that just by reading it for the first time -- when it's so beyond the framework of modern thought -- will not give you the understanding necessary to allow you to place any bets on it. This is new knowledge and the claims are extraordinary, which makes anyone who hears them extremely skeptical if not downright cynical. Actually, it makes no difference to me that people have not been posting. I am not depending on anyone here to tell me the argument is valid and sound. I know it is just like they don't have to tell me that I'm here in this thread texting. This discovery is not even an argument. It's a demonstration. I'm not here for long. I'm going to try to get this work reviewed by a think tank or some other entity that will take the time (i.e., people who are well-versed in this subject matter) even if I have to pay for it. And, as I said earlier, I cannot abide by anyone's demands as to how to present this knowledge. The people here are not the arbiters of truth. So, this leaves me and you and maybe DBT and a few others, which is much easier for me. I cannot keep repeating myself over and over again when people assert their opinion out of nowhere. I will repeat these two excerpts because they are important.

This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet.

Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery? Would you like to see that the mankind system has been obeying an invariable law just as mathematically harmonious as that which inheres in the solar system; a law that allowed a prophecy to be made thousands of years ago and verified in the 20th century? Would you like to learn, though this book has nothing whatever to do with religion or philosophy, that your faith in God will finally be rewarded with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly deliver us from all evil? If you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic transition to a new way of life which must come about the moment this discovery is thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not judge what you are about to read in terms of your present knowledge but do everything in your power to understand what is written by following the mathematical relations implicitly expressed throughout. Please remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends, if you care to come along, let us embark… the hour is getting late.

 

[Person19960]

Yes, I would love to see that. I'm from Missouri!!

ETA, when will the discovery be presented?

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, did you read this post? As I explained in it, we can accept your premise “man’s will is not free” arguendo. Read the post I just linked if you have not done so already, and get on with your argument. For reasons I explained, at this point, you do not need to PROVE your premise that “Man’s will is not free.” That comes later.

That's fine, but I have posted Chapter Two and Three. Did you read anything? Do you understand the two-sided equation? You seem to understand some of it but not all. Do you understand why, under changed environmental conditions, man can find no satisfaction being responsible for a serious accident (let's say where children were killed by his carelessness), let alone being responsible for intentionally taking chances that could hurt someone due to collateral damage?

Peacegirl, I’ve read all this stuff and understand the author’s argument. Please present the argument for others. Notice that posting by others has slipped to virtually nothing. Present your premises and conclusion to see if the argument is valid. If it is, then we can test whether it is sound (all premises true). This is the only way you are going to attract contributors, and not by pasting up walls of text.

I believe you read some of it and I believe you are trying, but I know now that just by reading it for the first time -- when it's so beyond the framework of modern thought -- will not give you the understanding necessary to allow you to place any bets on it.

Good lord, Peacegirl, I read all this stuff years ago, of course I know what he is trying to say. You have the same problem you always had, and you will never learn. You think that if someone understands what the author is trying to say, they will automatically AGREE with it — that the “truth” he “discovers” is somehow self-evident, like all triangles have three sides. But, it’s not. It’s not self-evident, which means you have to support the author’s claims with evidence and arguments, which you refuse to do, because I don’t think you can do it.

But, if you really wanted to SELL the book, you would never have taken out all the good parts that ChuckF recovered, to our enormous delight and amusement.

 

[peacegirl]

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

Hi Janis!

I'm super busy so I may have to refer to the endless thread on FF ….

Thirteen years and counting.

Look, the author died in 1991. He was not a member of a leading university and held no distinguishing titles. Unfortunately, he was forced to self-publish through a vanity press at a time when only big publishing companies were respected. You have no idea what his backstory was, so please don't use the fact that I tried to help him in whatever way I could after his passing. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to contact the philosophers who could help me like Robert Sapolsky or Sam Harris. I realize that these forums are not conducive to new ideas, only to regurgitating old stuff. FF forum was horrible and mean-spirited. I learned from it though (I'm more thick-skinned) and how people can so easily misconstrue what you're saying because the contributors (if you want to call them that) made up their minds that the author had nothing of value. They then target you for their entertainment. I hope you don't use FF to judge this author, or you will be just as bad as them, although nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, instead of whining, keep laying out the argument. Maybe if you do, other posters will come back. I’ve already substantially summarized it, and you’ve said it is mostly right, so start there and fill in the missing blanks.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, did you read this post? As I explained in it, we can accept your premise “man’s will is not free” arguendo. Read the post I just linked if you have not done so already, and get on with your argument. For reasons I explained, at this point, you do not need to PROVE your premise that “Man’s will is not free.” That comes later.

That's fine, but I have posted Chapter Two and Three. Did you read anything? Do you understand the two-sided equation? You seem to understand some of it but not all. Do you understand why, under changed environmental conditions, man can find no satisfaction being responsible for a serious accident (let's say where children were killed by his carelessness), let alone being responsible for intentionally taking chances that could hurt someone due to collateral damage?

Peacegirl, I’ve read all this stuff and understand the author’s argument. Please present the argument for others. Notice that posting by others has slipped to virtually nothing. Present your premises and conclusion to see if the argument is valid. If it is, then we can test whether it is sound (all premises true). This is the only way you are going to attract contributors, and not by pasting up walls of text.

I believe you read some of it and I believe you are trying, but I know now that just by reading it for the first time -- when it's so beyond the framework of modern thought -- will not give you the understanding necessary to allow you to place any bets on it.

Good lord, Peacegirl, I read all this stuff years ago, of course I know what he is trying to say. You have the same problem you always had, and you will never learn. You think that if someone understands what the author is trying to say, they will automatically AGREE with it — that the “truth” he “discovers” is somehow self-evident, like all triangles have three sides. But, it’s not. It’s not self-evident, which means you have to support the author’s claims with evidence and arguments, which you refuse to do, because I don’t think you can do it.

But, if you really wanted to SELL the book, you would never have taken out all the good parts that ChuckF recovered, to our enormous delight and amusement.

It's not self-evident, that's why I'm trying to help people. If you are Davidm, why come in here and be a sock-puppet when I thought you were trying to help me. What a back-stabber you are turning out to be. P.S. The good parts were not taken out of his books, and they're all online. It's taken me a long time to accomplish this and I'm so glad these books won't be lost to future generations that hopefully will have a different mindset than today's generation who think they have the intellectual capacity to be the final judges.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, instead of whining, keep laying out the argument. Maybe if you do, other posters will come back. I’ve already substantially summarized it, and you’ve said it is mostly right, so start there and fill in the missing blanks.

What a shame. Now I've lost interest.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes, I would love to see that. I'm from Missouri!!

ETA, when will the discovery be presented?

He's not here to present it. He did give a lecture at the University of Maryland in the 70s and it was standing room only. But he wasn't able to do more because of his health.

 

[peacegirl]

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

Hi Janis!

I'm super busy so I may have to refer to the endless thread on FF where you tried to sell your theology and everyone kept explaining to you that since you state that GOD as an actual Being or Entity is an actual Mover of your [the idea you have], or since you stated that GOD as a Being or Entity was definitely involved in this idea you have, then your idea is actually theology.

The FF thread is junk. Go there if you want but you will never be able to sift through all of those pages to find anything of value. There was such animosity there, I can't believe I stayed as long as I did. It was such a mistake. Where did you get the idea that I stated GOD as a Being or Entity. Now you're going into false territory. This is not a theology. I guess you didn't read a thing either. This was written in the front matter. I also said that he may not have used the word God knowing the pushback, but it was clarified throughout that God only meant the force that pushes us in a particular direction, which, ironically, most skeptics and atheists believe to be true.

Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout the book and conclude that this is a religious work. Perhaps the ‘G’ word even makes them want to shut down and disconnect from what is being said. This would be unfortunate. As you carefully read the text you will see that the word God (often referred to as ‘He’) is simply a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.

Perhaps your theology is brilliant; I forget.

I will not forget how you were bewildered by my insistence that our names were similar. Well, maybe I've forgotten the exact details, but I remember my own bewilderment by your bewilderment!

omg is this thread both brand new and 17 pages long? I love homework! ohhh, thank you, Janis, I look forward to continuing our conversation. This is SO much better than saving myself from my own nonsense. Other people's nonsense is way more fun than mine. Okay, where are we? ohh, "Other Philosophical Discussions." Hmm, I don't usually see this subforum, so, I'm not sure how God-involved ideas are discussed here. ooh, one more thing to check on, yay! More homework! I sure did need a break from trying to survive. I don't even want to survive, ask anyone within earshot, literally! But enough about my disabled ass, let's see you! Whatcha got goin on over here?

Who are you barging in here like a bull in a China shop? What arrogance you are displaying. You are an example of why these type forums don't work. You are using other people's opinions to form your own without even knowing anything about me or the author. How sick is that? It's all pure gossip. This book is not about God per se, it is about not having free will and what lies locked behind this hermetically sealed door. An analogy that often happens more than you think is a student gets seen in a certain biased light which continues throughout his school career when his teachers share their poor opinion of him to the next teacher until he finally gives up because he's already been pegged a bad student. Do you think that is fair to the student? Do you think that's fair to me? I hope you don't use this thread for lulz like in FF. At least here people don't name call or use ad hominems. If they did in this forum, I would be gone. I will never go through what I went through in FF again EVERRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, instead of whining, keep laying out the argument. Maybe if you do, other posters will come back. I’ve already substantially summarized it, and you’ve said it is mostly right, so start there and fill in the missing blanks.

You did no such thing David, and now that I know it's YOU, it's no wonder you don't get it. You did fool me for a while. You could win an Oscar. You probably felt guilty keeping up the facade! What was your motive to get me to join? To continue where FF left off?

 

[peacegirl]

So I ask again: how is an alternate choice or action possible in the face of inevitability? Which means everything that happens within a deterministic system, happens necessarily, inevitably, implacably.

For the hundredth time: Because stuff in a deterministic system does NOT happen NECESSARILY. It happens CONTINGENTLY. (And I don’t care if Marvin Edwards endorsed yoiur version of physical necessity — I’m not Marvin Edwards. I recognize only LOGICAL necessity.)

Necessary truths are confined to those propositions that are true at all (logically) possible worlds, and false at no (logically) possible world.

“Triangles have three sides” is a NECESSARY truth — true at all possible worlds. It CANNOT be false.

“Today I picked Coke over Pepsi” is a CONTINGENT truth — true at some possible worlds, false at others. This just MEANS, as a matter of logic, that is possible for me to have picked Pepsi over Coke, even though in fact I picked Coke. And it will always remain true, even after the fact, that I COULD HAVE picked Pepsi, even though I picked Coke.

Humans in a deterministic system receive deterministic inputs that present an array of OPTIONS. All those options are fully within our power to choose. I chose Coke over Pepsi, but nothing — certainly not the invisible beast Hard Determinism — was staying my hand from picking Pepsi.

I hope you know that's not what DBT is saying. Now you're presenting a strawman.

That is exactly what he is saying. He agrees completely with Jerry Coyne, another hard determinists, who calls us “meat robots.”

Since I can imagine a world in which I picked Pepsi without logical contradiction, my choosing Coke is by definition CONTINGENT — could have been otherwise, and WOULD HAVE been otherwise, under slightly different antecedent conditions.

It doesn't have to be a necessary truth like a triangle with 3 sides for your choice to be necessary based on your movement in the direction of "greater" satisfaction. The drinking of either is contingent based on the factors being considered, but this does not mean you would have been able to choose otherwise. This is a logical trap. It isn't causal in the sense that fire causes smoke but rather it is causal in that you COULD NOT have chosen otherwise given those same conditions, not under slightly different antecedent conditions. That would present a new set of conditions which is not what we are discussing.

WOULD not choose otherwise under the same conditions, not COULD NOT.

Gravity operates universally and the same without known exception, but gravity is still a CONTINGENT truth about the world, because one can imagine, without logical contradiction, a world in which things fall up. So gravity is true at some possible worlds and false at others.

When I output the choice “Coke,” I am PART OF the deterministic system, and I, and I alone, deterministically output “Coke” as the end of a deterministic chain. I NEED determinism to be true in order to that, or anything, because otherwise none of my choices would be reliable.

Finallly, and to repeat yet again, this business about “you could not have done other than what you did,” stated after the fact, is a red herring, because there is only one time line, one history. This means that “could not have done otherwise” collapses to, “did not do otherwise,” and that is simply — compatibilism.

The fact that there is only one timeline, and one history only goes to show that whatever was chosen could not have been otherwise.

It shows nothing of the kind. It only shows that what was chosen, was chosen.

You cannot prove that it could have been any other way.

It is not for me to show that. It is for you to show it could not have been any other way.

It is not a red herring or distraction. It is what is proven to be the case. It doesn't matter what language you use; you cannot go back in time (if anyone believes in time machines, this discovery isn't for them), undo what has already been done, and show that your compatibilist notion of free will -- that conjures up a different outcome -- could have happened, except through your faulty logic. Therefore, compatibilism fails once again.

It doesn’t conjure up a different outcome. It says that under the SAME circumstance, a person will do the SAME thing. It just denies that he MUST do that thing. That is your burden of proof, to show that he MUST.

Because if we could replay the history of the world right up the the present moment, the EXACT history of the world, right up the present moment, and I still pick Coke — great! Why would I do otherwise? That is what I WANTED to do, at that time, under those conditions. Nothing in this experiment, if it hypothetically could be run, would empirically or logically show that I HAD TO pick Coke.

Of course, I have explained all this, many times.

That you chose Coke IS THE REASON you could not have chosen Pepsi at that time, and under those conditions.

Of course I could have chosen Pepsi. I just preferred Coke.

You could not have chosen Pepsi if you had already chosen Coke. You preferred coke in the direction of greater satisfaction rendering the choice of pepsi an impossibility AT THAT MOMENT. Contingency only means we are basing our decisions on things that we are using to help us determine which choice to make. I understand your disagreement with hard determinism in that it states everything is predetermined. In actuality, looking back, our choices were determined but determinism can't tell a person in advance what his choices will be. Maybe you would have chosen Pepsi if you wanted to test it out, or maybe you wanted to prove that you could choose Pepsi to show me that you could if you wanted to. No one is denying that you could if you wanted to. Whatever your reason for choosing Pepsi at a future point in time does not mean you could have chosen Pepsi, after you chose the Coke. I know you will never agree because you are committed to believing in compatibilism which makes no sense at all. After all these years, you are still mixed up.

There is no experiment that could ever prove that you could have chosen the less satisfying choice, which was Pepsi at that moment in time. IOW, since Pepsi was out of the question given your options, choosing Coke was not a free choice.

I never said that we would PREFER, what we find UNPREFERABLE. We prefer what we prefer, by definition. So what?

 

[peacegirl]

So I ask again: how is an alternate choice or action possible in the face of inevitability? Which means everything that happens within a deterministic system, happens necessarily, inevitably, implacably.

For the hundredth time: Because stuff in a deterministic system does NOT happen NECESSARILY. It happens CONTINGENTLY. (And I don’t care if Marvin Edwards endorsed yoiur version of physical necessity — I’m not Marvin Edwards. I recognize only LOGICAL necessity.)

Necessary truths are confined to those propositions that are true at all (logically) possible worlds, and false at no (logically) possible world.

“Triangles have three sides” is a NECESSARY truth — true at all possible worlds. It CANNOT be false.

“Today I picked Coke over Pepsi” is a CONTINGENT truth — true at some possible worlds, false at others. This just MEANS, as a matter of logic, that is possible for me to have picked Pepsi over Coke, even though in fact I picked Coke. And it will always remain true, even after the fact, that I COULD HAVE picked Pepsi, even though I picked Coke.

Humans in a deterministic system receive deterministic inputs that present an array of OPTIONS. All those options are fully within our power to choose. I chose Coke over Pepsi, but nothing — certainly not the invisible beast Hard Determinism — was staying my hand from picking Pepsi.

I hope you know that's not what DBT is saying. Now you're presenting a strawman.

That is exactly what he is saying. He agrees completely with Jerry Coyne, another hard determinists, who calls us “meat robots.”

Since I can imagine a world in which I picked Pepsi without logical contradiction, my choosing Coke is by definition CONTINGENT — could have been otherwise, and WOULD HAVE been otherwise, under slightly different antecedent conditions.

It doesn't have to be a necessary truth like a triangle with 3 sides for your choice to be necessary based on your movement in the direction of "greater" satisfaction. The drinking of either is contingent based on the factors being considered, but this does not mean you would have been able to choose otherwise. This is a logical trap. It isn't causal in the sense that fire causes smoke but rather it is causal in that you COULD NOT have chosen otherwise given those same conditions, not under slightly different antecedent conditions. That would present a new set of conditions which is not what we are discussing.

WOULD not choose otherwise under the same conditions, not COULD NOT.

Gravity operates universally and the same without known exception, but gravity is still a CONTINGENT truth about the world, because one can imagine, without logical contradiction, a world in which things fall up. So gravity is true at some possible worlds and false at others.

When I output the choice “Coke,” I am PART OF the deterministic system, and I, and I alone, deterministically output “Coke” as the end of a deterministic chain. I NEED determinism to be true in order to that, or anything, because otherwise none of my choices would be reliable.

Finallly, and to repeat yet again, this business about “you could not have done other than what you did,” stated after the fact, is a red herring, because there is only one time line, one history. This means that “could not have done otherwise” collapses to, “did not do otherwise,” and that is simply — compatibilism.

The fact that there is only one timeline, and one history only goes to show that whatever was chosen could not have been otherwise.

It shows nothing of the kind. It only shows that what was chosen, was chosen.

You cannot prove that it could have been any other way.

It is not for me to show that. It is for you to show it could not have been any other way.

It is not a red herring or distraction. It is what is proven to be the case. It doesn't matter what language you use; you cannot go back in time (if anyone believes in time machines, this discovery isn't for them), undo what has already been done, and show that your compatibilist notion of free will -- that conjures up a different outcome -- could have happened, except through your faulty logic. Therefore, compatibilism fails once again.

It doesn’t conjure up a different outcome. It says that under the SAME circumstance, a person will do the SAME thing. It just denies that he MUST do that thing. That is your burden of proof, to show that he MUST.

Because if we could replay the history of the world right up the the present moment, the EXACT history of the world, right up the present moment, and I still pick Coke — great! Why would I do otherwise? That is what I WANTED to do, at that time, under those conditions. Nothing in this experiment, if it hypothetically could be run, would empirically or logically show that I HAD TO pick Coke.

Of course, I have explained all this, many times.

That you chose Coke IS THE REASON you could not have chosen Pepsi at that time, and under those conditions.

Of course I could have chosen Pepsi. I just preferred Coke.

You could not have chosen Pepsi if you had already chosen Coke. You preferred coke in the direction of greater satisfaction rendering the choice of pepsi an impossibility AT THAT MOMENT. Contingency only means we are basing our decisions on things that we are using to help us determine which choice to make. I understand your disagreement with hard determinism in that it states everything is predetermined. In actuality, looking back, our choices were determined but determinism can't tell a person in advance what his choices will be. Maybe you would have chosen Pepsi if you wanted to test it out, or maybe you wanted to prove that you could choose Pepsi to show me that you could if you wanted to. No one is denying that you could if you wanted to. Whatever your reason for choosing Pepsi at a future point in time does not mean you could have chosen Pepsi, after you chose the Coke. I know you will never agree because you are committed to believing in compatibilism which makes no sense at all. After all these years, you are still mixed up.

There is no experiment that could ever prove that you could have chosen the less satisfying choice, which was Pepsi at that moment in time. IOW, since Pepsi was out of the question given your options, choosing Coke was not a free choice.

I never said that we would PREFER, what we find UNPREFERABLE. We prefer what we prefer, by definition. So what?

We prefer what we prefer, which is true, and we don't prefer what we prefer less or not at all in comparison, which is also true. So what? I can't believe you really have no clue after all these years. It's shocking.

 

[peacegirl]

So I ask again: how is an alternate choice or action possible in the face of inevitability? Which means everything that happens within a deterministic system, happens necessarily, inevitably, implacably.

For the hundredth time: Because stuff in a deterministic system does NOT happen NECESSARILY. It happens CONTINGENTLY. (And I don’t care if Marvin Edwards endorsed yoiur version of physical necessity — I’m not Marvin Edwards. I recognize only LOGICAL necessity.)

Necessary truths are confined to those propositions that are true at all (logically) possible worlds, and false at no (logically) possible world.

“Triangles have three sides” is a NECESSARY truth — true at all possible worlds. It CANNOT be false.

“Today I picked Coke over Pepsi” is a CONTINGENT truth — true at some possible worlds, false at others. This just MEANS, as a matter of logic, that is possible for me to have picked Pepsi over Coke, even though in fact I picked Coke. And it will always remain true, even after the fact, that I COULD HAVE picked Pepsi, even though I picked Coke.

Humans in a deterministic system receive deterministic inputs that present an array of OPTIONS. All those options are fully within our power to choose. I chose Coke over Pepsi, but nothing — certainly not the invisible beast Hard Determinism — was staying my hand from picking Pepsi.

I hope you know that's not what DBT is saying. Now you're presenting a strawman.

That is exactly what he is saying. He agrees completely with Jerry Coyne, another hard determinists, who calls us “meat robots.”

Since I can imagine a world in which I picked Pepsi without logical contradiction, my choosing Coke is by definition CONTINGENT — could have been otherwise, and WOULD HAVE been otherwise, under slightly different antecedent conditions.

It doesn't have to be a necessary truth like a triangle with 3 sides for your choice to be necessary based on your movement in the direction of "greater" satisfaction. The drinking of either is contingent based on the factors being considered, but this does not mean you would have been able to choose otherwise. This is a logical trap. It isn't causal in the sense that fire causes smoke but rather it is causal in that you COULD NOT have chosen otherwise given those same conditions, not under slightly different antecedent conditions. That would present a new set of conditions which is not what we are discussing.

WOULD not choose otherwise under the same conditions, not COULD NOT.

Gravity operates universally and the same without known exception, but gravity is still a CONTINGENT truth about the world, because one can imagine, without logical contradiction, a world in which things fall up. So gravity is true at some possible worlds and false at others.

When I output the choice “Coke,” I am PART OF the deterministic system, and I, and I alone, deterministically output “Coke” as the end of a deterministic chain. I NEED determinism to be true in order to that, or anything, because otherwise none of my choices would be reliable.

Finallly, and to repeat yet again, this business about “you could not have done other than what you did,” stated after the fact, is a red herring, because there is only one time line, one history. This means that “could not have done otherwise” collapses to, “did not do otherwise,” and that is simply — compatibilism.

The fact that there is only one timeline, and one history only goes to show that whatever was chosen could not have been otherwise.

It shows nothing of the kind. It only shows that what was chosen, was chosen.

You cannot prove that it could have been any other way.

It is not for me to show that. It is for you to show it could not have been any other way.

It is not a red herring or distraction. It is what is proven to be the case. It doesn't matter what language you use; you cannot go back in time (if anyone believes in time machines, this discovery isn't for them), undo what has already been done, and show that your compatibilist notion of free will -- that conjures up a different outcome -- could have happened, except through your faulty logic. Therefore, compatibilism fails once again.

It doesn’t conjure up a different outcome. It says that under the SAME circumstance, a person will do the SAME thing. It just denies that he MUST do that thing. That is your burden of proof, to show that he MUST.

There is no MUST before he makes a decision David. That is where the definition of determinism is confusing to people because (and I've said this umpteen times) they know that nothing is in stone before they make a choice; that nothing can cause them to do anything they don't want to do. That is what is implied in the present definition.

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.

Because if we could replay the history of the world right up the the present moment, the EXACT history of the world, right up the present moment, and I still pick Coke — great! Why would I do otherwise? That is what I WANTED to do, at that time, under those conditions. Nothing in this experiment, if it hypothetically could be run, would empirically or logically show that I HAD TO pick Coke.

Of course, I have explained all this, many times.

That you chose Coke IS THE REASON you could not have chosen Pepsi at that time, and under those conditions.

Of course I could have chosen Pepsi. I just preferred Coke.

You could not have chosen Pepsi if you had already chosen Coke. You preferred coke in the direction of greater satisfaction rendering the choice of pepsi an impossibility AT THAT MOMENT. Contingency only means we are basing our decisions on things that we are using to help us determine which choice to make. I understand your disagreement with hard determinism in that it states everything is predetermined. In actuality, looking back, our choices were determined but determinism can't tell a person in advance what his choices will be. Maybe you would have decided to choose Pepsi to test it out, or to prove that you could choose Pepsi. Of course, you could, but not in place of Coke after it was chosen. Whatever your reason for choosing Pepsi at a future point in time is a different situation. That is why the author said you could have chosen Pepsi IF YOU HAD WANTED TO, but at that moment you didn't want to because it was less satisfying, therefore you could not have. I know you will never agree because you are committed to believing in compatibilism which makes no sense at all. After all these years, you are still mixed up.

There is no experiment that could ever prove that you could have chosen the less satisfying choice, which was Pepsi at that moment in time. IOW, since Pepsi was out of the question given your options, choosing Coke was not a free choice.

I never said that we would PREFER, what we find UNPREFERABLE. We prefer what we prefer, by definition. So what?

We prefer what we prefer, which is true, and we don't prefer what we prefer less or not at all in comparison, which is also true. So what? I can't believe you really have no clue after all these years. It's shocking.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, instead of whining, keep laying out the argument. Maybe if you do, other posters will come back. I’ve already substantially summarized it, and you’ve said it is mostly right, so start there and fill in the missing blanks.

You did no such thing David,

Of course I did, peacegirl, you even SAID I did. If you want to continue your self-pity party, be my guest. You’ll notice that pretty much all other posters have already fallen away. Your thread will go nowhere unless you take my advice and PRESENT AN ARGUMENT that can be tested for validity. I’ve already explained this. YOU DON’T HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR THESIS THAT MAN’S WILL IS NOT FREE. We can accept it FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. After we check and see if your argument is VALID, then we can check and see if it is SOUND — at which point, you will be required to defend your premise, “man’s will is not free.”

I am not tryiing to help you defend your claims. I am trying to help you learn how to PRESENT AN ARGUMENT. This is absolutely crucial if you ever hope to gain any traction here. You’ve been at this for twenty-odd years, and please tell me again, where has using your current approach got you in the past?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, instead of whining, keep laying out the argument. Maybe if you do, other posters will come back. I’ve already substantially summarized it, and you’ve said it is mostly right, so start there and fill in the missing blanks.

You did no such thing David,

Of course I did, peacegirl, you even SAID I did. If you want to continue your self-pity party, be my guest.

Your summary was better the second time, but it still had much to be desired. The bottom line is you don't know the two-sided equation and why it can prevent the hurt that exists once this law is put into effect. I can't read you. Are you trying to understand this discovery, or are you just playing games with me?

You’ll notice that pretty much all other posters have already fallen away.

That is a good thing. I don't want to waste my time with these people either. Trust me, I've been there and done that.

Your thread will go nowhere unless you take my advice and PRESENT AN ARGUMENT that can be tested for validity. I’ve already explained this. YOU DON’T HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR THESIS THAT MAN’S WILL IS NOT FREE. We can accept it FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. After we check and see if your argument is VALID, then we can check and see if it is SOUND — at which point, you will be required to defend your premise, “man’s will is not free.”

I am not tryiing to help you defend your claims. I am trying to help you learn how to PRESENT AN ARGUMENT.

This is not an argument. It's a demonstration. I don't need people in this thread telling me it's wrong when they haven't read it. You never read the whole book either. I know you don't agree with any of his claims, but that still doesn't make you right and him wrong. Maybe that's why you're still trying to figure it out. I really need a different approach altogether. I have to reach the "right" people (i.e., well-known determinists) and that's not easy to do unless you have connections.

This is absolutely crucial if you ever hope to gain any traction here. You’ve been at this for twenty-odd years, and please tell me again, where has using your current approach got you in the past?

I don't care to gain traction here. People will never ever understand this book unless they read it the way the author urged. This book has not been advertised or distributed. Very few people even know it exists other than these forums. I am using them as a stopgap measure because I have the need to share it; it's that important especially the way war is escalating throughout the middle east and elsewhere. People in these forums often ask: if it was so great why hasn't it been recognized already? Why am I posting on small corners of the internet rather than reaching a larger niche? This niche isn't very large. There are more people who believe in free will and compatibilism than determinism, although it is slowly changing, but the main reason is because I don't have a way to reach the people who could be instrumental in bringing this knowledge to light, so I'm basically stuck. It's really very sad.

 

[peacegirl]

This guy is just as confused as everyone else who believes in free will or compatibilism, and that living in a world where there is no blame and punishment would be a terrible thing because it would decrease moral responsibility when, in actuality, it would increase it but only under certain conditions. The author never said we should suddenly stop blaming. He was very clear about that.

MSN

 

[DBT]

So I ask again: how is an alternate choice or action possible in the face of inevitability? Which means everything that happens within a deterministic system, happens necessarily, inevitably, implacably.

For the hundredth time: Because stuff in a deterministic system does NOT happen NECESSARILY. It happens CONTINGENTLY. (And I don’t care if Marvin Edwards endorsed yoiur version of physical necessity — I’m not Marvin Edwards. I recognize only LOGICAL necessity.)

For the hundredth time or the thousandth time, you were wrong each and every time you happen to deny the terms and conditions of the given definition of determinism, which includes your definition of determinism.

Where your definition 'constant conjunction' has precisely the same implications for decision making. Where action B necessarily action A, where events are inevitable, fixed by antecedents.

Logical necessity? Determinism refers to not only logic, but how the world works and how events evolve within such a system.

If the world is deterministic, logic is inseparably linked to how the world works.

 

[DBT]

This is according the terms and conditions of determinism as defined by compatibilists.

No, it is not. See my post above. I do not accept PHYSICAL NECESSITY as any part of the world, only LOGICAL NECESSITY. Gravity, though universal, is not NECESSARY.

If what you accept, reject or believe has no bearing on how determinism is defined, the terms and condition of that definition and its implications, it has no bearing on the subject matter.

Determinism is related to the physical world and how it works. If you want to have your own special version, fine, but that makes your version irrelevant to the debate.