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

[DBT]

Our “inner forces” ARE us, in part, so we are not constrained by ourselves.

We most certainly are constrained by our inner forces which inform us what choice is in our best interest …

IOW, we inform ourselves what choice is in our best interest. Got it.

Of course we do. How do you make decisions without informing yourself what choice to make based on your options? What is so surprising about this Pood?

There is nothing surprising about it. I agree with. It’s called “compatibilist free will.”

No, it is not. Just because we can choose between options is not equivalent to having the compatibilist free will to choose either/or, which is what you are saying. According to compatibilism, a person could have chosen B instead of A (when it comes to doing the right thing) because he had the free will to do so, right? Isn't that what your compatibilist free will means? You say that because our choices are contingent, that looking back we could have chosen another alternative. That is true but only if the conditions were different. We know that we can't prove that under the exact time and place, we could have chosen another option because in order to prove libertarian or compatibilist free will, we would have to undo what has already been done, which is impossible. What we can do is show that we are under a compulsion, every moment in time, to choose only that which [we believe] is the best possible choice given our limited knowledge and what options are available. How can you judge what is right for someone else when you are not them? Just follow me instead of jumping to the conclusion that without threats of punishment to deter people, the thieves and murderers would have a field day. I don't think you have understood anything I've posted because you don't want to, not because you aren't capable, or you are so ingrained with your belief that 1=1=11, that there is no chance in hell that I'm going to convince you that 1=1=2. The most I can do is plant a seed.

If determinism is true, choice is an illusion. Determinism is a system where decisions are inevitable, where the option that is taken, is selected inevitably, decisions are fixed. And as choices require the possibility of taking any option at any given time, and this is not how determinism works, the feeling of making a choice is an illusion.

 

[pood]

Our “inner forces” ARE us, in part, so we are not constrained by ourselves.

We most certainly are constrained by our inner forces which inform us what choice is in our best interest …

IOW, we inform ourselves what choice is in our best interest. Got it.

Of course we do. How do you make decisions without informing yourself what choice to make based on your options? What is so surprising about this Pood?

There is nothing surprising about it. I agree with. It’s called “compatibilist free will.”

No, it is not. Just because we can choose between options is not equivalent to having the compatibilist free will to choose either/or, which is what you are saying. According to compatibilism, a person could have chosen B instead of A (when it comes to doing the right thing) because he had the free will to do so, right? Isn't that what your compatibilist free will means? You say that because our choices are contingent, that looking back we could have chosen another alternative. That is true but only if the conditions were different. We know that we can't prove that under the exact time and place, we could have chosen another option because in order to prove libertarian or compatibilist free will, we would have to undo what has already been done, which is impossible. What we can do is show that we are under a compulsion, every moment in time, to choose only that which [we believe] is the best possible choice given our limited knowledge and what options are available. How can you judge what is right for someone else when you are not them? Just follow me instead of jumping to the conclusion that without threats of punishment to deter people, the thieves and murderers would have a field day. I don't think you have understood anything I've posted because you don't want to, not because you aren't capable, or you are so ingrained with your belief that 1=1=11, that there is no chance in hell that I'm going to convince you that 1=1=2. The most I can do is plant a seed.

If determinism is true, choice is an illusion. Determinism is a system where decisions are inevitable, where the option that is taken, is selected inevitably, decisions are fixed. And as choices require the possibility of taking any option at any given time, and this is not how determinism works, the feeling of making a choice is an illusion.

Making a choice is an illusion, says the person who chose to write that.

You constantly forget that your choice, your brain, is part of the deterministic process, a process that also outputs an array of options from which to choose. A rock rolling down a hill, by contrast, has no choice in the matter. A child can see the difference between a human making a choice and a rock rolling down the hill.

 

[pood]

To say that a choice is inevitable, or fixed, is not — by the way — the same as saying it is necessary. The future can be just as fixed as the past, but nobody, except you and other hard determinists I guess, would say that the fixed events of the past HAD TO happen. They just DID happen. And so it is that if the future is fixed and inevitable, as it is under the concept of the block universe, it does not follow that the events of the future HAVE TO happen. The just will, and many of those events will be shaped by human choices. As the song goes, “what will be, will be,” not “what will be, MUST be.”

 

[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.)

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.

What you are saying is true that determinism, by definition, does not allow for anything but one choice such that where action B necessarily action A; but the issue again is this feeling of choice being left out of the equation; that the events that occur are set in stone without our consent. I know that's not what you mean because that would indicate that determinism overrides any choice a person makes, against his will. When you use the term "system" it appears cold and rigid as if we are automatons. That is a big turnoff for anyone who is trying to see determinism in a friendlier light.

 

[peacegirl]

Our “inner forces” ARE us, in part, so we are not constrained by ourselves.

We most certainly are constrained by our inner forces which inform us what choice is in our best interest …

IOW, we inform ourselves what choice is in our best interest. Got it.

Of course we do. How do you make decisions without informing yourself what choice to make based on your options? What is so surprising about this Pood?

There is nothing surprising about it. I agree with. It’s called “compatibilist free will.”

No, it is not. Just because we can choose between options is not equivalent to having the compatibilist free will to choose either/or, which is what you are saying. According to compatibilism, a person could have chosen B instead of A (when it comes to doing the right thing) because he had the free will to do so, right? Isn't that what your compatibilist free will means? You say that because our choices are contingent, that looking back we could have chosen another alternative. That is true but only if the conditions were different. We know that we can't prove that under the exact time and place, we could have chosen another option because in order to prove libertarian or compatibilist free will, we would have to undo what has already been done, which is impossible. What we can do is show that we are under a compulsion, every moment in time, to choose only that which [we believe] is the best possible choice given our limited knowledge and what options are available. How can you judge what is right for someone else when you are not them? Just follow me instead of jumping to the conclusion that without threats of punishment to deter people, the thieves and murderers would have a field day. I don't think you have understood anything I've posted because you don't want to, not because you aren't capable, or you are so ingrained with your belief that 1=1=11, that there is no chance in hell that I'm going to convince you that 1=1=2. The most I can do is plant a seed.

If determinism is true, choice is an illusion. Determinism is a system where decisions are inevitable, where the option that is taken, is selected inevitably, decisions are fixed. And as choices require the possibility of taking any option at any given time, and this is not how determinism works, the feeling of making a choice is an illusion.

Making a choice is an illusion, says the person who chose to write that.

You constantly forget that your choice, your brain, is part of the deterministic process, a process that also outputs an array of options from which to choose. A rock rolling down a hill, by contrast, has no choice in the matter. A child can see the difference between a human making a choice and a rock rolling down the hill.

There is a difference in that sense David, but in reality, we don't have a FREE CHOICE as if we can choose A rather than B or B rather than A equally, when A is the choice that is the least preferable IN COMPARISON. We can't do it. Please read this excerpt again carefully because you're not getting it. Could it be you have a block?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

 

[pood]

\

There is a difference in that sense David, but in reality, we don't have a FREE CHOICE as if we can choose A rather than B or B rather than A equally, when A is the choice that is the least preferable IN COMPARISON. We can't do it. Please read this excerpt again carefully because you're not getting it. Could it be you have a block?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

Peacegirl, I understand perfectly what he is saying. I’ve already SUMMARIZED it. I also laid out he difference between what your author is saying, and what hard determinists say. Hard determinists like DBT say we are meat puppets of the Big Bang. Your author says we are compelled by our very natures to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. and so while it’s true we choose, our choices are not “free” (but not because of stuff that happened 14 billion years ago). I GET it, already. Just get on with presenting the argument with premises and a conclusion, as I have repeatedly advised and explained. Right now, do you see anyone else responding to this thread?

As I have repeatedly said, right now you do not have to defend your premise that “man’s will is not free.” That comes later. First, lay out the argument in a series of premises followed by a conclusion.

 

[peacegirl]

To say that a choice is inevitable, or fixed, is not — by the way — the same as saying it is necessary. The future can be just as fixed as the past, but nobody, except you and other hard determinists I guess, would say that the fixed events of the past HAD TO happen. They just DID happen. And so it is that if the future is fixed and inevitable, as it is under the concept of the block universe, it does not follow that the events of the future HAVE TO happen. The just will, and many of those events will be shaped by human choices. As the song goes, “what will be, will be,” not “what will be, MUST be.”

The determinists are correct (whether you try to separate them by calling them "hard determinists" or "soft" determinists" or "middle of the road determinists.") It's a false dichotomy of words that, once again, do not reflect reality for what it is. These words have no real meaning because we cannot subdivide determinism into categories that make someone less determined or more determined depending on the category you choose to put him in. Secondly, we don't live in a block universe where points in time are already written, but if you understand that we are compelled to choose the most satisfying option at any given moment, you would see that since we can only go in one direction, it has to be said that what happened had to happen, not it just did happen. The future is also predetermined because we can only go in one direction, but we don't know what direction that will be until we look back at our choices in the direction of greater satisfaction. We can predict what we think the future will be, but that's just a guess because we cannot predict all the variables that will come into play to determine how the future will look. As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY."

 

[pood]

As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY."

No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”

 

[peacegirl]

As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY."

No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”

What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.

 

[peacegirl]

\

There is a difference in that sense David, but in reality, we don't have a FREE CHOICE as if we can choose A rather than B or B rather than A equally, when A is the choice that is the least preferable IN COMPARISON. We can't do it. Please read this excerpt again carefully because you're not getting it. Could it be you have a block?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

Peacegirl, I understand perfectly what he is saying. I’ve already SUMMARIZED it. I also laid out he difference between what your author is saying, and what hard determinists say. Hard determinists like DBT say we are meat puppets of the Big Bang. Your author says we are compelled by our very natures to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. and so while it’s true we choose, our choices are not “free” (but not because of stuff that happened 14 billion years ago). I GET it, already. Just get on with presenting the argument with premises and a conclusion, as I have repeatedly advised and explained. Right now, do you see anyone else responding to this thread?

As I have repeatedly said, right now you do not have to defend your premise that “man’s will is not free.” That comes later. First, lay out the argument in a series of premises followed by a conclusion.

I have layed it out again and again. We are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction which means that every move we make, whether we are making choices or not, is in this direction. My leg fell asleep the way I was sitting, so in order not to be uncomfortable I changed position to relieve the pressure. If I had remained in that position because I was comfortable, I would never have moved to "there"[a more satisfying position] because I would not have been dissatisfied. In order to move to there, there has to be some form of dissatisfaction, or we would remain where we are. There are absolutely NO exceptions which is why it's an invariable law or it wouldn't be a law.

 

[DBT]

Our “inner forces” ARE us, in part, so we are not constrained by ourselves.

We most certainly are constrained by our inner forces which inform us what choice is in our best interest …

IOW, we inform ourselves what choice is in our best interest. Got it.

Of course we do. How do you make decisions without informing yourself what choice to make based on your options? What is so surprising about this Pood?

There is nothing surprising about it. I agree with. It’s called “compatibilist free will.”

No, it is not. Just because we can choose between options is not equivalent to having the compatibilist free will to choose either/or, which is what you are saying. According to compatibilism, a person could have chosen B instead of A (when it comes to doing the right thing) because he had the free will to do so, right? Isn't that what your compatibilist free will means? You say that because our choices are contingent, that looking back we could have chosen another alternative. That is true but only if the conditions were different. We know that we can't prove that under the exact time and place, we could have chosen another option because in order to prove libertarian or compatibilist free will, we would have to undo what has already been done, which is impossible. What we can do is show that we are under a compulsion, every moment in time, to choose only that which [we believe] is the best possible choice given our limited knowledge and what options are available. How can you judge what is right for someone else when you are not them? Just follow me instead of jumping to the conclusion that without threats of punishment to deter people, the thieves and murderers would have a field day. I don't think you have understood anything I've posted because you don't want to, not because you aren't capable, or you are so ingrained with your belief that 1=1=11, that there is no chance in hell that I'm going to convince you that 1=1=2. The most I can do is plant a seed.

If determinism is true, choice is an illusion. Determinism is a system where decisions are inevitable, where the option that is taken, is selected inevitably, decisions are fixed. And as choices require the possibility of taking any option at any given time, and this is not how determinism works, the feeling of making a choice is an illusion.

Making a choice is an illusion, says the person who chose to write that.

You constantly forget that your choice, your brain, is part of the deterministic process, a process that also outputs an array of options from which to choose. A rock rolling down a hill, by contrast, has no choice in the matter. A child can see the difference between a human making a choice and a rock rolling down the hill.

It seems that you still fail to understand how determinism works, including your constant conjunction.

So, once again. Given determinism, decisions are made, but seeing that there can be only one option taken at any given instance (constant conjunction, action B must necessarily follow action A, the decision that is made and the action that follows is inevitable. This is not say that you can't make decisions, but that the decision that you make cannot be otherwise.

Why, you ask? Well, as explained time and again, because determinism as you define it to be has no alternate decisions or actions in any given instance as the system evolves without deviation from past to present and future states of the system.

Quote;
''determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[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.

What you are saying is true that determinism, by definition, does not allow for anything but one choice such that where action B necessarily action A; but the issue again is this feeling of choice being left out of the equation; that the events that occur are set in stone without our consent. I know that's not what you mean because that would indicate that determinism overrides any choice a person makes, against his will. When you use the term "system" it appears cold and rigid as if we are automatons. That is a big turnoff for anyone who is trying to see determinism in a friendlier light.

There is a distinction to be made between decision making and choice.

A decision is made based on the state of the environment (the system including us), brain condition, life experiences, proclivities, etc, where the feeling of making choice is the illusion, as is the possibility of having chosen something else in that instance, which given the terms and conditions of determinism is of course impossible because there are no possible alternate actions.


''The increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions leads to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''

 

[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.)

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.

What you are saying is true that determinism, by definition, does not allow for anything but one choice such that where action B necessarily action A; but the issue again is this feeling of choice being left out of the equation; that the events that occur are set in stone without our consent. I know that's not what you mean because that would indicate that determinism overrides any choice a person makes, against his will. When you use the term "system" it appears cold and rigid as if we are automatons. That is a big turnoff for anyone who is trying to see determinism in a friendlier light.

There is a distinction to be made between decision making and choice.

A decision is made based on the state of the environment (the system including us), brain condition, life experiences, proclivities, etc, where the feeling of making choice is the illusion, as is the possibility of having chosen something else in that instance, which given the terms and conditions of determinism is of course impossible because there are no possible alternate actions.

I agree. The only difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying is to clarify that we do not choose anything against our will, no matter how it appears.

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.

Unfortunately, no one else comes close to understanding this or they have a block. It appears that compatibilists believe they have a free choice even though they say determinism is true. It's a glaring contradiction. I don't know if I can move forward because of this.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

''The increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions leads to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''

This fails in basic logic. Because something isn't either forced by a gun to their head or having OCD in which the compulsion to repeat things over and over again, then anything else is a free choice. They want to believe a person had a choice when their brain state was such that it was impossible to do otherwise than what they did, which is impossible. Compatibilists have a blind spot because they want to believe that free will and determinism are compatible so they can judge the actions of the person who made the wrong choice.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that with a change in environment we can produce amazing results only because will IS NOT free. We could not accomplish this amazing change in human conduct if will WAS free. This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism. IOW, the fact that man's will is not free not the discovery itself; it is the gateway that unlocks the door to the discovery.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well- concealed law, and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems to be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can only be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace. The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and unfounded.

 

[pood]

As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY."

No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”

What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.

I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.

 

[pood]

\

There is a difference in that sense David, but in reality, we don't have a FREE CHOICE as if we can choose A rather than B or B rather than A equally, when A is the choice that is the least preferable IN COMPARISON. We can't do it. Please read this excerpt again carefully because you're not getting it. Could it be you have a block?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

Peacegirl, I understand perfectly what he is saying. I’ve already SUMMARIZED it. I also laid out he difference between what your author is saying, and what hard determinists say. Hard determinists like DBT say we are meat puppets of the Big Bang. Your author says we are compelled by our very natures to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. and so while it’s true we choose, our choices are not “free” (but not because of stuff that happened 14 billion years ago). I GET it, already. Just get on with presenting the argument with premises and a conclusion, as I have repeatedly advised and explained. Right now, do you see anyone else responding to this thread?

As I have repeatedly said, right now you do not have to defend your premise that “man’s will is not free.” That comes later. First, lay out the argument in a series of premises followed by a conclusion.

I have layed it out again and again. We are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction which means that every move we make, whether we are making choices or not, is in this direction. My leg fell asleep the way I was sitting, so in order not to be uncomfortable I changed position to relieve the pressure. If I had remained in that position because I was comfortable, I would never have moved to "there"[a more satisfying position] because I would not have been dissatisfied. In order to move to there, there has to be some form of dissatisfaction, or we would remain where we are. There are absolutely NO exceptions which is why it's an invariable law or it wouldn't be a law.

Laws don’t govern the world, they describe it. The author in effect is saying “I do what I prefer because I prefer it” and that is no great revelation. In fact it is a tautology.

 

[pood]

It seems that you still fail to understand how determinism works, including your constant conjunction.

So, once again. Given determinism, decisions are made, but seeing that there can be only one option taken at any given instance (constant conjunction, action B must necessarily follow action A, the decision that is made and the action that follows is inevitable. This is not say that you can't make decisions, but that the decision that you make cannot be otherwise.

Why, you ask? Well, as explained time and again, because determinism as you define it to be has no alternate decisions or actions in any given instance as the system evolves without deviation from past to present and future states of the system.

Quote;
''determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Typical DBT post, misunderstanding determinism followed by cherry-picking a quote from somewhere or other.

 

[pood]

I agree. The only difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying is to clarify that we do not choose anything against our will, no matter how it appears.

Of course we don’t choose anything against our will, peacegirl, that’s compatibilism! We certainly sometimes choose the lesser of two evils, such as when someone is holding a gun to our head and telling us to cough up the money or else. We don’t want to cough up the money but we do, because it’s preferable to getting killed. So what’s new about that?

 

[pood]

human making a choice and a rock rolling down the hill.

It seems that you still fail to understand how determinism works, including your constant conjunction.

Actually it seems YOU fail to understand how determinism works, in my judgment and in the judgment of the majority of academic philosophers, as well is in the judgment of “constant conjunction” David Hume, because I, they, and he, are all compatibilists.

Please note too, though you won’t, that “constant conjunction” is called into question both by Hume itself with his Problem of Induction (which I’m betting you’re unfamiliar with) and by the problem of distinguishing between causation and correlation.

 

[pood]

In addition we have the little extra filip that I noted earlier and which DBT ignored is that a recent scientific study suggests that wave-function collapse in the brain produces consciousness, and if true that means determinism goes right out the window even at the human level and must be replaced by the probabilistic Born rule for calculating outcomes of events.

 

[peacegirl]

As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY."

No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”

What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.

I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.

No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice. Before you make a choice, you can choose A or B, but the minute you choose one or the other, due to what you find the most preferable (the reason will is not free), you could not have chosen the other. This was already explained to you. You have a bigggg block! There is nothing I can say that will make you realize how absurd your logic is. Maybe something will sink in this time. I know it's hard to lose but in this case be happy because the consolation prize will be world peace.

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