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

[peacegirl]

You are not God's gift to intelligence Pood. You are a good writer, I will give you that, but you don't know the difference between a theory and a fact. You start off with a preposition that is false, so that rest of your "logic" fails miserably... yet you won't look at it objectively. There's absolutely no getting through to you. It's an exercise in futility.

Yes, peacegirl, I do know the difference. For example, the FACT of evolution is explained by the THEORY of evolution.

What does your author have? Facts? No. A theory? No. So what does he have? Wait, let me guess: “Astute observation,” right?

It is not a theory that the choices you make are not within your control because you are compelled (you have no choice) but to pick the most preferable alternative according to your individual circumstances. Just because your logic tries to disprove this fact by saying it’s a tautology doesn’t cut it. You say: “Whatever you prefer is what you prefer because you prefer it” is what you’re using to make it appear circular, but it is not. You prefer what you prefer because what you prefer less cannot be chosen, therefore your idea that there is some parallel world where you could have chosen otherwise (i.e. chosen what you preferred less given the EXACT same time and place) is sheer folly. This isn’t only an astute observation, it’s astute reasoning. You will never agree Pood even if compatibilism was thrown out as a viable theory because it contradicts itself, you would still keep saying it’s true. Consequently, there’s really no point in me trying to convince you otherwise if you can’t see the flawed logic for yourself.

i have already addressed the above. You are mangling what I said. Go back and read for comprehension, for once.

I'm not going back to find how "I mangled what you said." You said something on the order of: I prefer this or that because I don't choose what I don't prefer. If that's not correct, correct me.

 

[steve_bank]

The zealot's high, posting gets those feel good brain chemicals going. Like the theists, if they just explain Jesus to us and if we listen we will believe.

Its like reciting the Catholic Rosary, Hail Mary full of grace...Hail Mary...Hail Mary.

Steve, you are basing what you believe can’t happen with what has already happened. Prediction based on past events cant always predict the future. People didn’t believe Edison’s new form of light when they never saw a lightbulb and couldn’t imagine it working. I am not a zealot who wants agreement without proof. You’re not being fair. You just can’t believe world peace is possible. Thats why the author asked people to please contain their skepticism so they can give this discovery a chance. They have not done that here. And BTW, this is not how to get feel good brain chemicals going.

You are a philosophical zealot preaching a dead author. It makes you feel good.

I would not say can't happen, I say based on current observation and human history your philosophy is unlikely to work.

Give the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia a call and make your case.

Israel's extreme Zionist philosophy that goes back 2300 years is unassailable.

In different forms free market capitalism goes back to the first civilizations.

Here in the USA people focus on giants lime Exon and Apple, but the vast majority of employers are small to medium companies many sole proprietor.

Exploitation goes both ways. Somebody puts in the work of starting a company. He borrows money or mortgages his houses. People get jobs, are they being exploited or are they exploiting the work done to get a company started?

Your philosophy is very simplistic.

So when you say no one will be able to exploit another who says what exploitaionj is?

The communist mdel was elimnating expotain by decree and controllng the economy. It did not work.

That pesky human nature omes into play. And the nature versus nurture debate ensues.

Our free marekt capitalim does have serious prblems that need to be addressed, like welth inequity./ Housng and health care.

 

[peacegirl]

The zealot's high, posting gets those feel good brain chemicals going. Like the theists, if they just explain Jesus to us and if we listen we will believe.

Its like reciting the Catholic Rosary, Hail Mary full of grace...Hail Mary...Hail Mary.

Steve, you are basing what you believe can’t happen with what has already happened. Prediction based on past events cant always predict the future. People didn’t believe Edison’s new form of light when they never saw a lightbulb and couldn’t imagine it working. I am not a zealot who wants agreement without proof. You’re not being fair. You just can’t believe world peace is possible. Thats why the author asked people to please contain their skepticism so they can give this discovery a chance. They have not done that here. And BTW, this is not how to get feel good brain chemicals going.

You are a philosophical zealot preaching a dead author. It makes you feel good.

This is not about me feeling good, although knowing that this is a real discovery does give me hope for a better world.

I would not say can't happen, I say based on current observation and human history your philosophy is unlikely to work.

It would not work without a transition from one world to the other, which takes time, but this new world is inevitable once the ball gets rolling.

Give the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia a call and make your case.

Again, it won't be as difficult as you think when they see the benefits to their country. There will be no force used to get them to become part of this new world, but when they like what they see, they will agree to the terms of the agreement (which you obviously didn't read). It is true that dictators will have to give up their position of power. This means that all cultures that use force to get their inhabitants to comply with outdated laws will be coming to an end.

How is it possible to guarantee to all mankind what you just guaranteed when we might not have the money to do this?

But we will have the money. You will see the greatest boom in developing this planet by investors who will not be hindered by the laws of government. And they will not be hindered by the lack of available labor. Poverty will be completely wiped out not because of the guarantee which only starts the ball rolling, but because there will be jobs for everybody, and they will desire to work because not to means they would be stealing money from the guarantee, for which there would be no blame. Prices on everything will come down so low because we will be able to produce everything in such quantities that we will be compelled to work fewer hours to produce less. Just think, when everybody is employed our tax profit will be tremendous because nobody will be taking money from the guarantee which means it is to our advantage to spend instead of save. When we stop spending, production slows down, and the money we need for the guarantee increases. And are we given a choice as to what is better for ourselves under the changed conditions? In our present world, we were afraid to let go of our reserve cash because we needed to save for a rainy day, but in the new world the guarantee prevents us from having a rainy day which forces us to put billions upon billions of dollars into constant circulation. However, this is not something you have to worry about. The economists know that this is true, as do our political leaders, but they didn’t know how to bring it about. All Russia really wants is security for her people. Once the guarantee gives them this security without hurting anyone, it will give them as it will give us and the rest of the world the greatest pleasure to get rid of everything connected with war. Computers will be set up around the entire world to enable the immediate transference of funds to any nation who needs to receive money because they have fallen below their guarantee. For the very first time, all nations of the world will be in friendly competition which gets better than ever because no one can be hurt. Communism and socialism and all forms of dictatorships will be wiped from the face of the earth because they violate the third form of first blow by telling others what must be done in order for these obsolescent methods of dealing with the world’s economic problems to survive.

Israel's extreme Zionist philosophy that goes back 2300 years is unassailable.

There will have to be agreement on all sides. Then these principles will be able to effectively operate.

As the transition is taking place from noncitizenship to citizenship, the representatives from both sides would meet in order to map out possible solutions. One solution would be the creation of a two-state settlement that allows each nation-state to have complete independence. As of now, the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. This dispute would need to be resolved during these crucial peace negotiations which may require compromise on both sides. When it comes time for the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership to sign a diplomatic agreement that finds terms upon which peace can be agreed to, the basic principle would then have the power to prevent any further bloodshed because the first blow, which is now being removed, prevents any further justification. To repeat: As soon as the Palestinian and Israeli populace become full-fledged citizens by passing the examination — and the agreement meets the necessary conditions for an equitable distribution of land that is satisfactory to all parties involved — there will be no possibility of a retaliatory strike because the justification to do so will have been removed. Both sides of this longstanding conflict will have no choice but to lay down their arms because they will be incapable of deriving any satisfaction from continuing to do battle under the changed conditions. Israel will be able to pull her troops out of all occupied territories without the fear of attack and the wall that has been a stark symbol of division between two peoples will be torn down, marking the end of one of the world’s longest standing conflicts. These two warring sides will have done the impossible, made allies out of their enemies. What was once thought of as an impossible dream will be within reach; however, it must be understood that in order for permanent peace to be guaranteed the Great Transition must take place throughout the world, not just in one region. This is a necessary condition to preclude international conflict from suddenly erupting due to economic instability causing a ripple effect that would be felt across the globe.

In different forms free market capitalism goes back to the first civilizations.

Here in the USA people focus on giants lime Exon and Apple, but the vast majority of employers are small to medium companies many sole proprietor.

Exploitation goes both ways. Somebody puts in the work of starting a company. He borrows money or mortgages his houses. People get jobs, are they being exploited or are they exploiting the work done to get a company started?

There will be no exploitation on either side. This is why someone who hasn't understood the reason why no one will desire to take advantage of another, will continue to believe that it's impossible.

Your philosophy is very simplistic.

It's not simplistic at all. It's actually a pretty comprehensive blueprint, but as a blueprint it cannot get into such depth that it would be thousands of pages.

To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate. It was impossible for any previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper factors involved, which were necessary for an adequate solution, just as it was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an earlier time because the deeper relations were not perceived at that stage of development. But at last, we have been granted understanding which reveals a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in every way with the mathematical accuracy of the solar system, and we are in for the greatest series of beneficent changes of our entire existence, which must come about as a matter of necessity the very moment this knowledge is understood. Although this book only scratches the surface, it lays the foundation for scientists to take over from here. The undeniable knowledge I am presenting is a blueprint of a new world that must come about once this discovery is recognized, and your awareness of this will preclude you from expressing that this work is oversimplified. Because it would take many encyclopedias combined to delineate all of the changes about to occur, it would have been much too long for a book that was written for the express purpose of providing mankind with a general outline. It will be up to future scientists to extend these principles in much greater depth.

So when you say no one will be able to exploit another who says what exploitaionj is?

An exploitation is taking advantage of someone who doesn't want to be taken advantage of. It is a form of hurt which will be completely eliminated because no one will be able to justify exploiting others to gain at their expense. Conscience will not allow it under the changed conditions.

The communist mdel was elimnating expotain by decree and controllng the economy. It did not work.

That pesky human nature omes into play. And the nature versus nurture debate ensues.

The changes in environment will show us that we are not born to kill. A person's genetics may predispose him to anger under certain environmental conditions, but when all hurt in society is removed, these genetic expressions of anger will never be made manifest.

Our free marekt capitalim does have serious prblems that need to be addressed, like welth inequity./ Housng and health care.

All of these things are addressed in the second part of Chapter Six: The New Economic World: Taxes and Financing the Guarantee.

 

[pood]

Were you planning to reply to what you quoted?

 

[peacegirl]

Were you planning to reply to what you quoted?

Stop playing games with me. Tell me what I quoted that was not representative of your position and I’ll respond to the best of my ability.

 

[pood]

Were you planning to reply to what you quoted?

Stop playing games with me. Tell me what I quoted that was not representative of your position and I’ll respond to the best of my ability.

Go reread what I actually wrote.

 

[peacegirl]

Were you planning to reply to what you quoted?

Stop playing games with me. Tell me what I quoted that was not representative of your position and I’ll respond to the best of my ability.

Go reread what I actually wrote.

I scrolled back and I don't know which post you are referring to, so tell me what you actually wrote that I misunderstood.

 

[pood]

Were you planning to reply to what you quoted?

Stop playing games with me. Tell me what I quoted that was not representative of your position and I’ll respond to the best of my ability.

Go reread what I actually wrote.

I scrolled back and I don't know which post you are referring to, so tell me what you actually wrote that I misunderstood.

No, this boring, and you are losing your audience. I suggest you get to the “juicy” bits. You know what I mean. It’s the stuff you took out of the book, all the good stuff.

 

[peacegirl]

Were you planning to reply to what you quoted?

Stop playing games with me. Tell me what I quoted that was not representative of your position and I’ll respond to the best of my ability.

Go reread what I actually wrote.

I scrolled back and I don't know which post you are referring to, so tell me what you actually wrote that I misunderstood.

No, this boring, and you are losing your audience. I suggest you get to the “juicy” bits. You know what I mean. It’s the stuff you took out of the book, all the good stuff.

Why can't you answer me? I have no idea what you're referring to. You're being mean now.

 

[pood]

Were you planning to reply to what you quoted?

Stop playing games with me. Tell me what I quoted that was not representative of your position and I’ll respond to the best of my ability.

Go reread what I actually wrote.

I scrolled back and I don't know which post you are referring to, so tell me what you actually wrote that I misunderstood.

No, this boring, and you are losing your audience. I suggest you get to the “juicy” bits. You know what I mean. It’s the stuff you took out of the book, all the good stuff.

Why can't you answer me? I have no idea what you're referring to. You're being mean now.

Because I am not going to repeat myself again and again.

 

[peacegirl]

Were you planning to reply to what you quoted?

Stop playing games with me. Tell me what I quoted that was not representative of your position and I’ll respond to the best of my ability.

Go reread what I actually wrote.

I scrolled back and I don't know which post you are referring to, so tell me what you actually wrote that I misunderstood.

No, this boring, and you are losing your audience. I suggest you get to the “juicy” bits. You know what I mean. It’s the stuff you took out of the book, all the good stuff.

Why can't you answer me? I have no idea what you're referring to. You're being mean now.

Because I am not going to repeat myself again and again.

What are you talking about Pood? If you are repeating yourself, it must be because I don't agree with your version of compatibilism. If that gets you angry, what can I say? I have bent over backwards to explain why will is not free as well as the two-sided equation. Your version has gaps which allows you to dispute his findings. I even gave you a list of premises that have to be correct (such as how conscience works) for this discovery to be sound. If the people here are so sure this discovery is vacuous, then there's no point for me to beat a dead horse. I will chalk it up to another try on a forum that was not a good fit. No forums are actually, and I've learned that the hard way. I do think you tried to help me until your last suggestion. Please don't go back to that.

 

[pood]

It doesn’t get me angry, I don’t even care.

 

[peacegirl]

It doesn’t get me angry, I don’t even care.

If you're not angry, then tell me what you are tired of repeating?

 

[steve_bank]

Just like a Christian theist, when questioned and put on the spot find a quite from the bible.

 

[peacegirl]

Just like a Christian theist, when questioned and put on the spot find a quite from the bible.

Are you talking to me? Where did I quote the bible? And this is all you have to say when I tried to show you how this law of our nature can change the trajectory we're on? You didn't even have one question, not even one! Sorry, but this is the last time I'll do this.

 

[steve_bank]

You did not get that I was comparing your quoting your author/guru with Christians quoting the bible?

 

[DBT]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

Certainly I have. It’s still not libertarianism.

The point is that the definition of free will given in compatibilism does not entail the possibility of taking alternate decisions or actions in any given instance of decision making (which is not the same as choice).

So that rules you out as a compatibilist.

Libertarian free will on the other hand....

 

[DBT]

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that determinism and free will are incompatible. The hard determinist rejects free will. The libertarian rejects determinism.

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

Correct.

,

The hard determinist says given antecedents x and y, a person MUST do z. The libertarian says given antecedents x and y, a person can and will do whatever the hell he, she, or they wants.

The so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

Right. So is the libertarian.

The compatiblist accepts both determinism and free will. The compatibilist says that given antecedents x and y, a person WILL (but not MUST!) do z. Could he have done differently? Certainly. But to actually have done differently, antecedents would have been different.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Of course they could have been different, but they weren’t. There can only be one history.

Which is the point that makes 'had conditions been different' completely irrelevant.

As conditions cannot be different within a deterministic system, where there can only be one history which sets the present state of the system, which in turn sets the future states of the system......there is no point in bringing up ''had conditions been different'' in a debate on compatibilist free will.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice.

Certainly there is. We make countess choices every single day.

Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable.

No, a choice OF SOME KIND is inevitable.

No, the decision that is made is set by past states of the system. That is entailed in your Constant Conjunction, where decision/action B must necessarily follow decision/action A

That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Sure they could have been different, but weren’t. There is only one history. And this is where “could not have done otherwise” falls apart. Given that there is only one history, “could not have done otherwise” collapses to “did not do otherwise,” which is compatibilism.

They weren't different because the system, as defined by you (constant conjunction) simply does not permit alternate actions.

If it could, it would not be determinism.

 

[peacegirl]

You did not get that I was comparing your quoting your author/guru with Christians quoting the bible?

How is quoting the author, which was meant to help answer your questions, anything comparable to Christians quoting the Bible other than the fact that both were quoted from a source. My source has nothing to do with fundamentalism or theology, yet someone new to this thread may get the wrong impression. Your response was meant to be a put down and you showed a complete disinterest in anything I posted. For what reason, I’ll never know.

 

[pood]

So that rules you out as a compatibilist.

No. That just rules you out as understanding what compatibilism is. After all this time, you still don’t.

Libertarian free will on the other hand....

Libertarian free will says our choices are free of determinism. I don’t say that. Ergo I am not a libertarian.