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

[peacegirl]

Is this it? Does everyone

Hasty generalisation

think man’s will is free because of a modal fallacy

Non sequitur

that would ruin our chances of peace on earth?

Argument from consequences

If anyone here has misgivings

Appeal to emotion

or proof that we cannot have free will at the same time we have free will (a complete contradiction),

Question begging and poisoning the well

please come forward! I need help!

Evidently.

DBT, if it were not for you, I would have given up with this thread entirely.

Don't try to shift the blame.

We have decision-making. We have the ability to perceive the world and respond to its events. Given determinism, our abilities and attributes, how we respond to events has nothing to with the power of will, yet alone free will.

I am curious what you think about people having the willpower to get something accomplished, which obviously is the result of their heredity and environment and the antecedents that caused it. Are you saying that decisions are made by bypassing our will altogether, or are you saying that decisions we make bypass our FREE will?

Will just isn't the means or the mechanism by which decisions and actions are made. That is the role and function of the brain.

The brain acquires and processes information which is used to generate conscious experience, feelings, thoughts, deliberations and actions, including the associated will or drive to act, where the underlying information processing is feeding information into conscious experience....where the processing has made the decision milliseconds before the thought, decision and will to act becomes conscious.

I just wanted to clarify the our will is the ultimate decision maker. As Lessans said: Without the will’s consent, the action based on that decision cannot be executed (you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink), which many people are confused about. They think determinism is forcing them to do something against their will, which is incorrect.

Right, it’s incorrect. So what your author is talking about is … compatibilism.

Being able to do what you want because it is your preference IS NOT COMPATIBILISM. Compatibilism tries to reconcile no free will with free will. This is not what the author is doing. Why are you trying to misrepresent him? You were the one that said INCORRECTLY that when he said: he "was compelled, of his own free will," it was a contradiction.

The author described his discovery as a two-sided equation, although it has nothing to do with numbers per se. Throughout the book he uses the phrase “compelled, of his own free will” which may sound contradictory at first blush. The expression, “of his own free will,” is used in a colloquial sense, which only means that he was not being coerced or forced to do anything against his will. It does not mean his will is free.

To repeat, "of his own free will" only means "of his own desire" but this does not mean he was doing anything of his own free will (the compatiblist type of free will which gives freedom to anyone who doesn't have OCD or doesn't have a gun to his head). He clarified this many times so that people would understand that being compelled to do what one does, does not mean being forced against one's will to do anything. You have the intellectual capacity to understand this Pood. I have no idea why this is so hard for you to grasp other than your unwillingness to give up on the falseness of compatibilism.

[Note: It must be understood that the expression ‘of your own free will,’ which is an expression I use throughout the book, only means ‘of your own desire,’ but this does not mean will is free. If you need further clarification, please reread Chapter One].

It’s not at all hard to grasp. We are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is just a way to say that we always do what we prefer, because why would we do what we don’t prefer?

It doesn't ask the question why. It just is. We cannot choose what we prefer less than what we prefer more, is available. I might prefer running into a burning building over not doing this. Now that I did this to save someone, I could not not have preferred it at that moment because it would have given me less satisfaction, which would have been IMPOSSIBLE given my heredity and environment. Looking back, I could only have gone in one direction, which is exactly why will is not free. Each moment of time gives us only one option. The word choice is deceptive because it implies all options are equally possible, but that is a realistic mirage.

To say that nobody and nothing can make us do, what we don’t to do — and that includes determinism, as you just said — combines, with the first premise, to form … compatibilism. Determinism doesn’t make you do, what you don’t want to do, and doesn’t compel you to do, what you want to do — you do it because you want to, not because of the mythical hard determinism — is … compatibilism, stated in different words.

No it is not, it's not even close. Determinism does not separate people who don't have a gun to their head as having the free will to choose otherwise. That is libertarianism stated in different words. Compatibilism is made up; it's a fabricated definition with no corresponding reality. It gives some a pass (those with internal challenges) and others not (those who don't seem to have the same internal challenges). They make a false distinction which has given rise to a false definition of what constitutes freedom and what constitutes compulsion. We are back to square one. IOW, it is believed that if people choose to hurt someone (without being forced by a gun), then they had the free will to do otherwise which, in society's eyes, holds them morally accountable. I understand why this feeling of accountability is so hard to let go of (it's the very cornerstone of law and order as we know it), but this is not how determinism works Pood. This is an invariable law, and everyone is included in the law, not just some.

 

[Janice Rael]

Janice, it has taken me many years to get this done. I have not marketed at all. Only a handful of people even know about this discovery, so you cannot use how many books were bought to judge whether this discovery is sound. Isn't that what you're trying to do? Actually, I wrote a children's book as well based on this knowledge. I haven't had the chance to market this book either. If anyone here has young children, they might want to buy it to read to their kids.

https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Safe-Mr-See-More-Safety-ebook/dp/B00S7AWVZM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=11N3SF8ON42SK&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DS-Ed9cBvLnBOF0W27ONBkRl3ypE0Gr7k8eX7MmbcSvHuamn6ydCmySqEKtAEPSm.KVwErWblA5uY6fQkyQ_NueYqmTUxAIw4v9Bnup7Kt_k&dib_tag=se&keywords=playing+it+safe+with+mr.+see-more+safety&qid=1729165846&sprefix=playing+it+safe+with+mr.+see-more+safety%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-1

Thank you, @peacegirl - my questions for you are about the logistical and practical details of the process of going from a rough draft to a ... I suppose, pdf? I get that part, and could do it - to uploading, to ??? (what happens next?) - to obtaining the ISBN. I understand the concept of POD, but I don't know any authors who can or will tell me about the bells and whistles, the features and failures, of the POD platforms you use.

I asked if any sites tracked your sales because it's a feature I'd like to have, if I do POD, but it's only one nitpicking question I have about what I view as your success. You're experienced, you're an expert to me.

I was not asking you what your sales were, no. I wanted your opinions of the different platforms and their offerings, and your suggestions for potential authors, based on your personal views.

My questions are totally off-topic, in this thread, and in this Philosophy forum. I only asked here because I knew you'd see me interrupting this discussion with irrelevant nerd nonsense.

Apologies, because I have too many questions about the process, not the content, and if you do reply, it would be more of a derail (unless you didn't mind).

 

[peacegirl]

Janice, it has taken me many years to get this done. I have not marketed at all. Only a handful of people even know about this discovery, so you cannot use how many books were bought to judge whether this discovery is sound. Isn't that what you're trying to do? Actually, I wrote a children's book as well based on this knowledge. I haven't had the chance to market this book either. If anyone here has young children, they might want to buy it to read to their kids.

https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Safe-Mr-See-More-Safety-ebook/dp/B00S7AWVZM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=11N3SF8ON42SK&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DS-Ed9cBvLnBOF0W27ONBkRl3ypE0Gr7k8eX7MmbcSvHuamn6ydCmySqEKtAEPSm.KVwErWblA5uY6fQkyQ_NueYqmTUxAIw4v9Bnup7Kt_k&dib_tag=se&keywords=playing+it+safe+with+mr.+see-more+safety&qid=1729165846&sprefix=playing+it+safe+with+mr.+see-more+safety%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-1

Thank you, @peacegirl - my questions for you are about the logistical and practical details of the process of going from a rough draft to a ... I suppose, pdf? I get that part, and could do it - to uploading, to ??? (what happens next?) - to obtaining the ISBN. I understand the concept of POD, but I don't know any authors who can or will tell me about the bells and whistles, the features and failures, of the POD platforms you use.

Some people are saying ISBNs are not necessary because there are other ways to identify a book. I bought them and I'm not sorry. They're not cheap unless you buy in bulk. Most distributors will give you a free barcode if you are creating a print version. Go to: myidentifiers.com to learn more. If you really want to go from a rough draft to being published, it's not that hard with the tools that are available. But you still have to be motivated because there are a lot of steps to go through. And then...there is the marketing aspect, which can turn into a big expense. You should also know what your niche is and how your book would offer something different than what's already out there. Or you could put a different spin on it. That takes quite a bit of research as well.

I asked if any sites tracked your sales because it's a feature I'd like to have, if I do POD, but it's only one nitpicking question I have about what I view as your success. You're experienced, you're an expert to me.

I'm really not an expert. It's pretty much self-explanatory as you go through the process. If you're not familiar with formatting, you will need someone to help you create a digital version of your book called an epub. Some vendors will accept a file from a WORD document or a PDF. Draft2digital is another distributor I use because they handle many distribution channels. They have created a new business model with Smashwords. I am not sure of the details, but you can google it. They make 10% of the sale of your book. As with everything, there are good and bad reviews.

I was not asking you what your sales were, no. I wanted your opinions of the different platforms and their offerings, and your suggestions for potential authors, based on your personal views.

If you use a particular distributor, such as kdp (an Amazon partner), once you upload your book and make sales, there is a page that will show you your quarterly profits. You have to fill out all your tax and bank information. You should be able to access that information with any distributor you work with.

Amazon KDP: Your 7 Step Guide to Kindle Direct Publishing

Use this step-by-step Amazon KDP guide to successfully self-publish your book on the Kindle Direct Publishing platform.

selfpublishing.com

My questions are totally off-topic, in this thread, and in this Philosophy forum. I only asked here because I knew you'd see me interrupting this discussion with irrelevant nerd nonsense.

Apologies, because I have too many questions about the process, not the content, and if you do reply, it would be more of a derail (unless you didn't mind).

I stopped using a POD company (Trafford) and created my own since you still have to do your own marketing, and I wanted to be my own boss. There was really nothing they could do that I couldn't do myself, since Print on Demand publishing does not require you to keep inventory. Then you sign up with a distributor. Some create only digital ebooks but many are coming into the print book industry as well. Amazon wants exclusivity using kdp, but you don't have to sign up for this. You just make less royalty per book (30% vs. 70%), but you are not beholden to them. I hope I gave you something that can get you started. Good luck on your endeavor!

For more information on self-publishing, this guy may be helpful to you:

27 Book Publishing Companies For Authors Without Agents

Learn about the top 27 book publishing companies in the world that accept author submissions without an agent and provide the best benefit for new authors.

kindlepreneur.com

 

[Janice Rael]

Thank you for ALL of those details, @peacegirl - I appreciate it,

 

[DBT]

Compatibilism either stands or falls on the validity of its own terms. Compatibilism fails to make a case because its definition of free will focuses on freedom from external necessitation,not being forced, coerced or unduly influenced, yet ignores inner necessity, genetics, neural architecture, the non-chosen means and mechanisms of thought, deliberation and response.

 

[peacegirl]

Thank you for ALL of those details, @peacegirl - I appreciate it,

You’re very welcome.

 

[peacegirl]

Compatibilism either stands or falls on the validity of its own terms. Compatibilism fails to make a case because its definition of free will focuses on freedom from external necessitation,not being forced, coerced or unduly influenced, yet ignores inner necessity, genetics, neural architecture, the non-chosen means and mechanisms of thought, deliberation and response.

Ignoring inner necessity, genetics, neural architecture, the non-chosen means and mechanisms of thought, deliberation and response demonstrate the lack of careful analysis by creating a definition that leaves the most important part out, inner necessity. In so many words, they are no more up on the debate than asking a layman on the street if he believes he has free will. He, like the compatibilists, would say “of course I have free will. I don’t have a gun to my head, therefore I have the freedom to choose whatever I want. In fact I was going to have cheerios for breakfast but to prove I have the free will to change my mind (my decision to eat cheerios is not etched in stone), I am going to eat eggs. This proves I have free will.” This in no way proves free will. It actually shows that one’s preference can change from minute to minute depending on the antecedents that are being used to make a particular decision.

This is an extremely superficial understanding of free will. But that’s exactly the compatibilist definition; no gun to someone’s head or no OCD equals free will. They are measuring the degree of compulsion, not realizing that anytime there is a meaningful difference (even choosing between two inconsequential things), they are still under a compulsion to choose the most preferable of those options, rendering any other choice an impossibility at that moment

This also flies in the face their own definition of determinism that they have agreed upon. The problem is due to the issue of moral responsibility, which this author addresses. Responsibility is increased, not decreased, with this new understanding. But as you said, there’s too much emotion tied up in this subject which will not allow people to be the least bit objective.