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

[pood]

Just because we can make choices "freely", which in this account only means: "I did this of my own free will" (without force or influence or external pressure of any kind), …

Well, see, peacegirl, that kind of just IS compatibilism … but as I said, it does’t matter. You can reject the label and call it something else. I get the idea of what you are saying here. I think you should just proceed with the argument and forget about labels for it. The labels are irrelevant, only the substance of the argument matters.

 

[pood]

How does Buddhist time have support in physics?

I outlined that upthread. Buddhist time has support both in Barbour’s time capsules and in the concept of the block universe.

 

[Jarhyn]

We either have it or we don't

This is a foolish and false dichotomy. Free Will is relative, and reality shows that it is quite pointedly capable of supporting relativity.

A subystem of a system can be both or either or neither of "intermittently" and "incompletely" autonomous.

Please see also the post I made in the subject of autonomy.

I could post more on the subject if you would like.

From my perspective the lib/hd debate is like watching kids arguing, where one side says Amethysts make people tired and the other side says Amethysts make people wakeful, when both sides are wrong in assuming Amethyst does anything but sit there spitting purple photons.

Both sides are so wrong they are not-even-wrong.

Most academic philosophers are compatibilists. This evidences that the most reasonable argument is probably compatibilism.

 

[peacegirl]

No one can pry your mouth open and force information out of you unless you consent to it.

So … torture elicits consent?
Sounds more than a little twisted to me.

No Elixir, torture is not of one's doing. It is a form of force by the perpetrators, not by the individual who is being forced to choose under extreme duress.

 

[pood]

From my perspective the lib/hd debate is like watching kids arguing, where one side says Amethysts make people tired and the other side says Amethysts make people wakeful, when both sides are wrong in assuming Amethyst does anything but sit there spitting purple photons.

Yes, libertarians and hard determinists say we either have it or we don’t. Not soft determinists (compatibilists). I mean, that is what compatibilism means. — determinism and free will are compatible. But, peacegirl, as I said, don’t get hung up on labels. As I believe your author said, definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality. I think you should just proceed with the argument and see where it leads.

 

[peacegirl]

Just because we can make choices "freely", which in this account only means: "I did this of my own free will" (without force or influence or external pressure of any kind), …

Well, see, peacegirl, that kind of just IS compatibilism … but as I said, it does’t matter. You can reject the label and call it something else. I get the idea of what you are saying here. I think you should just proceed with the argument and forget about labels for it. The labels are irrelevant, only the substance of the argument matters.

The kind of free that compatibilists use does not exist in reality. A lot of people don't even know what definitions they are using, and if they do, they obviously don't understand the contradiction or don't want to understand. Once again, how can they so easily change the semantics of the word "free" to fit into their conception of what makes a choice free, when we have no FREE choice whatsoever after a choice has been made, not before. We are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment. Some choices hold greater weight than others, but this does not change the direction we are compelled to go. They are using an arbitrary definition of what constitutes free, which is giving special permission to some and not to others. Huh? To call the author a compatibilist bothers me because he was not a compatibilist in any sense of the word.

 

[peacegirl]

From my perspective the lib/hd debate is like watching kids arguing, where one side says Amethysts make people tired and the other side says Amethysts make people wakeful, when both sides are wrong in assuming Amethyst does anything but sit there spitting purple photons.

Yes, libertarians and hard determinists say we either have it or we don’t. Not soft determinists (compatibilists). I mean, that is what compatibilism means. — determinism and free will are compatible. But, peacegirl, as I said, don’t get hung up on labels. As I believe your author said, definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality. I think you should just proceed with the argument and see where it leads.

 

[peacegirl]

Thanks Pood. I appreciate your comment that I should not get hung up on labels. But in order to proceed, I may have to cut and paste excerpts if no one is willing to read the darn thing. I cannot take a risk of being unclear because of missed steps that were explained in the book in a step-by-step fashion. If I miss a step, then it would hurt me to think that people lost interest due to my failure to get the points across, not the author's. So let's get this straight. What premises do you understand thus far, and will you accept them (even if temporarily) so I can move on?

 

[pood]

Just because we can make choices "freely", which in this account only means: "I did this of my own free will" (without force or influence or external pressure of any kind), …

Well, see, peacegirl, that kind of just IS compatibilism … but as I said, it does’t matter. You can reject the label and call it something else. I get the idea of what you are saying here. I think you should just proceed with the argument and forget about labels for it. The labels are irrelevant, only the substance of the argument matters.

The kind of free that compatibilists use does not exist in reality. A lot of people don't even know what definitions they are using, and if they do, they obviously don't understand the contradiction or don't want to understand. Once again, how can they so easily change the semantics of the word "free" to fit into their conception of what makes a choice free, when we have no FREE choice whatsoever after a choice has been made, not before. We are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment. Some choices hold greater weight than others, but this does not change the direction we are compelled to go. They are using an arbitrary definition of what constitutes free, which is giving special permission to some and not to others. Huh? To call the author a compatibilist bothers me because he was not a compatibilist in any sense of the word.

Peacegirl, you need to get better control of the quote tags. Anyway, as I said, the definition you offered by way of the author is very similar if not identical to compatibilism, but as I said, it doesn’t matter. Call it anything you want, it’s just a label. Best to proceed with the larger argument.

 

[pood]

Thanks Pood. I appreciate your comment that I should not get hung up on labels. But in order to proceed, I may have to cut and paste excerpts if no one is willing to read the darn thing. I cannot take a risk of being unclear because of missed steps that were explained in the book in a step-by-step fashion. If I miss a step, then it would hurt me to think that people lost interest due to my failure to get the points across, not the author's. So let's get this straight. What premises do you understand thus far, and will you accept them (even if temporarily) so I can move on?

I accept the premise of his conception of time, and I get that you are contesting the standard definition of determinism. You are saying, I think, that it’s not the past as such that “causes” us to what we do, but rather it is our inner nature to move toward “greater satisfaction” at every given moment that causes our actions. I get that your author is saying that nothing can make us do what we do not want to do, except by some form of external compulsion, say, by someone holding a gun to our head. That, too, is a compatibilist position, but as I say, forget the labels and just move on. You can cut and past excerpts if you wish, but I’d advise not posting huge chunks of text that may put people off from reading. Post small amounts instead to be read and discussed.

 

[peacegirl]

Thanks Pood. I appreciate your comment that I should not get hung up on labels. But in order to proceed, I may have to cut and paste excerpts if no one is willing to read the darn thing. I cannot take a risk of being unclear because of missed steps that were explained in the book in a step-by-step fashion. If I miss a step, then it would hurt me to think that people lost interest due to my failure to get the points across, not the author's. So let's get this straight. What premises do you understand thus far, and will you accept them (even if temporarily) so I can move on?

I accept the premise of his conception of time, and I get that you are contesting the standard definition of determinism. You are saying, I think, that it’s not the past as such that “causes” us to what we do, but rather it is our inner nature to move toward “greater satisfaction” at every given moment that causes our actions. I get that your author is saying that nothing can make us do what we do not want to do, except by some form of external compulsion, say, by someone holding a gun to our head. That, too, is a compatibilist position, but as I say, forget the labels and just move on. You can cut and past excerpts if you wish, but I’d advise not posting huge chunks of text that may put people off from reading. Post small amounts instead to be read and discussed.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, something to note. You can ask people to accept premises arguendo, that is, “for the sake of argument.” It doesn’t mean they have to agree with the premise, only that they accept it hypothetically to see where the argument leads. As it happens I think the author’s argument about time is pretty good, and his argument about “moving toward greater satisfaction” is dicey but defensible. But these are premises. Anyone can accept premises, unless they are utterly outlandish, to see where the argument leads.

In logic, arguments (not to be confused with “arguing”) have premises followed by a conclusion. If the conclusion logically follows from the premises, the argument is called valid. But validity is not enough. To go through, an argument needs to be sound. This means that in addition to the conclusion following from the premises, all the premises must be true.

 

[peacegirl]

Thanks Pood. I appreciate your comment that I should not get hung up on labels. But in order to proceed, I may have to cut and paste excerpts if no one is willing to read the darn thing. I cannot take a risk of being unclear because of missed steps that were explained in the book in a step-by-step fashion. If I miss a step, then it would hurt me to think that people lost interest due to my failure to get the points across, not the author's. So let's get this straight. What premises do you understand thus far, and will you accept them (even if temporarily) so I can move on?

I accept the premise of his conception of time, and I get that you are contesting the standard definition of determinism. You are saying, I think, that it’s not the past as such that “causes” us to what we do, but rather it is our inner nature to move toward “greater satisfaction” at every given moment that causes our actions. I get that your author is saying that nothing can make us do what we do not want to do, except by some form of external compulsion, say, by someone holding a gun to our head.

Up until "holding a gun to someone's head" was in line with what the author was saying, but holding a gun to someone's head is still allowing a person to make a choice; it is not physical constraint which would be the perpetrator's will, not the victims. This is not compatibilism, but as you said, let's forget the labels for now.

That, too, is a compatibilist position, but as I say, forget the labels and just move on. You can cut and past excerpts if you wish, but I’d advise not posting huge chunks of text that may put people off from reading. Post small amounts instead to be read and discussed.

Sounds good. I am going to move from Chapter One to Chapter Two, even though Chapter One has some other interesting points that I did not get to cover. The main points are what you just summarized, so I'm satisfied to move to the next chapter.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, something to note. You can ask people to accept premises arguendo, that is, “for the sake of argument.” It doesn’t mean they have to agree with the premise, only that they accept it hypothetically to see where the argument leads. As it happens I think the author’s argument about time is pretty good, and his argument about “moving toward greater satisfaction” is dicey but defensible. But these are premises. Anyone can accept premises, unless they are utterly outlandish, to see where the argument leads.

In logic, arguments (not to be confused with “arguing”) have premises followed by a conclusion. If the conclusion logically follows from the premises, the argument is called valid. But validity is not enough. To go through, an argument needs to be sound. This means that in addition to the conclusion following from the premises, all the premises must be true.

Okay.

 

[peacegirl]

I hope the atheists are not put off by the author using the word God throughout the book as a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. He may have changed his wording if he was alive today (I'm not sure though) but suffice it to say that this book has nothing to do with religion. Here is the first paragraph of Chapter Two. I will continue to move on if there are no questions.

CHAPTER TWO

THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION​

Once it is established as an undeniable law that man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off, which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide rule, or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the base metals of human nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age, even though it presents what appears to be an insurmountable problem. For how is it possible not to blame people who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t want to? The solution, however, only requires the perception and extension of relations, which cannot be denied, and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God, which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have, not only without hurting a living soul, but while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. You can prepare yourselves to say goodbye to all the hurt and evil that came into existence out of necessity. However, the problems that confront us at this moment are very complex, which makes it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate yet related manner. God, not me, is finally going to reveal the solution. (Note: Please remember that God in this context only means the force [determinism] that controls our every move.)

Since time immemorial, the two opposing forces of good and evil compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God responsible for all the good in the world and Satan responsible for the evil, while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in human relations must come to a peaceful end. The absolute proof that man’s will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that this law can control man’s actions only by obeying this corollary, for then everything that came into existence which caused us to blame and punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth. Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun.

 

[steve_bank]

How does Buddhist time have support in physics?

I outlined that upthread. Buddhist time has support both in Barbour’s time capsules and in the concept of the block universe.

There is philosophical concepts of time and scientific time. Scientific time is ticks on a clock. Time along with meters and kilograms is a unit of measure, a measure of change. It does not go backwards.

Causality, time measures rate of change of psychical reality. There is no practical theory that allows you to wind back the clock or travel back to a previous state of the universe.

Anything else is metaphysics and scifi.

 

[pood]

How does Buddhist time have support in physics?

I outlined that upthread. Buddhist time has support both in Barbour’s time capsules and in the concept of the block universe.

There is philosophical concepts of time and scientific time. Scientific time is ticks on a clock. Time along with meters and kilograms is a unit of measure, a measure of change. It does not go backwards.

Causality, time measures rate of change of psychical reality. There is no practical theory that allows you to wind back the clock or travel back to a previous state of the universe.

Anything else is metaphysics and scifi.

Where did I say time goes backward?

But, as a matter a fact, a solution to Einstein’s general relativity provides for the possibility of closed time-like curves, spatial into the past.

Julian Barbour, who proposed time capsules, is a physicist.

The block universe, or the postulate of the absolute world, was put forth by Minkowski, a mathematician, and the block world was derived from Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

So, yes, this is science as well as phiosophy. In his theory formulation Einstein was heavily influenced by philosophers, including David Hume.

 

[pood]

What I am saying that in the Buddhist conception of time, as well as in Barbour’s time capsules and Minkowski’s block world, time does not “go” anywhere at all, forward or backward.

 

[Jarhyn]

but holding a gun to someone's head is still allowing a person to make a choice;

Except that it isn't the same choice with the gun there.

The gun takes away the power to make a choice between A and B, and makes it instead a choice between B and C. It is a physical leverage, but a nuanced and very complicated manner of such.

It is taking away someone's choice of which choice they will later make. Most people default easily away from making the choice of their later choice be between "doing it" and "dying", instead traditionally deciding that their future choice will be between "doing it" or "not doing it". The gun removes the choice of consequence, which is usually made by default.

I think you might be significantly helped by understanding "freedoms" and "wills" in a more concrete way, however the only methods I have for formalizing these concepts completely requires a basic foundation in the field of "instruction execution frameworks".

 

[Elixir]

I hope the atheists are not put off by the author using the word God throughout the book as a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. He may have changed his wording if he was alive today (I'm not sure though) but suffice it to say that this book has nothing to do with religion. Here is the first paragraph of Chapter Two. I will continue to move on if there are no questions.

CHAPTER TWO

THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION​

Once it is established as an undeniable law that man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off, which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide rule, or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and transmute the base metals of human nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age, even though it presents what appears to be an insurmountable problem. For how is it possible not to blame people who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t want to? The solution, however, only requires the perception and extension of relations, which cannot be denied, and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God, which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement. This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have, not only without hurting a living soul, but while benefiting everyone to an amazing degree. You can prepare yourselves to say goodbye to all the hurt and evil that came into existence out of necessity. However, the problems that confront us at this moment are very complex, which makes it necessary to treat every aspect of our lives in a separate yet related manner. God, not me, is finally going to reveal the solution. (Note: Please remember that God in this context only means the force [determinism] that controls our every move.)

Since time immemorial, the two opposing forces of good and evil compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God responsible for all the good in the world and Satan responsible for the evil, while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in human relations must come to a peaceful end. The absolute proof that man’s will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that this law can control man’s actions only by obeying this corollary, for then everything that came into existence which caused us to blame and punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth. Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun.

If it gives you peace … go forth, and try not to hurt anyone.
Of course if it gives you peace, you probably weren’t going to go forth and intentionally try to hurt anyone anyhow.