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

[peacegirl]

I really don't want to destroy the integrity of this book, so I will post excerpts in the sequence they were written. People can question as I go along. If people don't like the way I'm presenting his case, or they think I don't understand the principles myself because I'm not explaining them in my own words, then they can move to another thread. I am only here for those who have a scintilla of interest, otherwise there is no point. It's exhausting as it is, let alone trying to convince people to stay who feel sure he has nothing revolutionary.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think the biggest outcome of compatibilism is in advancing the idea that "blame can only appropriately be lain for what something IS, not for what it WAS."

It is, however, burdensome to repair problematic situations, and people dislike burdens, and so will often force that burden onto whoever created the situation.

I would not say they deserve such consequences; what people would say they deserve is the power to act without creating unwanted consequences! ... but... oftentimes "being expected to clean up the consequences" is itself a very powerful and effective response to "being someone who continues to disregard the consequences they create".

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Of course, he has a choice regardless of how difficult the choice would be to not do what the perpetrators want.

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.

Regardless of the physical leverage and regardless of his believe that he doesn't have a choice, he still does. People with hard choices to make often say, "You give me no choice He can do what they want and not risk getting shot, or he may not give them what they want (because he doesn't want to give away information that could put others at risk) knowing that he might get shot by not doing what they want. He still has a hard choice to make, but a choice, nevertheless.

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".

The bottom line is that he does have a choice even if they have leverage. Having a gun to one's head does not remove that choice. A (to give in) or B (not to give in). He may choose not to give the perpetrators what they want because the risk involved to others may be worse than the risk of possibly getting shot. Maybe he thinks to himself that he could talk them out of getting shot and still not divulge the information.

 

[Jarhyn]

I will also note that on the subject of heaven and hell and "the eternal soul" and desert of afterlife...

If we assume God isn't actually all powerful, if we look at some situation as Clancy in The Midnight Gospel, a great example of n altogether incompetent and flawed god, it may be that 60-80 years is more than enough time to get the gist of what an organism is and what that organism will continue to be, and while I can't speak for Clancy, personally, I'm not going to waste my time on "I can fix them".

As such, it's still good enough to hold something responsible at that juncture for what it is, even knowing it could be rebuilt into something better, simply because it would never be worth my own time to do so.

If someone else wants to do that work, more power to them, but then we're entering more into the final configuration featured in The Good Place.

 

[Jarhyn]

Regardless of the leverage and regardless of a person saying, "You give me no choice" because the alternative is to get shot

I think you are missing the nuance of what choice the gun really took away from them, WHERE they actually had "no choice".

Before, they had the choice of consequence for failure, generally defaulted to "no consequence".

It is THAT choice, the choice of consequence, which is being deprived. They chose "no consequence", and the insult to their freedom is in the answer "consequence = death".

It was their lack of choice over the latter choice.

Prior, their choices were "A or B (or C, but nobody generally decides on C)", and the gun degraded that to "B or C". It took away their option of A.

 

[Jarhyn]

Now, here's why a background in executive systems is important: A, B, and C, while "options" in the paradigm of a choice are "freedoms" in the paradigm of wills. You have literally taken away a specific and concrete provisional freedom with the gun, preemptively removing it from any possibility of being an actual freedom.

If I were to put this in programming terms, it is remarkably similar to physically commenting a case in a switch statement, in that something real and substantive changed of the system.

 

[peacegirl]

Now, here's why a background in executive systems is important: A, B, and C, while "options" in the paradigm of a choice are "freedoms" in the paradigm of wills. You have literally taken away a specific and concrete provisional freedom with the gun, preemptively removing it from any possibility of being an actual freedom.

If I were to put this in programming terms, it is remarkably similar to physically commenting a case in a switch statement, in that something real and substantive changed of the system.

Obviously a person who does not have a gun to his head has more viable options available to him. All I am saying is that a person with a gun to his head still has a choice: to do or not to do what the perpetrator wants. It’s also obvious that is the person does not want to possibly get shot, his choice is limited. Whatever choice he decides is in the direction of what is the least dissatisfying.

 

[pood]

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.

OK, so the idea is that we have no freedom other that to move in the direction of greater (perceived) satisfaction. Next comes the idea that once this is universally understood, we will cease to blame people for what they do, since we will understand that they were moving in the direction of what they thought was greater satisfaction, right? Is the next step that when we stop blaming people, they will stop having justification for doing harm to others, since doing harm will no longer be in the direction of greater satisfaction?

 

[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.

 

[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.

It's okay that they accept it hypothetically. That's all I have been asking for because it will allow me to continue. I understand that a proof has to be sound. Unfortunately, people often jump to all kinds of premature conclusions before they even read a word. Talk about frustration! Don't most philosophers read a book before they feel confident in discussing it? Isn't that the norm?

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Of course, he has a choice regardless of how difficult the choice would be to not do what the perpetrators want.

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.

Regardless of the physical leverage and regardless of his believe that he doesn't have a choice, he still does. People with hard choices to make often say, "You give me no choice He can do what they want and not risk getting shot, or he may not give them what they want (because he doesn't want to give away information that could put others at risk) knowing that he might get shot by not doing what they want. He still has a hard choice to make, but a choice, nevertheless.

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".

The bottom line is that he does have a choice even if they have leverage. Having a gun to one's head does not remove that choice. A (to give in) or B (not to give in). He may choose not to give the perpetrators what they want because the risk involved to others may be worse than the risk of possibly getting shot. Maybe he thinks to himself that he could talk them out of getting shot and still not divulge the information.

Why do they give you such little time to edit? I made a few grammar errors because I was in a rush. Now I can't fix them.

 

[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.

OK, so the idea is that we have no freedom other that to move in the direction of greater (perceived) satisfaction. Next comes the idea that once this is universally understood, we will cease to blame people for what they do, since we will understand that they were moving in the direction of what they thought was greater satisfaction, right? Is the next step that when we stop blaming people, they will stop having justification for doing harm to others, since doing harm will no longer be in the direction of greater satisfaction?

Sort of, but there's a lot missing. We cannot suddenly stop blaming people because we now know will is not free. We need to create the environment that will prevent the justification to hurt others. We are not talking about retaliation here, which is a normal reaction in a free will environment of blame and punishment. IOW, most people, if hurt, will desire to retaliate against those who have done harm to them; "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," as the saying goes. We now have the ability to prevent the first blow of hurt from ever being struck, which is partly due to an economic system that doesn't allow for opportunity to move up the ladder or for financial security. In summary, if no one is hurt, then there will be no need to retaliate or to turn the other cheek.

 

[Jarhyn]

All I am saying is that a person with a gun to his head still has a choice

They still have A choice but they don't have THAT choice, and the choice they don't have is the freedom that was taken from them. These are non-fungible. You are achieving a subtle form of self-misdirection from the choice we are discussing.

 

[pood]

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.

OK, so the idea is that we have no freedom other that to move in the direction of greater (perceived) satisfaction. Next comes the idea that once this is universally understood, we will cease to blame people for what they do, since we will understand that they were moving in the direction of what they thought was greater satisfaction, right? Is the next step that when we stop blaming people, they will stop having justification for doing harm to others, since doing harm will no longer be in the direction of greater satisfaction?

Sort of, but there's a lot missing. We cannot just stop blaming people because we know their will is not free. We need to create the environment that will prevent the justification to strike a first blow. We are not talking about retaliation, which is a normal reaction in a free will environment. IOW, most people will desire to retaliate against someone who has harmed to them, which is a normal reaction. But I am trying to show that we now have the ability to prevent the first blow from ever being struck. If no one is hurt, then there will be no need to retaliate or turn the other cheek.

OK, so how do we prevent the first blow from being struck? What is the missing step in the chain I outlined above? IOW, how do we “create the environment that will prevent the justification to strike a first blow”? Also, you are still messing up the quote tags.

 

[Jarhyn]

We cannot just stop blaming people because we know their will is not free

We can absolutely blame the responsible elements when a human wasn't responsible for creating an abnormal or outsized risk.

Retaliation is never justified unless the thing doing the action is immune to influence or change, intrinsically and irreversibly set on being that which causes the outcome, and only limited by completely removing access to reality of that thing. In fact this is one of the insanities that compatibilism would seek to address: that of retaliation rather than effective response to an active situation.

Compatibilists as such generally lean towards restorative justice and pragmatism rather than either retributive justice or lazy anarchy.

 

[peacegirl]

Chapter Two continued: The Two-Sided Equation

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work our problem backwards, which means that every step of the way will be a forced move, which will become a loose end, and only when all these ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key, that we are given the means to unlock the solution. As an example of working a problem backwards, follow this: If you were told that a woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent half of what she had in each, and came out of the last place absolutely broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store that broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there. Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in, giving her three just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out of the penultimate store; this added to the three gives her four which represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this process eight more times, it is absolutely undeniable that she must have begun her spending spree with $3,069. As we can see from this example, when a key fact is available from which to reason, it is then possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic. At first glance, it appears impossible not to blame an individual for murder, or any heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact, it can be seen that these acts of evil are not condoned with the understanding that man’s will is not free but prevented. Regardless of someone’s opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of the answer to the problem I just gave, an opinion that would have to be based upon a logical conclusion, as is that of our experts when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our lives, we know the answer is correct because the reasoning that follows from this key fact is scientifically sound.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards, we can officially launch the Golden Age, which necessitates the removal of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule, which God has given us as a guide. By now, I hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil, using the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually, no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction, and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will, it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing as far as reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God, does not change the fact that He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God, therefore, we must assume because of certain things that God is a reality, correct?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe based on the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets, and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free, and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction, although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system, only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man, which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation, for nothing in this universe when seen in total perspective is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

 

[peacegirl]

Regardless of the leverage and regardless of a person saying, "You give me no choice" because the alternative is to get shot

I think you are missing the nuance of what choice the gun really took away from them, WHERE they actually had "no choice".

Before, they had the choice of consequence for failure, generally defaulted to "no consequence".

It is THAT choice, the choice of consequence, which is being deprived. They chose "no consequence", and the insult to their freedom is in the answer "consequence = death".

It was their lack of choice over the latter choice.

Prior, their choices were "A or B (or C, but nobody generally decides on C)", and the gun degraded that to "B or C". It took away their option of A.

Most people would say that under these extreme conditions they had no choice. What they meant by this is that doing what the perpetrators wanted was not an option because of the extreme penalty if they did not do what they were told. But technically they had a choice, albeit a very difficult one. We are talking about different kinds of freedom here. This example has nothing to do with freedom of the will, which no one (the good guy nor the bad guy) had in this circumstance.

 

[peacegirl]

All I am saying is that a person with a gun to his head still has a choice

They still have A choice but they don't have THAT choice, and the choice they don't have is the freedom that was taken from them. These are non-fungible. You are achieving a subtle form of self-misdirection from the choice we are discussing.

We all know that if someone points a gun at us, we are being deprived of our civil liberties by being forced to make a terrible choice as the lesser of two evils. No one is debating this. But the definition of freedom which you are using is not what is being addressed here. What is being addressed is whether we have free will or free choice. The author demonstrates that we don't have freedom of the will, and because of this truth, we can now create a world that will allow us to have the kind of freedom (the kind you are referring to) that was denied this individual.

 

[Jarhyn]

Regardless of the leverage and regardless of a person saying, "You give me no choice" because the alternative is to get shot

I think you are missing the nuance of what choice the gun really took away from them, WHERE they actually had "no choice".

Before, they had the choice of consequence for failure, generally defaulted to "no consequence".

It is THAT choice, the choice of consequence, which is being deprived. They chose "no consequence", and the insult to their freedom is in the answer "consequence = death".

It was their lack of choice over the latter choice.

Prior, their choices were "A or B (or C, but nobody generally decides on C)", and the gun degraded that to "B or C". It took away their option of A.

Most people would say that under these extreme conditions they had no choice. What they meant by this is that doing what the perpetrators wanted was not an option because of the extreme penalty if they did not do what they were told. But technically they had a choice, albeit a very difficult one. We are talking about different kinds of freedom here. This example has nothing to do with freedom of the will, which no one (the good guy nor the bad guy) had in this circumstance.

And they would be right: they didn't have any choice. Over the consequences.

They are correctly identifying they were deprived of choice.

They are incorrectly identifying the nature of the choice they did not have.

This is not a problem with language, but with its inexpert use by lay persons who don't even know clearly what it is they are trying to think about.

We are NOT talking different kinds of freedom. It is simply that few people realize or understand what is even meant when they consider it, because for the most part such formalization is WAY overkill.

"Freedom of will" is exactly that kind of freedom, of exactly that kind of will, however it is a specific freedom pertinent to a specific class of wills: specifically provisional freedom of the affirmative response segment of the "will to act autonomously"

"He had free will" Stated more formally, is "his will to act autonomously was unconstrained towards the affirmative".

"He lacked free will" would be stated more formally as "his will to act autonomously was constrained".

The threat to the autonomy in the example is the gun.

 

[peacegirl]

Chapter Two continues: The Two-Sided Equation

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will — Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ, and even those who nailed him to the cross — but God has a secret plan that is going to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did? To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we are at last getting to understand — which includes the mankind as well as the solar system — just follow this: Here is versatile man; writer, composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief, etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the entire world which perception was utterly impossible without the development and absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of history, have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are able to see for the very first time how it is now within our power to prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ by refusing to defend himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because she was willing to cheat to get what she wanted, while he was willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge, nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for being an atheist, but not for being a God-intoxicated man. The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality, but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. He refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me, I’d fight him tooth and nail. If an aggressive country should start a war before this knowledge is released, it is only natural that we fight back with everything we’ve got. Turning the other cheek under these conditions could lead to further harm, which is why most people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us, something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

Regardless of the leverage and regardless of a person saying, "You give me no choice" because the alternative is to get shot

I think you are missing the nuance of what choice the gun really took away from them, WHERE they actually had "no choice".

Before, they had the choice of consequence for failure, generally defaulted to "no consequence".

It is THAT choice, the choice of consequence, which is being deprived. They chose "no consequence", and the insult to their freedom is in the answer "consequence = death".

It was their lack of choice over the latter choice.

Prior, their choices were "A or B (or C, but nobody generally decides on C)", and the gun degraded that to "B or C". It took away their option of A.

Most people would say that under these extreme conditions they had no choice. What they meant by this is that doing what the perpetrators wanted was not an option because of the extreme penalty if they did not do what they were told. But technically they had a choice, albeit a very difficult one. We are talking about different kinds of freedom here. This example has nothing to do with freedom of the will, which no one (the good guy nor the bad guy) had in this circumstance.

And they would be right: they didn't have any choice. Over the consequences.

They are correctly identifying they were deprived of choice.

They are incorrectly identifying the nature of the choice they did not have.

This is not a problem with language, but with its inexpert use by lay persons who don't even know clearly what it is they are trying to think about.

We are NOT talking different kinds of freedom. It is simply that few people realize or understand what is even meant when they consider it, because for the most part such formalization is WAY overkill.

"Freedom of will" is exactly that kind of freedom, of exactly that kind of will, however it is a specific freedom pertinent to a specific class of wills: specifically provisional freedom of the affirmative response segment of the "will to act autonomously"

"He had free will" Stated more formally, is "his will to act autonomously was unconstrained towards the affirmative".

"He lacked free will" would be stated more formally as "his will to act autonomously was constrained".

The threat to autonomy in the example with the gun is an absolute limitation. I will say again that this debate is not about the kind of freedom you are alluding to, even though you say it is not. People are often deprived of their freedoms in all kinds of ways. The more opportunities people are given, the more freedom they will experience to do what they want and be who they want to be. This is not even being disputed, but you are not following the reasoning as to why man's will is not free and what this means for our benefit. The term "free will" is very different than the term freedom you are defining. I don't have the free will to choose either/or when there are meaningful differences under consideration. I do have the freedom to come and go as I please. Two different things.