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

[peacegirl]

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

This is getting ridiculous. This is about consciousness and the theory is so far-fetched, you are grasping at straws again. They can try to prove anything, which is called a theory. By the same token, you can try to prove that 1+1=11 and it may sound plausible by some convoluted explanation, but that would mean disproving that 1+1=2. Similarly, you can try your darndest to find theories that reject determinism, but you haven't disproved the FACT that we move in one direction ONLY; the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction (not less) which means our brains can only choose one option each moment in time. He explained clearly that each moment we make a move from here to there, it is because of some discomfort or dissatisfaction otherwise we would remain where we are without moving a hairs breadth.

 

[pood]

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

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

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

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

No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.

 

[pood]

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

This is getting ridiculous.

You don’t know anything about quantum mechanics or wave function collapse or any of that stuff so don’t even wade into it.

 

[peacegirl]

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

This is getting ridiculous.

You don’t know anything about quantum mechanics or wave function collapse or any of that stuff so don’t even wade into it. I don't have to know your idea that 1=1=11 to know that 1+1=2. Man's will cannot be free for the reasons given and they are sound. You cannot prove that we have libertarian free will, and you certainly cannot make determinism compatible with free will either. Hang it up. You won't win!

 

[peacegirl]

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

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

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

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

No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.

1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.

Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.

 

[pood]

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

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

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

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

No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.

1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.

Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.

No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.

 

[pood]

A bit more about this “constant conjunction“ business that DBT is suddenly so enamored of, even though it does not support hard determinism.

Hume was talking only about repeatable events that can be independently verified. If I have a ball and open my hand, it falls, always. Hence “opening my hand” and “falling ball” are in constant conjunction. Many observed phenomenon are like this.

But Hume’s own Problem of Induction undermines this. Just because my looking for a black swan and always finding a black swan are in constant conjunction, nothing about this state of affairs proves that the next swan will not be white.

But more to the point, suppose I approach a soft drink machine that stocks Pepsi and Coke. Every time I am observed to pick Coke. So my using the vending machine and picking Coke are in constant junction. Does this prove I am unable to pick Pepsi? Of course not. It just shows that I do not, but in no way indicates a necessity relationship because of course there isn’t any.

 

[peacegirl]

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

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

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

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

No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.

1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.

Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.

No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.

Of course, the result is necessary under the EXACT SAME conditions. This was the whole point of the author stating that determinism cannot dictate in advance what a choice must be. That is not how it works. For example, it could be that a person is deciding whether to rob a bank. It's neither true nor false that he will rob the bank because it hasn't happened yet. He is still ruminating over what he wants to do. Because he thinks he can get away with it and he needs the money (he is in dire stra, he decides to go for it. He could have chosen not to rob the bank. It would entail a contradiction if he didn't rob the bank (such as rocks rolling uphill instead of down). It was not a necessary truth that he must rob the bank because it was set in stone but given the options available to him and how his mind was viewing the situation from his vantage point, this was his preference in the direction of greater satisfaction. He could have chosen not to rob the bank. The question goes right back to "could he have done otherwise once he made up his mind to act." The answer is no, not under those exact same conditions. Looking back, the same individual, given the choice to rob the bank, might have new reasons not to go ahead with it.

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

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

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

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

No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.

1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.

Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.

No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.

A necessary truth is one in which a rock always going downhill, not uphill, or it would be a contradiction. There is no contradiction in a contingent truth that is based on an individual's circumstances. It is easy to say a person could have chosen another option when it comes to wrongdoing. This is what it's about, being morally responsible, right? If someone decides to rob a bank, it isn't a necessary truth that he must rob the bank, if he doesn't want to, but he wants to, based on what he thinks is the best choice under his circumstances. It could be that he is in dire straits financially and cannot get the food he needs for his family. To repeat: He could choose not to rob the bank if he feels that there is too much risk involved, but regardless of his reasons, once he decides this choice is the better one, and he acts on it, it could not have been otherwise because not robbing the bank at that moment would have been the least preferable choice and would have gone against his nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Remember: If B (not to rob the bank) was impossible because it offered him less satisfaction under the circumstances (due to his desperation) he was not free to choose A (to rob the bank). This does not mean that looking back he may not have been sorry to have made that choice after getting caught, but at the time, he thought it was the best choice available to him. So, when you say that he didn't have to rob the bank (he had other options) that is true. But he was under a compulsion to do what he thought was best for his family, over which he had no control. Once again, he could have chosen B (hypothetically) had he desired this, but it doesn't change the fact that he was under a compulsion to choose what he thought was in his and his family's best interest, and at that moment it was A, in the direction of greater satisfaction.

 

[pood]

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

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

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

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

No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.

1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.

Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.

No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.

Of course, the result is necessary under the EXACT SAME conditions.

The result is the same under the exact same conditions, but not necessary.

s.
A necessary truth is one in which a rock always going downhill, not uphill, or it would be a contradiction.

No, a rock always going downhill is not a necessary truth. If you can conceive a possible world at which a rock goes uphill instead of downhill without invoking a logical contradiction, and in the case of the rock you can, then it is a contingent truth. A logical contradiction would be a rock going uphill and downhill at the same time, but then again, under quantum mechanics … well, yeah, there is a whole branch of logic called quantum logic and it differs quite impressively from standard logic.

 

[steve_bank]

Keep the faith Papergirl.

 

[peacegirl]

A bit more about this “constant conjunction“ business that DBT is suddenly so enamored of, even though it does not support hard determinism.

Hume was talking only about repeatable events that can be independently verified. If I have a ball and open my hand, it falls, always. Hence “opening my hand” and “falling ball” are in constant conjunction. Many observed phenomenon are like this.

But Hume’s own Problem of Induction undermines this. Just because my looking for a black swan and always finding a black swan are in constant conjunction, nothing about this state of affairs proves that the next swan will not be white.

But more to the point, suppose I approach a soft drink machine that stocks Pepsi and Coke. Every time I am observed to pick Coke. So my using the vending machine and picking Coke are in constant junction. Does this prove I am unable to pick Pepsi? Of course not. It just shows that I do not, but in no way indicates a necessity relationship because of course there isn’t any.

Of course not. One is causal and one has an association. If I put my foot on the accelerator and hit someone, this is constant conjunction. What does this have to do with the fact that man's will is not free for the reasons given?

 

[peacegirl]

Keep the faith Papergirl.

View attachment 47898

it's not about faith Steve.

 

[steve_bank]

Keep the faith Papergirl.

View attachment 47898

it's not about faith Steve.

It is faith to believe despite thousands of years of reordered human history humans will collectively be something other than what we are.

I was having a conversion with a Washington state cop once and he said over something 'You do not understand, individually people are are smart, collectively they are like sheep'.

Observation trumps philosophical and moral speculation. Observations led to social science and psychology.

For a thousand years the RCC enforced a rigid moral code for the masses ,the educated elitee did not follow but paid lip service.

The relegion of Jesus the prince of peace has led to wars and brutality.

Have you read Huxley's Brave New World? An attempt to genetically engineer universal happiness

Exclusive sexual relationships lead to conflict and unhappiness, so ban exclusive sexual and emotional relationships.

In one of Vonnegut's story a society where everybody is made equal. If you have natural physicall strength you have to wear weights like handicapping a horse in a race..

Point beng there will alwys be inequties, it is the way natuire is. There will always be condct and unhappiness.

A fundmental Buddist view, to live is to suffer. It is inevitable. The quetion is not elmination of sufferng but how to find peace in a relity that is not fundamntaly peacful.

We may be apochng a tipping point of war between Russia and NATO if Ukrine strkes Russia with long range missles supplied by NATO.

We may be nearing a tippng point in the Med East with a war between Isreal, Lebnion, and Iran which will drag us in.

Keep the faith.

 

[DBT]

So I ask again: how is an alternate choice or action possible in the face of inevitability? Which means everything that happens within a deterministic system, happens necessarily, inevitably, implacably.

For the hundredth time: Because stuff in a deterministic system does NOT happen NECESSARILY. It happens CONTINGENTLY. (And I don’t care if Marvin Edwards endorsed yoiur version of physical necessity — I’m not Marvin Edwards. I recognize only LOGICAL necessity.)

For the hundredth time or the thousandth time, you were wrong each and every time you happen to deny the terms and conditions of the given definition of determinism, which includes your definition of determinism.

Where your definition 'constant conjunction' has precisely the same implications for decision making. Where action B necessarily action A, where events are inevitable, fixed by antecedents.

Logical necessity? Determinism refers to not only logic, but how the world works and how events evolve within such a system.

If the world is deterministic, logic is inseparably linked to how the world works.

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

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

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

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

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Determinism doesn't mean you are forced to do something. Planets are not forced to orbit a star, plants are not forced to grow......

No one is being forced to act.

It is the non-chosen state and condition of a brain that produces feelings, thoughts and impulses. You feel like saying something (produced by underlying brain activity), you say what you feel like saying, but to your dismay the moment the words are out of your mouth you find that you have said the wrong thing, you have hurt offended someone.

Nothing was forced, nobody forced you to say or do what proved to be the wrong thing to say or do.

“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

 

[DBT]

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

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

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

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

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

It is not I who misunderstands determinism. Do you not notice that the quote defining determinism was not written by me Yet the quoted definition is exactly what I work with.

Do you not realize that the given description relates to constant conjunction, which you endorsed?

You must know that can quote any number of compatibilist definitions of determinism that are essentially the same.

I think that you want it both ways, a special definition of your own, a form determinism that permits a belief in libertarian free will.

 

[peacegirl]

Keep the faith Papergirl.

View attachment 47898

it's not about faith Steve.

It is faith to believe despite thousands of years of reordered human history humans will collectively be something other than what we are.

It has nothing to do with faith. It took thousands of years to reach this turning point in human history.

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.

I was having a conversion with a Washington state cop once and he said over something 'You do not understand, individually people are are smart, collectively they are like sheep'.

Observation trumps philosophical and moral speculation. Observations led to social science and psychology.

This has nothing to do with philosophical and moral speculation. It has to do with the astute observation of how human behavior works.

For a thousand years the RCC enforced a rigid moral code for the masses ,the educated elitee did not follow but paid lip service.

The relegion of Jesus the prince of peace has led to wars and brutality.

Have you read Huxley's Brave New World? An attempt to genetically engineer universal happiness

This has nothing to do with Huxley's genetically engineering universal happiness. Stop comparing apples to oranges.

Exclusive sexual relationships lead to conflict and unhappiness, so ban exclusive sexual and emotional relationships.

Actually, this knowledge keeps monogamy intact. Again, you're jumping to conclusions.

In one of Vonnegut's story a society where everybody is made equal. If you have natural physicall strength you have to wear weights like handicapping a horse in a race..

Point beng there will alwys be inequties, it is the way natuire is. There will always be condct and unhappiness.

People have different aptitudes, abilities, and talents, but this does not make them inferior or superior intrinsically. Respect will be given to all people not because they will be forced to by some authority, but because to disrespect anyone will be the worst possible choice in a world where everyone is treated fairly and justly.

A fundmental Buddist view, to live is to suffer. It is inevitable. The quetion is not elmination of sufferng but how to find peace in a relity that is not fundamntaly peacful.

Right now, it's almost impossible to imagine a world that is overcome by conflict to suddenly become peaceful, but it is absolutely possible once the truth of our nature is understood.

We may be apochng a tipping point of war between Russia and NATO if Ukrine strkes Russia with long range missles supplied by NATO.

We may be nearing a tippng point in the Med East with a war between Isreal, Lebnion, and Iran which will drag us in.

Keep the faith.

That is exactly why this discovery is so important and so timely even though the author made this discovery in the mid-20th century.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, more recent examples have been added to show how these principles apply to our current world situation but rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

 

[pood]

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

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

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

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

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

It is not I who misunderstands determinism. Do you not notice that the quote defining determinism was not written by me Yet the quoted definition is exactly what I work with.

Do you not realize that the given description relates to constant conjunction, which you endorsed?

You must know that can quote any number of compatibilist definitions of determinism that are essentially the same.

I think that you want it both ways, a special definition of your own, a form determinism that permits a belief in libertarian free will.

But then, of course, you claim your definition of determinism not only is the correct one, it ipso facto and self-evidently proves HARD determinism — a question-begging argument as I’ve noted. Just ask yourself, if everyone accepts your definition of HARD determinism, why do most academic philosophers say they are SOFT determinists? To be clear, the point I’m making is not that soft determinism is true because a majority of academic philosophers think it is — that would be an obvious fallacy. It is that somehow or other, trained philosophers don’t agree with you that the definition of determinism you say everyone uses proves hard determinism — quite the opposite.

 

[steve_bank]

A lengthy dissertation on determinism form the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Causal Determinism
First published Thu Jan 23, 2003; substantive revision Thu Sep 21, 2023

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case.

Casualty in science simply means something does not happen without a cause.

The philosophical question is when we make what we think is a free choice was that choice predetermined. If everything is predestined is a murderer predestined to be a murderer before he or she is even born?

One can easily get tied into metaphysical knots.

 

[peacegirl]

So I ask again: how is an alternate choice or action possible in the face of inevitability? Which means everything that happens within a deterministic system, happens necessarily, inevitably, implacably.

For the hundredth time: Because stuff in a deterministic system does NOT happen NECESSARILY. It happens CONTINGENTLY. (And I don’t care if Marvin Edwards endorsed yoiur version of physical necessity — I’m not Marvin Edwards. I recognize only LOGICAL necessity.)

For the hundredth time or the thousandth time, you were wrong each and every time you happen to deny the terms and conditions of the given definition of determinism, which includes your definition of determinism.

Where your definition 'constant conjunction' has precisely the same implications for decision making. Where action B necessarily action A, where events are inevitable, fixed by antecedents.

Logical necessity? Determinism refers to not only logic, but how the world works and how events evolve within such a system.

If the world is deterministic, logic is inseparably linked to how the world works.

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

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

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

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

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Determinism doesn't mean you are forced to do something. Planets are not forced to orbit a star, plants are not forced to grow......

No one is being forced to act.

That is true. Determinism is descriptive, not prescriptive.

It is the non-chosen state and condition of a brain that produces feelings, thoughts and impulses. You feel like saying something (produced by underlying brain activity), you say what you feel like saying, but to your dismay the moment the words are out of your mouth you find that you have said the wrong thing, you have hurt offended someone.

Nothing was forced, nobody forced you to say or do what proved to be the wrong thing to say or do.

“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

Exactly, you did not want otherwise because it was less satisfying than the alternative, therefore it could not have been otherwise once the choice was made.

To rephrase Kane's words: It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise, therefore you could not have done otherwise.

 

[peacegirl]

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

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

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

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

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

But that's absolutely true even though the word "cause" is misleading. The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because, in order to be developed and have meaning, it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

It is not I who misunderstands determinism. Do you not notice that the quote defining determinism was not written by me Yet the quoted definition is exactly what I work with.

Do you not realize that the given description relates to constant conjunction, which you endorsed?

You must know that can quote any number of compatibilist definitions of determinism that are essentially the same.

I think that you want it both ways, a special definition of your own, a form determinism that permits a belief in libertarian free will.

But then, of course, you claim your definition of determinism not only is the correct one, it ipso facto and self-evidently proves HARD determinism — a question-begging argument as I’ve noted. Just ask yourself, if everyone accepts your definition of HARD determinism, why do most academic philosophers say they are SOFT determinists? To be clear, the point I’m making is not that soft determinism is true because a majority of academic philosophers think it is — that would be an obvious fallacy. It is that somehow or other, trained philosophers don’t agree with you that the definition of determinism you say everyone uses proves hard determinism — quite the opposite.

Pood, there is no such thing as soft determinism where you can somehow logically make determinism compatible with free will. I don't get why you refuse to see this. I cannot bang my head against the wall to prove to you that if you could have done otherwise, will would be free. Not only can this "freedom" be impossible to prove; it goes against the law of non-contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle in logic. It states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time1234. For example, if something is true, then the opposite of it is false. This principle is essential for maintaining logical consistency and avoiding contradictions.