New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a big difference between Lessans' understanding and that of the many philosophers because they could not get beyond the impasse of blame due to the implications. He showed how it can be overcome, which is the core of his discovery: The Two-Sided Equation which reconciles "doing of one's own accord" with the fact that man has no free choice.

That's a difference of opinion about implications of determinism, not about what determinism is. Lessans, like everyone else, is talking about a causally captured universe in which all phenomena belong to the chain of causation, no? That is what philosophers tend to be describing with this word.

Determinism, according to Lessans, is not about the chain of causation, as if to say that the past causes the present.

In which case, as I already wrote... The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.. It isn't new unless you have something important to add about what determinism is, not about what its implications are. The next quote from you appears to confirm you already agree with me, so I don't really understand what you gain by fighting me over this point.

Wow, why are you jumping to conclusions so quickly?

Determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

“You must be kidding! Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. 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 these laws; they are these laws.”

That is just normal hard-determinism described in prose that would make Jeremy Bentham blush. Our illusion of free will allows us to believe all our actions are in accord with our own choices because the will that does the choosing is part of the same causal relations as everything else in a causally encapsulated universe. There is nothing new or even mildly unusual here.

Thus I ask you again: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

The definition. But this should be just the beginning of an exploration as to what follows as a result.

The revolutionary part is not so much determinism per se, but what was hidden behind this door that no one saw.

Awesome, so time to explain the second discovery so we can move this thing along and get to the third.

Why are you handwaving this away when it is revolutionary? You don't get it.

First, I will give you his demonstration as to why will is not free. Then, I will demonstrate the two-sided equation, which leads to this new world.

There's like a handful of people at this site who are religious and find determinism frightening, I don't think any of them are active in this conversation so probably the demonstration of unfreedom of will is a bit of a hat on a hat. Perhaps the two-sided equation is worth skipping directly to, everybody on PN should be able to accept determinism for the sake of argument at least.

I could do that but it's important to understand why man's will is not free, according to Lessans' definition, because it brings forth the other side of this equation, which is the most important part. I will continue to cut and paste as long as people remIn civil.

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God; therefore, Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

snip

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free, simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”
“Yes, I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound basis from which to reason but to show exactly why the will of man is not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi. Take your time with this.”

“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?”

“Of course it’s not possible for me not to do what has already been done, because I have already done it.”

“Now, if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A, once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities, when in order to make this choice, you must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet, in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done, and then show that A, with the conditions being exactly the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer. Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”

“Obviously, the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following: If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false? Obviously, the answer must be no, it is not possible, unless the person asked does not understand the question. In other words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, how is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context, the opposite of free will) were proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock? How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo what has already been done. Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will true cannot be accurate since proof of this theory requires going back in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. Is it any wonder free will is still a theory? The great humor in this particular instance lies in the fact that though it was always possible to prove determinism true, theology considered it as absolutely false while dogmatically promulgating, in obedience to God’s will, that free will was an absolute reality.”

Again, that's hard-determinism and overcooked prose. I can certainly see why the unkind reviewer describes a book of dialogues in which Lessans pitches himself a series of softballs from the above though. Either way, fine, let's say you have proven your case re: determinism and send any religious types who can't handle that off to some other thread.

What comes next?

[peacegirl]

Determinism, according to Lessans, is not about the chain of causation, as if to say that the past causes the present.

In which case, as I already wrote... The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.. It isn't new unless you have something important to add about what determinism is, not about what its implications are. The next quote from you appears to confirm you already agree with me, so I don't really understand what you gain by fighting me over this point.

Wow, why are you jumping to conclusions so quickly?

Determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

“You must be kidding! Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. 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 these laws; they are these laws.”

That is just normal hard-determinism described in prose that would make Jeremy Bentham blush. Our illusion of free will allows us to believe all our actions are in accord with our own choices because the will that does the choosing is part of the same causal relations as everything else in a causally encapsulated universe. There is nothing new or even mildly unusual here.

The definition. But this should be just the beginning of an exploration as to what follows as a result.




Why are you handwaving this away when it is revolutionary? You don't get it.




I could do that but it's important to understand why man's will is not free, according to Lessans' definition, because it brings forth the other side of this equation, which is the most important part. I will continue to cut and paste as long as people remIn civil.

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God; therefore, Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

snip

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free, simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”
“Yes, I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound basis from which to reason but to show exactly why the will of man is not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi. Take your time with this.”

“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?”

“Of course it’s not possible for me not to do what has already been done, because I have already done it.”

“Now, if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A, once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities, when in order to make this choice, you must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet, in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done, and then show that A, with the conditions being exactly the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer. Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”

“Obviously, the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following: If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false? Obviously, the answer must be no, it is not possible, unless the person asked does not understand the question. In other words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, how is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context, the opposite of free will) were proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock? How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo what has already been done. Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will true cannot be accurate since proof of this theory requires going back in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. Is it any wonder free will is still a theory? The great humor in this particular instance lies in the fact that though it was always possible to prove determinism true, theology considered it as absolutely false while dogmatically promulgating, in obedience to God’s will, that free will was an absolute reality.”

Again, that's hard-determinism and overcooked prose. I can certainly see why the unkind reviewer describes a book of dialogues in which Lessans pitches himself a series of softballs from the above though. Either way, fine, let's say you have proven your case re: determinism and send any religious types who can't handle that off to some other thread.

What comes next?

No, I'm not finished. This guy did not read the book Flash. You are too quick to want to move on. Do you understand his explanation as to why will is not free? Do you understand why his definition is different than the standard? Of course you don't. You are too glib, and this discussion will not go well as a result. Question: Since you know so much about this book (having not read a word), why is man's will not free according to Lessans?

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you understand why his definition is different than the standard?

I already asked you: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?
And you told me: The revolutionary part is not so much determinism per se, but what was hidden behind this door that no one saw.
So why are we nmow discussing why his definition is different than the standard?

Please make your mind up.

[peacegirl]

Do you understand why his definition is different than the standard?

I already asked you: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?
And you told me: The revolutionary part is not so much determinism per se, but what was hidden behind this door that no one saw.
So why are we nmow discussing why his definition is different than the standard?

Please make your mind up.

Because the more accurate definition leads to the discovery, where the way it's presently defined cannot. It is the gateway to the discovery, not the discovery itself. You seem to believe you have it all figured after a couple of paragraphs. No curiosity, no questions, no patience, no wanting to hear more, just a demand for immediate answers that cannot be given without going through the necessary steps. This is also why posting excerpts out of order is backfiring. If this the type of mentality here, this will not go well. Instead of prejudging, I'm imploring you to contain your skepticism long enough to hear him out. You haven't done that. The introduction was rather long-winded in order to emphasize the problem he was confronted with, yet people are so quick to judge him, they can't get beyond the first few pages.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean ‘undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition, and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other discoveries to be revealed if you can.

[FlashDangerpants]

No curiosity, no questions

What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?


What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?



What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?




What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?















What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?



























What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

[Age]

There is a big difference between Lessans' understanding and that of the many philosophers because they could not get beyond the impasse of blame due to the implications. He showed how it can be overcome, which is the core of his discovery: The Two-Sided Equation which reconciles "doing of one's own accord" with the fact that man has no free choice.

That's a difference of opinion about implications of determinism, not about what determinism is. Lessans, like everyone else, is talking about a causally captured universe in which all phenomena belong to the chain of causation, no? That is what philosophers tend to be describing with this word.

Determinism, according to Lessans, is not about the chain of causation, as if to say that the past causes the present.

In which case, as I already wrote... The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.. It isn't new unless you have something important to add about what determinism is, not about what its implications are. The next quote from you appears to confirm you already agree with me, so I don't really understand what you gain by fighting me over this point.

Wow, why are you jumping to conclusions so quickly?

Determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to.

But, 'determinism', itself, does not assume absolutely any thing. Only you human beings assume things, here.

Once again, what 'we' can clearly see, here, is another one who believes, absolutely, that it is either 'free will', or, 'determinism'. But, what is actually True is obviously very, very different.

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will.

'This' is 'your assumption or fallacy'. As, 'free will', just like 'determinism', does not assume absolutely any thing at all.

This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free.

Does the word 'will' ever get defined anywhere in 'these writings'?

If no, or yes, then what does the word, 'will', mean and/or refer to, exactly?

In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’

Why do you, frequently, say things, which you do not even mean?

If you mean, 'of my own desire', then why not just say 'this', instead, and only?

Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

Could you, still, be being deceived, here, by your own usage of words, and definitions?

Or, are you not fallible to being fooled and deceived by words, like everyone else is?

“You must be kidding! Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. 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 these laws; they are these laws.”

Thus I ask you again: What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

The definition. But this should be just the beginning of an exploration as to what follows as a result.

The revolutionary part is not so much determinism per se, but what was hidden behind this door that no one saw.

Awesome, so time to explain the second discovery so we can move this thing along and get to the third.

Why are you handwaving this away when it is revolutionary? You don't get it.

First, I will give you his demonstration as to why will is not free. Then, I will demonstrate the two-sided equation, which leads to this new world.

There's like a handful of people at this site who are religious and find determinism frightening, I don't think any of them are active in this conversation so probably the demonstration of unfreedom of will is a bit of a hat on a hat. Perhaps the two-sided equation is worth skipping directly to, everybody on PN should be able to accept determinism for the sake of argument at least.

I could do that but it's important to understand why man's will is not free, according to Lessans' definition, because it brings forth the other side of this equation, which is the most important part. I will continue to cut and paste as long as people remIn civil.

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God; therefore, Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

snip

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free, simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”
“Yes, I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound basis from which to reason but to show exactly why the will of man is not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi. Take your time with this.”

“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?”

“Of course it’s not possible for me not to do what has already been done, because I have already done it.”

“Now, if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A, once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities, when in order to make this choice, you must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet, in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done, and then show that A, with the conditions being exactly the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer. Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”

“Obviously, the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following: If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false? Obviously, the answer must be no, it is not possible, unless the person asked does not understand the question. In other words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, how is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context, the opposite of free will) were proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock? How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo what has already been done. Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will true cannot be accurate since proof of this theory requires going back in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. Is it any wonder free will is still a theory? The great humor in this particular instance lies in the fact that though it was always possible to prove determinism true, theology considered it as absolutely false while dogmatically promulgating, in obedience to God’s will, that free will was an absolute reality.”

Look, both 'free will', and, 'determinism' exist.

1. When 'determinism' is defined as, more or less, just 'cause and effect' and/or 'every reaction causes a reaction', then 'determinism' obviously exists, and always and eternally by the way.

2. When 'free will' is defined as, more or less, just 'the ability to choose', then 'free will' obviously exists.

End of story.

Now, when the very reason 'why' all of you human beings do what you do, then 'judging', and 'misjudging', can cease to exist, because of the obvious consequences that come with understanding and knowing why every one does what they do. And, you human beings do not stop being mis/judged, punished, ridiculed, and humiliated because of 'determinism' but because of knowing the very reason 'why' every one comes to do what they all do.

To create the decline and fall of ALL evil and Wrong doing, and ALL living in peace and harmony together, as One, is a far, far, far quicker, simpler, and easier thing to do that what is being portrayed in just these few paragraphs above, let alone in some 'has to be paid for book'.

[peacegirl]

No curiosity, no questions

What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?


What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?



What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?




What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?















What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?

I didn't say his version of determinism is revolutionary. I said that it is a more accurate definition based on reality.



























What is that you think is revolutionary in your version of determinism?
[/quote]

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely not. According to definition of determinism, we have no say in our choices because we are being controlled by deterministic forces. We have no say in what we choose because determinism has made those choices for us.

This is basic determinism. Yet every time I say that you pretend I don't understand it. Then when challenged for what is revolutionary about it, you deny having said that it was special at all.

Try to understand instead of coming off like Mr. Know it all.

Everybody understands it. It is extrmely simple. It is basic.

Until you get to the second "discovery" you are not doing anything new at all.

[peacegirl]

Determinism, according to Lessans, is not about the chain of causation, as if to say that the past causes the present.

In which case, as I already wrote... The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great.. It isn't new unless you have something important to add about what determinism is, not about what its implications are. The next quote from you appears to confirm you already agree with me, so I don't really understand what you gain by fighting me over this point.

Wow, why are you jumping to conclusions so quickly?

Determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to.

But, 'determinism', itself, does not assume absolutely any thing. Only you human beings assume things, here.

Once again, what 'we' can clearly see, here, is another one who believes, absolutely, that it is either 'free will', or, 'determinism'. But, what is actually True is obviously very, very different.

Wrong. We don't have free will. This is not compatibilism because the two are incompatible.

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will.

'This' is 'your assumption or fallacy'. As, 'free will', just like 'determinism', does not assume absolutely any thing at all.

It is assumed that determinism forces us to do what we do. We are automatons. So when someone says that nothing can force him to do what he doesn't to, he is right, but this does not make his will free. You haven't thoroughly studied this work, yet you already know that he's wrong. Are you here just to argue or to learn?

This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free.

Does the word 'will' ever get defined anywhere in 'these writings'?

If no, or yes, then what does the word, 'will', mean and/or refer to, exactly?

No, he defined the term "free will" because that's what he was proving doesn't exist. The dictionary definition of will is the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.

p. 44 This dragon (Note: he coined the term "dragon" to indicate the impasse of blame that philosophers could not get beyond) has been guarding an invisible key and door for many years, and this could never be made visible except for someone who saw these undeniable relations. If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.” So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’

Why do you, frequently, say things, which you do not even mean?

If you mean, 'of my own desire', then why not just say 'this', instead, and only?

Because saying "I did something of my own free will" is a colloquial expression and can be used in this way. But the average person has never thought about this subject and believe, when they use the expression, that their choice was actually made of their own free will. You also seem to think that being able to choose is the correct definition of free will, but this alone does not grant us free will. That is why I am trying to show you that although we can use the term "free will" in an informal way (i.e., having options from which to choose) does not mean we are free to choose A or B equally. We are compelled to go in only one direction, the direction that gives us greater satisfaction.

Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

Could you, still, be being deceived, here, by your own usage of words, and definitions?

He was clarifying one definition only: determinism.

Or, are you not fallible to being fooled and deceived by words, like everyone else is?

I could easily be fooled and deceived by words, but in this case, I am not being deceived.

“You must be kidding! Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. 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 these laws; they are these laws.”

The definition. But this should be just the beginning of an exploration as to what follows as a result.




Why are you handwaving this away when it is revolutionary? You don't get it.




I could do that but it's important to understand why man's will is not free, according to Lessans' definition, because it brings forth the other side of this equation, which is the most important part. I will continue to cut and paste as long as people remIn civil.

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God; therefore, Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

snip

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free, simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”
“Yes, I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound basis from which to reason but to show exactly why the will of man is not free.”

“I am still trying to understand your reasoning as to why free will cannot be proven true.”

“Once again, let me show you why this is a mathematical impossibility by repeating the same question I asked the rabbi. Take your time with this.”

“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?”

“Of course it’s not possible for me not to do what has already been done, because I have already done it.”

“Now, if what has just been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“No, it is not possible.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible not to choose B instead of A, once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities, when in order to make this choice, you must not choose B, which has already been chosen? Yet, in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done, and then show that A, with the conditions being exactly the same, could have been chosen instead of B. Such reasoning is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer. Let me rephrase this in still another way.

“If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever it is, is it possible to prove this something true?”

“Obviously, the answer is no.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following: If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false? Obviously, the answer must be no, it is not possible, unless the person asked does not understand the question. In other words, if it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, how is it possible to prove the opposite of this, false? Isn’t it obvious that if determinism (in this context, the opposite of free will) were proven false, this would automatically prove free will true, and didn’t we just demonstrate that this is impossible unless we can turn back the clock? How is it possible to prove free will true when this requires doing something that is mathematically impossible? We can never undo what has already been done. Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will true cannot be accurate since proof of this theory requires going back in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. Is it any wonder free will is still a theory? The great humor in this particular instance lies in the fact that though it was always possible to prove determinism true, theology considered it as absolutely false while dogmatically promulgating, in obedience to God’s will, that free will was an absolute reality.”

Look, both 'free will', and, 'determinism' exist.

1. When 'determinism' is defined as, more or less, just 'cause and effect' and/or 'every reaction causes a reaction', then 'determinism' obviously exists, and always and eternally by the way.

2. When 'free will' is defined as, more or less, just 'the ability to choose', then 'free will' obviously exists.

End of story.

It's not the end of story. Free will is not just the ability to choose A or B, but the ability to choose A or B equally, which is impossible when there are meaningful differences. You are not allowing him to show how 'the ability to choose'' stays intact, but it does not mean our will is free. You will never allow me to get to his discovery because you're too cocksure of yourself.

Now, when the very reason 'why' all of you human beings do what you do, then 'judging', and 'misjudging', can cease to exist, because of the obvious consequences that come with understanding and knowing why every one does what they do. And, you human beings do not stop being mis/judged, punished, ridiculed, and humiliated because of 'determinism' but because of knowing the very reason 'why' every one comes to do what they all do.

There is no possibility to understand why everyone comes to do what they do. That's impossible. What we can do is prevent the environmental conditions that prevent people from desiring to strike a first blow.

To create the decline and fall of ALL evil and Wrong doing, and ALL living in peace and harmony together, as One, is a far, far, far quicker, simpler, and easier thing to do that what is being portrayed in just these few paragraphs above, let alone in some 'has to be paid for book'.

You have no idea what you're talking about. All you are doing is giving a kneejerk reaction because you don't have the full picture. That is why giving excerpts out of order is dangerous. Moreover, not giving him the floor for even a moment, before you start telling me he was wrong, is not what a real philosopher does.

[peacegirl]

Absolutely not. According to definition of determinism, we have no say in our choices because we are being controlled by deterministic forces. We have no say in what we choose because determinism has made those choices for us.

This is basic determinism. Yet every time I say that you pretend I don't understand it.

I didn't say you don't understand the conventional definition of determinism. I am saying that you don't understand the difference between his tweaked definition and the definition that has been used for centuries. Lessans brings together this false dichotomy between "free will" and "determinism" while keeping determinism intact and free will a figment of the imagination.

Then when challenged for what is revolutionary about it, you deny having said that it was special at all.

I didn't deny anything. I never said that the discovery was determinism. I said he offered a better definition because it reflects what is going on in reality more accurately, but it is not the revolutionary discovery I am referring to. It is the gateway in that allows us to get to the discovery (the two-sided equation). What is it you don't grasp?

Try to understand instead of coming off like Mr. Know it all.

Everybody understands it. It is extrmely simple. It is basic.

Until you get to the second "discovery" you are not doing anything new at all.

Why are you being so narrow-minded? You have no patience or even a desire to learn from what I can tell. I can't work with somebody who already has decided he has nothing to offer. It's unfair and it will drive me away, which I'm sure you couldn't care less.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely not. According to definition of determinism, we have no say in our choices because we are being controlled by deterministic forces. We have no say in what we choose because determinism has made those choices for us.

This is basic determinism. Yet every time I say that you pretend I don't understand it.

I didn't say you don't understand the conventional definition of determinism. I am saying that you don't understand the difference between his tweaked definition and the definition that has been used for centuries. Lessans brings together this false dichotomy between "free will" and "determinism" while keeping determinism intact and free will a figment of the imagination.

False dichotomy?

[peacegirl]

This is basic determinism. Yet every time I say that you pretend I don't understand it.

I didn't say you don't understand the conventional definition of determinism. I am saying that you don't understand the difference between his tweaked definition and the definition that has been used for centuries. Lessans brings together this false dichotomy between "free will" and "determinism" while keeping determinism intact and free will a figment of the imagination.

False dichotomy?

I used "false dichotomy" to mean that there is a way to reconcile "doing something of one's own accord" (the lay definition of free will) with not having freedom of the will." IOW, even though we don't have free will, the way determinism is more accurately defined allows for "doing something of one's own accord" without creating a contradiction.

[phyllo]

That's called compatibilism and it's been around for millennia.

[FlashDangerpants]

I didn't say you don't understand the conventional definition of determinism. I am saying that you don't understand the difference between his tweaked definition and the definition that has been used for centuries. Lessans brings together this false dichotomy between "free will" and "determinism" while keeping determinism intact and free will a figment of the imagination.

False dichotomy?

I used "false dichotomy" to mean that there is a way to reconcile "doing something of one's own accord" (the lay definition of free will) with not having freedom of the will." IOW, even though we don't have free will, the way determinism is more accurately defined allows for "doing something of one's own accord" without creating a contradiction.

Either that is as Phyllo says compatiblism, or else it is as I wrote earlier, incompatibilism by way of the will being subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe.

Certainly I see nothing in your three chapters (which I did read) or any snippet you have posted here that looks remotely like a different interpretation of determinism. But feel free to disambiguate the situation with a clear explanation.

[peacegirl]

False dichotomy?

I used "false dichotomy" to mean that there is a way to reconcile "doing something of one's own accord" (the lay definition of free will) with not having freedom of the will." IOW, even though we don't have free will, the way determinism is more accurately defined allows for "doing something of one's own accord" without creating a contradiction.

Either that is as Phyllo says compatiblism, or else it is as I wrote earlier, incompatibilism by way of the will being subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe.

You still don’t understand that although we are subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe in that we could not do otherwise? the definition that is used today implies that these forces do not allow for choice. This is not right Flashdangerous and if you really care about finding out what is true, then stop defending the old definition long enough to hear him out.

Certainly I see nothing in your three chapters (which I did read) or any snippet you have posted here that looks remotely like a different interpretation of determinism. But feel free to disambiguate the situation with a clear explanation.

If you read the first three chapters, you didn’t read it carefully enough because it’s right there in Chapter One. I suggest reading it over again but this time with a fine-tooth comb. Then let’s talk.