New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

please direct me to the best passage to explain this rift. I am sure you are thoroughly familiar with the book so that surely doesn't place any onerous burden upon you.

Why is there a question mark here...

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?

Are you questioning me, or telling me what I don't understand? Either way, please use clearer language, it seems to me that I do understand that we are subject to the forces that govern the universe we live within.

[peacegirl]

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.

please direct me to the best passage to explain this rift. I am sure you are thoroughly familiar with the book so that surely doesn't place any onerous burden upon you.

Why is there a question mark here...

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?

Are you questioning me, or telling me what I don't understand?

That was a mistake, sorry. Although we are subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe in that we are subject to laws that we have no control over, we are not forced by determinism to do anything against our will. But "being controlled by deterministic forces" implies that our choices are not our own; we are just dominoes toppling over with no say. Many people have a problem with this, as well as the pressing issue of moral responsibility.

Either way, please use clearer language, it seems to me that I do understand that we are subject to the forces that govern the universe we live within.

We are, that's why man's will is not free, but determinism has no power to force a choice on us that we don't want to make. This is the crux of the problem and where his tweaking of the definition makes things much clearer.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.



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.

please direct me to the best passage to explain this rift. I am sure you are thoroughly familiar with the book so that surely doesn't place any onerous burden upon you.

Why is there a question mark here...

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?

Are you questioning me, or telling me what I don't understand?

That was a mistake, sorry. Although we are subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe in that we are subject to laws that we have no control over, we are not forced by determinism to do anything against our will. But "being controlled by deterministic forces" implies that our choices are not our own; we are just dominoes toppling over with no say. Many people have a problem with this, as well as the pressing issue of moral responsibility.

Either way, please use clearer language, it seems to me that I do understand that we are subject to the forces that govern the universe we live within.

We are, that's why man's will is not free, but determinism has no power to force a choice on us that we don't want to make. This is the crux of the problem and where his tweaking of the definition makes things much clearer.

Ok, so what's the important thing I am overlooking then? I wouldn't expect a causally closed universe to allow for will to be some spooky external cause, thus our desires would be as much a result of causation as the entire rest of the universe is.

This thing you accuse others of believing about determinism forcing inauthentic choices on individuals... who are these others?

[peacegirl]

please direct me to the best passage to explain this rift. I am sure you are thoroughly familiar with the book so that surely doesn't place any onerous burden upon you.

Why is there a question mark here...

Are you questioning me, or telling me what I don't understand?

That was a mistake, sorry. Although we are subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe in that we are subject to laws that we have no control over, we are not forced by determinism to do anything against our will. But "being controlled by deterministic forces" implies that our choices are not our own; we are just dominoes toppling over with no say. Many people have a problem with this, as well as the pressing issue of moral responsibility.

Either way, please use clearer language, it seems to me that I do understand that we are subject to the forces that govern the universe we live within.

We are, that's why man's will is not free, but determinism has no power to force a choice on us that we don't want to make. This is the crux of the problem and where his tweaking of the definition makes things much clearer.

Ok, so what's the important thing I am overlooking then? I wouldn't expect a causally closed universe to allow for will to be some spooky external cause, thus our desires would be as much a result of causation as the entire rest of the universe is.

Yes, our desires are as much a result of causation as the entire rest of the universe, but he was clarifying this by making it clear that although will is not free, we cannot use the excuse that determinism made them kill someone (for example) against their will. That is what many people who debate this topic are concerned about. IOW, if will is not free, then if someone killed a person, they could just say, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free," and get off the hook, so to speak, of any responsibility. But this is not true since responsibility is increased, not decreased, when the basic principle is put into effect.

This thing you accuse others of believing about determinism forcing inauthentic choices on individuals... who are these others?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I was just stating that the definition that is currently used brings up this issue of who is making the choice? Is it something other than us, or are we involved in the process. Lessans was making sure people understood that determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to. If you can agree to this, we can move on. Here is a very small excerpt, but it's out of order. This won't fare well because it will bring up more questions that are answered if read in the correct order. As long as people are civil, I will try to get his points across. Just remember that this was a 30 year effort, so please give yourself time to understand before rejecting his claim. This law of satisfaction is how he proves will is not free, and I bypassed it just to answer your question. I would like to go back to the part where he demonstrates that we are always moving in the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction, each and every moment of our lives.

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.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

[FlashDangerpants]

That was a mistake, sorry. Although we are subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe in that we are subject to laws that we have no control over, we are not forced by determinism to do anything against our will. But "being controlled by deterministic forces" implies that our choices are not our own; we are just dominoes toppling over with no say. Many people have a problem with this, as well as the pressing issue of moral responsibility.



We are, that's why man's will is not free, but determinism has no power to force a choice on us that we don't want to make. This is the crux of the problem and where his tweaking of the definition makes things much clearer.

Ok, so what's the important thing I am overlooking then? I wouldn't expect a causally closed universe to allow for will to be some spooky external cause, thus our desires would be as much a result of causation as the entire rest of the universe is.

Yes, our desires are as much a result of causation as the entire rest of the universe, but he was clarifying this by making it clear that although will is not free, we cannot use the excuse that determinism made them kill someone (for example) against their will. That is what many people who debate this topic are concerned about. IOW, if will is not free, then if someone killed a person, they could just say, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free," and get off the hook, so to speak, of any responsibility. But this is not true since responsibility is increased, not decreased, when the basic principle is put into effect.

There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all. There might be in this idea that it somehow increases it. Can you explain that bit please? From whence does the individual get this extra responsibility?

This thing you accuse others of believing about determinism forcing inauthentic choices on individuals... who are these others?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I was just stating that the definition that is currently used brings up this issue of who is making the choice? Is it something other than us, or are we involved in the process. Lessans was making sure people understood that determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to. If you can agree to this, we can move on. Here is a very small excerpt, but it's out of order. This won't fare well because it will bring up more questions that are answered if read in the correct order. As long as people are civil, I will try to get his points across. Just remember that this was a 30 year effort, so please give yourself time to understand before rejecting his claim. This law of satisfaction is how he proves will is not free, and I bypassed it just to answer your question. I would like to go back to the part where he demonstrates that we are always moving in the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction, each and every moment of our lives.

I already mentioned that no normal determinist who accepts the causal closure arguments believes in a spooky external "will". Of course I can agree that "determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to" it is an entirely normal observation.

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.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Yeah, I did already read those paragraphs. They do contain bad prose and clumsy argument, but the basic observation that in a deterministic universe organisms tend to pursue satisfaction, complex organisms purse more complex expectations of satisfaction is, again, not news.

[peacegirl]

Yes, our desires are as much a result of causation as the entire rest of the universe, but he was clarifying this by making it clear that although will is not free, we cannot use the excuse that determinism made them kill someone (for example) against their will. That is what many people who debate this topic are concerned about. IOW, if will is not free, then if someone killed a person, they could just say, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free," and get off the hook, so to speak, of any responsibility. But this is not true since responsibility is increased, not decreased, when the basic principle is put into effect.

There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all. There might be in this idea that it somehow increases it. Can you explain that bit please? From whence does the individual get this extra responsibility?

If you are looking at determinism from the standpoint that one could not have done otherwise, then holding him responsible (which you are alluding to because there is no other deterrent other than threats of punishment at this point in time) does not follow. Lessans was taking the knowledge of having no free will further by extending the corollary to see where it leads. Many philosophers could not get beyond the implications, for if man's will is not free, how can we not blame him for doing those things that hurt others?

In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil.

In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true.

This thing you accuse others of believing about determinism forcing inauthentic choices on individuals... who are these others?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I was just stating that the definition that is currently used brings up this issue of who is making the choice? Is it something other than us (which often comes up in discussions about agency), or are we involved in the process. Lessans was making sure people understood that determinism cannot force or compel people to do anything they don't give consent to. If you can agree to this, we can move on. Here is a very small excerpt, but it's out of order. This won't fare well because it will bring up more questions that are answered if read in the correct order. As long as people are civil, I will try to get his points across. Just remember that this was a 30 year effort, so please give yourself time to understand before rejecting his claim. This law of satisfaction is how he proves will is not free, and I bypassed it just to answer your question. I would like to go back to the part where he demonstrates that we are always moving in the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction, each and every moment of our lives.

I already mentioned that no normal determinist who accepts the causal closure arguments believes in a spooky external "will". Of course I can agree that "determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to" it is an entirely normal observation.

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.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Yeah, I did already read those paragraphs. They do contain bad prose and clumsy argument, but the basic observation that in a deterministic universe organisms tend to pursue satisfaction, complex organisms purse more complex expectations of satisfaction is, again, not news.
[/quote]

Clumsy? Bad prose? Where is it either? Point to sentences that you find clumsy or bad prose. And please explain what he meant by "greater satisfaction" rather than telling me it's not news. More importantly, his demonstration as to why will is not free is either correct or it isn't. You seem determined to prove him wrong, but you haven't done that. I was not even asking you whether you liked the prose or not. It's the content that matters, regardless of the form, and that's all you are focusing on.

[FlashDangerpants]

There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all. There might be in this idea that it somehow increases it. Can you explain that bit please? From whence does the individual get this extra responsibility?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I was just stating that the definition that is currently used brings up this issue of who is making the choice? Is it something other than us, or are we involved in the process. Lessans was making sure people understood that determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to. If you can agree to this, we can move on. Here is a very small excerpt, but it's out of order. This won't fare well because it will bring up more questions that are answered if read in the correct order. As long as people are civil, I will try to get his points across. Just remember that this was a 30 year effort, so please give yourself time to understand before rejecting his claim. This law of satisfaction is how he proves will is not free, and I bypassed it just to answer your question. I would like to go back to the part where he demonstrates that we are always moving in the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction, each and every moment of our lives.

I already mentioned that no normal determinist who accepts the causal closure arguments believes in a spooky external "will". Of course I can agree that "determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to" it is an entirely normal observation.

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.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Yeah, I did already read those paragraphs. They do contain bad prose and clumsy argument, but the basic observation that in a deterministic universe organisms tend to pursue satisfaction, complex organisms purse more complex expectations of satisfaction is, again, not news.

Clumsy? Bad prose? Where is it either? And please explain what he meant by "greater satisfaction" rather than telling me it's not news. More importantly, it's either correct or it's not. You seem to out to prove him wrong, but you haven't done that. I was not even asking you whether you liked the prose or not. It's the content that matters, regardless of the form, and that's all you are focusing on.

If I describe something as an observation then I am not saying it is wrong. I would be calling it a bad argument and then I would say why it was wrong. I am not interested in wasting clever tricks to bamboozle you, I do not expect to need that.

Your dude just doesn't write good prose get over it. If I had to pinpoint a specific problem I would say that he spends too much time thinking everyone writes him off because he didn't finish school and he writes like somebody who is trying to cover that up.

The phrase "greater satisfaction" probably doesn't need expanding, organisms pursuing greatest satisfaction has been a central theme since Epicurus at least, so that's a good couple of hundred years BC. The introduction of "that moment of time, for one reason or another" just weakens your guy's point really. Not that I mind, I don't consider it anything like so important as you do, because it's just so obvious.

The phrase "responsibility is increased, not decreased" does require expansion though. I note that your umbrage and eye rolling have left you with no time to address this question. But perhaps you could, as it is the only non-obvious thing going on right now.

Similarly, I already agreed that "determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to" So I would like to remind you that you also wrote "Lessans was making sure people understood that determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to. If you can agree to this, we can move on."

[peacegirl]

There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all. There might be in this idea that it somehow increases it. Can you explain that bit please? From whence does the individual get this extra responsibility?

If you are looking at determinism from the standpoint that one could not have done otherwise, then holding him responsible (which you are alluding to because there is no other deterrent other than threats of punishment at this point in time) does not follow. Lessans was taking the knowledge of having no free will further by extending the corollary to see where it leads. Many philosophers could not get beyond the implications, for if man's will is not free, how can we not blame him for doing those things that hurt others?

In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil.

In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true.

This thing you accuse others of believing about determinism forcing inauthentic choices on individuals... who are these others?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I was just stating that the definition that is currently used brings up this issue of who is making the choice? Is it something other than us (which often comes up in discussions about agency), or are we involved in the process. Lessans was making sure people understood that determinism cannot force or compel people to do anything they don't give consent to. If you can agree to this, we can move on. Here is a very small excerpt, but it's out of order. This won't fare well because it will bring up more questions that are answered if read in the correct order. As long as people are civil, I will try to get his points across. Just remember that this was a 30 year effort, so please give yourself time to understand before rejecting his claim. This law of satisfaction is how he proves will is not free, and I bypassed it just to answer your question. I would like to go back to the part where he demonstrates that we are always moving in the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction, each and every moment of our lives.

I already mentioned that no normal determinist who accepts the causal closure arguments believes in a spooky external "will". Of course I can agree that "determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to" it is an entirely normal observation.

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.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Yeah, I did already read those paragraphs. They do contain bad prose and clumsy argument, but the basic observation that in a deterministic universe organisms tend to pursue satisfaction, complex organisms purse more complex expectations of satisfaction is, again, not news.

Clumsy? Bad prose? Where is it either? Point to sentences that you find clumsy or bad prose. And please explain what he meant by "greater satisfaction" rather than telling me it's not news. More importantly, his demonstration as to why will is not free is either correct or it isn't. You seem determined to prove him wrong, but you haven't done that. I was not even asking you whether you liked the prose or not. It's the content that matters, regardless of the form, and that's all you are focusing on.
[/quote]

[peacegirl]

There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all. There might be in this idea that it somehow increases it. Can you explain that bit please? From whence does the individual get this extra responsibility?

That's the entire point of his discovery; that the corollary to "no free will" when applied worldwide will increase responsibility and prevent the very thing all the punishment in the world could not.

If you are looking at determinism from the standpoint that one could not have done otherwise, then holding him responsible (which you are alluding to because there is no other deterrent other than threats of punishment at this point in time) does not follow. Lessans was taking the knowledge that we have no free will by extending the corollary to see where it leads. Many philosophers could not get beyond the implications, for if man's will is not free, how can we not blame him for doing those things that hurt others?

In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil.

In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I was just stating that the definition that is currently used brings up this issue of who is making the choice? Is it something other than us (which often comes up in discussions about agency), or are we involved in the process. Lessans was making sure people understood that determinism cannot force or compel people to do anything they don't give consent to. If you can agree to this, we can move on. Here is a very small excerpt, but it's out of order. This won't fare well because it will bring up more questions that are answered if read in the correct order. As long as people are civil, I will try to get his points across. Just remember that this was a 30 year effort, so please give yourself time to understand before rejecting his claim. This law of satisfaction is how he proves will is not free, and I bypassed it just to answer your question. I would like to go back to the part where he demonstrates that we are always moving in the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction, each and every moment of our lives.

I already mentioned that no normal determinist who accepts the causal closure arguments believes in a spooky external "will". Of course I can agree that "determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to" it is an entirely normal observation.

It is a normal observation if you think in these terms, but there are philosophers who argue that having agency means we have the free will or the ability to choose without compulsion or necessity and therefore our will lies apart from any deterministic forces.

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.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Yeah, I did already read those paragraphs. They do contain bad prose and clumsy argument, but the basic observation that in a deterministic universe organisms tend to pursue satisfaction, complex organisms purse more complex expectations of satisfaction is, again, not news.

Clumsy? Bad prose? Where is it either? Point to sentences that you find clumsy or bad prose. And please explain what he meant by "greater satisfaction" rather than telling me it's not news. More importantly, his demonstration as to why will is not free is either correct or it isn't. You seem determined to prove him wrong, but you haven't done that. I was not even asking you whether you liked the prose or not. It's the content that matters, regardless of the form, and that's all you are focusing on.

[FlashDangerpants]

Clumsy? Bad prose? Where is it either? Point to sentences that you find clumsy or bad prose. And please explain what he meant by "greater satisfaction" rather than telling me it's not news.

Here is some terrible prose for you: "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 just isn't good. It's bloated.

Wait, does he mean something super special by the words "greater satisfaction", something importantly different to all the other people who write similar things? Does it somehow refer to something other than pursuing one's goals? Striving to reach that which motivates us? What is that you are trying to do with this line of questioning? What greater satisfaction does it really offer you?

Every philosopher, historian or economist that ever lived has noted that human beings are universally motivated to pursue the objects of their desire. Every zoologist and biologist has applied the same to members of the animal kingdom, and sometimes to flowers too. By what absurd reasoning would you suppose this was exotic?

More importantly, his demonstration as to why will is not free is either correct or it isn't. You seem determined to prove him wrong, but you haven't done that. I was not even asking you whether you liked the prose or not. It's the content that matters, regardless of the form, and that's all you are focusing on.

Well I haven't shown any intention to prove him wrong about this. I have explicitly accepted determinism for the sake of argument. You are barking up the wrong tree. I will tell you what I think of the argument that takes the giant leap from determinism to the fixing of all the world's evils if we ever get a description of it. I suspect that's the actual bad bit.

Now please address the questions you are evading. I am not moved by your faux indignation.


EDIT: Oh My Goat, I just realised you did actually make an effort to answer those questions and I missed it because of this weird inability you have to use the quote function. I'll do another edit to this to sort it out. (below)

There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all. There might be in this idea that it somehow increases it. Can you explain that bit please? From whence does the individual get this extra responsibility?

That's the entire point of his discovery; that the corollary to "no free will" when applied worldwide will increase responsibility and prevent the very thing all the punishment in the world could not.

If you are looking at determinism from the standpoint that one could not have done otherwise, then holding him responsible (which you are alluding to because there is no other deterrent other than threats of punishment at this point in time) does not follow. Lessans was taking the knowledge that we have no free will by extending the corollary to see where it leads. Many philosophers could not get beyond the implications, for if man's will is not free, how can we not blame him for doing those things that hurt others?

In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil.

In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true.

You missed the point massively. I wrote "There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all" because there really isn't. There might be some remaining philosophers who think that determinism removes responsibility, but none of them is here and none of them matters. Please note that I explicitly asked you to explain why you wrote that determinism creates extra responsibility. I refer you to your own phrase "responsibility is increased, not decreased, when the basic principle is put into effect." That is the only bit that needs explanation.

That question cannot be answered by a rendition of why it doesn't remove responsibility. Perhaps instead of accusing me of being interested in form and not content, you might look at the content of the question and address that.

I already mentioned that no normal determinist who accepts the causal closure arguments believes in a spooky external "will". Of course I can agree that "determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to" it is an entirely normal observation.

It is a normal observation if you think in these terms, but there are philosophers who argue that having agency means we have the free will or the ability to choose without compulsion or necessity and therefore our will lies apart from any deterministic forces.

Those people aren't determinists. We are accepting determinism on the face of it in this conversation. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST DETERMINISM. Please confirm you have understood this point now.

[peacegirl]

Clumsy? Bad prose? Where is it either? Point to sentences that you find clumsy or bad prose. And please explain what he meant by "greater satisfaction" rather than telling me it's not news.

Here is some terrible prose for you: "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 just isn't good. It's bloated.

Bloated? Another adjective that I don't get. He was just saying that this ignorance and conflict of desires was as it was supposed to be throughout history. There was nothing wrong with that sentence.

Wait, does he mean something super special by the words "greater satisfaction", something importantly different to all the other people who write similar things? Does it somehow refer to something other than pursuing one's goals? Striving to reach that which motivates us? What is that you are trying to do with this line of questioning? What greater satisfaction does it really offer you?

It offers a lot because it shows that we, in the movement toward greater satisfaction, can only go in one direction. We cannot choose either A or B EQUALLY, if there are meaningful differences that are being compared to determine which choice is the most preferable.

Every philosopher, historian or economist that ever lived has noted that human beings are universally motivated to pursue the objects of their desire. Every zoologist and biologist has applied the same to members of the animal kingdom, and sometimes to flowers too. By what absurd reasoning would you suppose this was exotic?

I didn't say it was exotic. But there are people who believe that, given a set of options, individuals could choose what is worse for themselves (in their eyes), not better, which is an impossibility and why the movement toward "greater satisfaction" is an invariable law.

More importantly, his demonstration as to why will is not free is either correct or it isn't. You seem determined to prove him wrong, but you haven't done that. I was not even asking you whether you liked the prose or not. It's the content that matters, regardless of the form, and that's all you are focusing on.

Well I haven't shown any intention to prove him wrong about this.

Fair enough.

I have explicitly accepted determinism for the sake of argument.

Oh, so you're not a determinist? What school of thought do you hold, if any?

You are barking up the wrong tree. I will tell you what I think of the argument that takes the giant leap from determinism to the fixing of all the world's evils if we ever get a description of it. I suspect that's the actual bad bit.

I have said numerous times that determinism is not what is solving the world's problems; it is what lies behind the door of determinism that requires its own key. This is not an easy task and it does require extraordinary proof, which I'm trying to share but if you keep telling me the prose is bad and its clumsy, you are not focusing on the content at all. You are just trying to find fault.

Now please address the questions you are evading. I am not moved by your faux indignation.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't such an important discussion.

EDIT: Oh My Goat, I just realised you did actually make an effort to answer those questions and I missed it because of this weird inability you have to use the quote function. I'll do another edit to this to sort it out. (below)

I'm really trying to use the quote function correctly. If I need help, I'll PM you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Clumsy? Bad prose? Where is it either? Point to sentences that you find clumsy or bad prose. And please explain what he meant by "greater satisfaction" rather than telling me it's not news.

Here is some terrible prose for you: "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 just isn't good. It's bloated.

Bloated? Another adjective that I don't get. He was just saying that this ignorance and conflict of desires was as it was supposed to be throughout history. There was nothing wrong with that sentence.

If all it says is that, then your version being so much shorter demonstrates that it is bloated. Either way, if you are keen to move beyond form you may as well be less think skinned about criticisms of form. You can hardly be above such things but unable to ignore them.

Wait, does he mean something super special by the words "greater satisfaction", something importantly different to all the other people who write similar things? Does it somehow refer to something other than pursuing one's goals? Striving to reach that which motivates us? What is that you are trying to do with this line of questioning? What greater satisfaction does it really offer you?

It offers a lot because it shows that we, in the movement toward greater satisfaction, can only go in one direction. We cannot choose either A or B EQUALLY, if there are meaningful differences that are being compared to determine which choice is the most preferable.

This works equally well in reverse - everything you have chosen to do must have been chosen because it seemed to you at the time to have advanced your best interests as understood by you in that moment. It's banal.

Every philosopher, historian or economist that ever lived has noted that human beings are universally motivated to pursue the objects of their desire. Every zoologist and biologist has applied the same to members of the animal kingdom, and sometimes to flowers too. By what absurd reasoning would you suppose this was exotic?

I didn't say it was exotic. But there are people who believe that, given a set of options, individuals could choose what is worse for themselves (in their eyes), not better, which is an impossibility and why the movement toward "greater satisfaction" is an invariable law.

More importantly, his demonstration as to why will is not free is either correct or it isn't. You seem determined to prove him wrong, but you haven't done that. I was not even asking you whether you liked the prose or not. It's the content that matters, regardless of the form, and that's all you are focusing on.

Well I haven't shown any intention to prove him wrong about this.

No, because I don't think he was wrong.

I have explicitly accepted determinism for the sake of argument.

Oh, so you're not a determinist? What school of thought do you hold, if any?

You are barking up the wrong tree. I will tell you what I think of the argument that takes the giant leap from determinism to the fixing of all the world's evils if we ever get a description of it. I suspect that's the actual bad bit.

I have said numerous times that determinism is not what is solving the world's problems; it is what lies behind the door of determinism that requires its own key. This is not an easy task and it does require extraordinary proof, which I'm trying to share but if you keep telling me the prose is bad and its clumsy, you are not focusing on the content at all. You are just trying to find fault.

Now please address the questions you are evading. I am not moved by your faux indignation.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't such an important discussion.

EDIT: Oh My Goat, I just realised you did actually make an effort to answer those questions and I missed it because of this weird inability you have to use the quote function. I'll do another edit to this to sort it out. (below)

I'm really trying to use the quote function correctly. If I need help, I'll PM you.

None of that matters. I have accepted determinism for this discussion. A segue into unrelated matters would derail the conversation - which is a discussion of your big idea not mine. But you seem so intent on not telling us the big idea. So please, move onto the discoveries that are unlocked by the determinism that we have already accepted for this purpose.

[peacegirl]

Clumsy? Bad prose? Where is it either? Point to sentences that you find clumsy or bad prose. And please explain what he meant by "greater satisfaction" rather than telling me it's not news.

Here is some terrible prose for you: "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 just isn't good. It's bloated.

Wait, does he mean something super special by the words "greater satisfaction", something importantly different to all the other people who write similar things? Does it somehow refer to something other than pursuing one's goals? Striving to reach that which motivates us? What is that you are trying to do with this line of questioning? What greater satisfaction does it really offer you?

Every philosopher, historian or economist that ever lived has noted that human beings are universally motivated to pursue the objects of their desire. Every zoologist and biologist has applied the same to members of the animal kingdom, and sometimes to flowers too. By what absurd reasoning would you suppose this was exotic?

More importantly, his demonstration as to why will is not free is either correct or it isn't. You seem determined to prove him wrong, but you haven't done that. I was not even asking you whether you liked the prose or not. It's the content that matters, regardless of the form, and that's all you are focusing on.

Well I haven't shown any intention to prove him wrong about this. I have explicitly accepted determinism for the sake of argument. You are barking up the wrong tree. I will tell you what I think of the argument that takes the giant leap from determinism to the fixing of all the world's evils if we ever get a description of it. I suspect that's the actual bad bit.

Now please address the questions you are evading. I am not moved by your faux indignation.


EDIT: Oh My Goat, I just realised you did actually make an effort to answer those questions and I missed it because of this weird inability you have to use the quote function. I'll do another edit to this to sort it out. (below)

There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all.

You're getting confused. It does remove all responsibility, but there is another side to this. It's called The Two-Sided Equation.

There might be in this idea that it somehow increases it. Can you explain that bit please? From whence does the individual get this extra responsibility?

That's the entire point of his discovery; that the corollary to "no free will" when applied worldwide will increase responsibility and prevent the very thing all the punishment in the world could not.

If you are looking at determinism from the standpoint that one could not have done otherwise, then holding him responsible (which you are alluding to because there is no other deterrent other than threats of punishment at this point in time) does not follow. Lessans was taking the knowledge that we have no free will by extending the corollary to see where it leads. Many philosophers could not get beyond the implications, for if man's will is not free, how can we not blame him for doing those things that hurt others?

In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil.

In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true.

You missed the point massively. I wrote "There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all" because there really isn't. There might be some remaining philosophers who think that determinism removes responsibility, but none of them is here and none of them matters. Please note that I explicitly asked you to explain why you wrote that determinism creates extra responsibility. I refer you to your own phrase "responsibility is increased, not decreased, when the basic principle is put into effect." That is the only bit that needs explanation.

Maybe I was unclear. If you follow the corollary (Thou Shall Not Blame), it absolutely frees all of us of responsibility because once we make a choice, we could not have done otherwise. I will explain how responsibility increases monumentally, but you have to be patient. This is why he said that it's important to go in a step-by-step fashion. Giving a quick answer would be like leaving half of a math equation out. It will cause a total misunderstanding, and I will not do that.

That question cannot be answered by a rendition of why it doesn't remove responsibility. Perhaps instead of accusing me of being interested in form and not content, you might look at the content of the question and address that.

As I said, first we have to establish why man's will is not free, which I'm trying to do, and then show how the corollary of no blame, when all other factors that cause justification to strike back in retaliation, are removed, a great change in human conduct will take place. This is in Chapter Two. But I am not finished with Chapter One. We have been talking about "greater satisfaction" which is principle one, but the other side of this (which you ignored) is principle two, and when they are brought together, amazing things happen.

I already mentioned that no normal determinist who accepts the causal closure arguments believes in a spooky external "will". Of course I can agree that "determinism cannot force or compel a person to do anything he doesn't give consent to" it is an entirely normal observation.

But calling it a causal closure makes it appear that our choice is not involved; it's just part of the brain's circuitry.

There is a great deal of irony here because the philosophers who did not know it was impossible to prove freedom of the will believed in this theory because they were under the impression that their reasoning had demonstrated the falseness of determinism. The reason proof of determinism is absolutely necessary is to preclude someone quoting Durant and interjecting a remark about man not being a machine. Is there anything about my demonstration that would make the reader think he is now a machine? On page 87 in Mansions of Philosophy, he writes, “If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine, which had slipped a cog in generating him.” In other words, he assumes that this kind of knowledge, the knowledge that states man’s will is not free, allows a person to shift his responsibility for what he does. One individual blames society for his crimes as he rots in prison, while another blames the mechanical structure of the machine, which slipped a cog and turned him into a fool. You will soon see that not only Durant but all mankind are very much confused by the misleading logic of words that do not describe reality for what it is. This is why it is imperative that we proceed in an undeniable, not logical, manner; otherwise, someone may quote Durant, a priest, professor, lawyer, judge, or politician as an authority for believing in freedom of the will. I recently had a conversation with a friend who was very sincere in his desire to understand the principles in my book. His questions were predictable coming from a superficial understanding of man’s nature and represent the confusion many people feel when the issue of determinism comes up.

It is a normal observation if you think in these terms, but there are philosophers who argue that having agency means we have the free will or the ability to choose without compulsion or necessity and therefore our will lies apart from any deterministic forces.

Those people aren't determinists. We are accepting determinism on the face of it in this conversation. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST DETERMINISM. Please confirm you have understood this point now.

I understand that for the sake of argument you are accepting determinism outright, and that our choices are part and parcel of the causal chain. So let's move on. I've got a lot to cover and I'm not sure if your patience, or should I say lack of patience, will handle it well.

[FlashDangerpants]

You missed the point massively. I wrote "There's nothing special in the observation that it doesn't remove responsibility at all" because there really isn't. There might be some remaining philosophers who think that determinism removes responsibility, but none of them is here and none of them matters. Please note that I explicitly asked you to explain why you wrote that determinism creates extra responsibility. I refer you to your own phrase "responsibility is increased, not decreased, when the basic principle is put into effect." That is the only bit that needs explanation.

Maybe I was unclear. If you follow the corollary (Thou Shall Not Blame), it absolutely frees all of us of responsibility because once we make a choice, we could not have done otherwise. I will explain how responsibility increases monumentally, but you have to be patient. This is why he said that it's important to go in a step-by-step fashion. Giving a quick answer would be like leaving half of a math equation out. It will cause a total misunderstanding, and I will not do that.

That seems like a big if right there. But go ahead.

That question cannot be answered by a rendition of why it doesn't remove responsibility. Perhaps instead of accusing me of being interested in form and not content, you might look at the content of the question and address that.

As I said, first we have to establish why man's will is not free, which I'm trying to do, and then show how the corollary of no blame, when all other factors that cause justification to strike back in retaliation, are removed, a great change in human conduct will take place. This is in Chapter Two. But I am not finished with Chapter One. We have been talking about "greater satisfaction" which is principle one, but the other side of this (which you ignored) is principle two, and when they are brought together, amazing things happen.

There's a lot of promises that something amazing is just over the horizon between this conversation that that book. I wonder if we might get to see the amazing things one fine day.

But calling it a causal closure makes it appear that our choice is not involved; it's just part of the brain's circuitry.

The causal closure argument is just the causal closure argument. I can provide a link if it helps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure

Those people aren't determinists. We are accepting determinism on the face of it in this conversation. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST DETERMINISM. Please confirm you have understood this point now.

I understand that for the sake of argument you are accepting determinism outright, and that our choices are part and parcel of the causal chain. So let's move on. I've got a lot to cover and I'm not sure if your patience, or should I say lack of patience, will handle it well.

Yes please, let's.

[Age]

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.

Wrong.