New Discovery

[Atla]

A determinist would say that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction or lesser suffering, just like all life does. But the human mind is very complex, tens of billions of neurons or somesuch, every now and then it could happen for a variety of reasons that someone actually chooses to move in the direction of lesser satisfaction, when he/she is determined to do so.

The Lessans God's law however says that it is impossible to ever choose to move in the direction of lesser satisfaction. That's a supernatural law that imo refutes physical determinism. If it's determinism then it's God's will or whatever to have this supernatural deterministic law.

[peacegirl]

Here's the same link again to the same post containing the questions you are avoiding. I look forward to your next excuse instead of addressing them.

I don't see any question of yours. Spit it out FlashDangerpants, so we can either move on, or not. It can't be that hard.

OK, I'll just paste them again for you.....

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.

Please expand on the claim in this paragraph that mathematical reasoning is required. You are the one who gets it, please explain it.

He used the term "mathematical" to distinguish itself from "theory" or "opinion."

It is very clear, even a child can get it. It says exactly what it means. Every move we make is away from a spot that has become dissatisfying or uncomfortable in some way, or we wouldn't make any move at all. Movement is life itself otherwise we would be dead. We cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when we are confronted with options. Moving in this direction does not always involve contemplation. We move in this direction all day, every day. I just changed position because my arm fell asleep. This movement is part of our everyday life. This observation is more than a tautology, but if you are bent on calling it that, then at least admit that tautologies can be informative and add to our knowledge.

That doesn't answer the question I asked you. It doesn't even acknowledge the question I asked you. Do better.

Trying.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

https://steve-patterson.com/tautologies ... dismissed/

Why did you put that text there? What has it got to do with the question?

Because you keep telling me that his proof of "no free will" is nothing but a tautology even if it didn't directly answer your question. I hope I answered your question today and you will not keep harping on the same thing again and again.

You're missing the point he's making. Why are you so bent on twisting "greater satisfaction" into moving toward our goals and desires. I already explained that moving toward what one desires (which does not always involve mobility) is a movement toward greater satisfaction, but this term is not limited toward goal attainment or desires. That is why he tried to explain that just being alive compels us to move, and this movement can only be in the direction of greater satisfaction, even if it means sitting all day like a monk, doing nothing if it gives this person satisfaction to do so.
He was using the term "life" to mean existence. Being living beings as we are, we are subject to certain laws that we cannot escape. When he said life is never satisfied, all he meant was that we are not stones that don't move. The very breath of life pushes us to move off of the spot we are now standing to the next spot in our continual movement through life. Every single movement describes this thing called life as the movement of "greater satisfaction" pushing us (not literally) in a particular direction, the ONLY direction possible given our circumstances.

[peacegirl]

He was establishing a point that life IS movement, and movement always involves dissatisfaction with the present position. It is what propels us forward.

Again, nothing to do with the question. I asked: Please explain the phrase "life is never satisfied". Is it intended to reify life as some sort of force or something that exists, or is the author merely noticing the banal fact that living things move and the more mobile ones move towards things they desire and so on?

He was using the term "life" to mean existence. Being living beings as we are, we are subject to certain laws that we cannot escape. When he said life is never satisfied, all he meant was that we are not stones that don't move. The very breath of life pushes us to move off of the spot we are now standing to the next spot in our continual movement through life. Every single movement describes this thing called life as the movement of "greater satisfaction" pushing us (not literally) in a particular direction, the ONLY direction possible given our circumstances.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there.

And here... why are we doing this at all? Why are we defining life, and why are we defining it as this movement? This isn't stuff that we typically need to do, so just doing it out of the blue to support the argument you want to make is called begging the question.

It is not begging the question. It is not circular. He was trying to establish the fact that satisfaction is the only direction life can take. It cannot move against itself by moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, which Atla thought he proved. This is important as it forms the basis of one side of the two-sided equation.

But what is the basis for all of this? The basis please. I am not asking for your delight at the conclusion, I am asking for the basis of the reasoning. Basis. Please. Why are we defining life at all? Why are we defining it as movement?

Because this is how he was able to explain why our will is not free. It has to do with our movement from moment to moment, which can only go in one direction. He was clear about this.

What is mathematical about any of this? Why do we need to do this step? I don't mean why does the argument need the step, I mean why do people who aren't pushing the argument need to do it? The whole thing seem gratuitous.

Again, it was his way of explaining why the movement toward "greater satisfaction" is a one-way street. We have no choice but to move in this direction. He was distinguishing the movement of life itself from that which is not life, such as a rock or stone, in order to make his point. You don't yet understand the big deal of any of this or why it's important until you begin to understand the two-sided equation.

[peacegirl]

Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that ...

Please explain this move. Are we deliberately anthropomorphising sunflowers that point at the sun, or are we at risk of doing so by accident, or is this talk of satisfaction that is somehow inherent to just movement and life all a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement? You are the only one who knows how to read, so tell us how to read please.

It is not hyperbolic overstatement. It is important to establish that we cannot choose what we like less than what we like more is available. It is not an equal playing field. You cannot choose B if you like A better or vice versa, because anytime there are meaningful differences, you are compelled, by your nature, to pick the one that offers you greater satisfaction, not less. You will see why this important as time goes on, if I stick around.

You are talking about what you want on behalf of your argument. I am not asking that. I am asking what aspect of logic compels us to see things int he way that suits you here? It is again gratuitous. I see no reason to describe an unthinking object as pursuing satisfaction. Why do I need to anthropomorphise a daisy just to help your argument? Why would I do that, or more importantly, why would I be mistaken not to attach human emotional drivers to brainless plants? There is no persuasive power to this argument, it's mystical.

He was only trying to distinguish between dead things and live things, and live things work in ways that dead things don't. As long as we are alive, we move, and in that movement, we are only able to choose what offers us greater satisfaction than what the present position offers, or we would not move at all because we would be satisfied. This is what he meant by "the movement of life itself." He made a discovery regarding human relations. It really isn't necessary to bring up daisies in his defense.

...our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances.

Yeah, that law isn't really needed though is it? So where is it proven to be the case that it is a real thing rather than just a convoluted way of referring to beliefs and desires which motivate sentient creatures to move, and an anthropomorphic extension of that to flowers?

I explained that referring to beliefs and desires which motivate sentient creatures to move, is only part of the definition. When I change positions because I am uncomfortable, this has nothing to do with beliefs and goals. I am dissatisfied with the position I'm in, so I move, in the direction of greater satisfaction. If I'm hungry, I am compelled to move off of where I am sitting (point A) to go to see what is in the refrigerator (point B). This is not about working toward beliefs or goals. This is life constantly pushing us forward, or we would not be alive, like a rock that never moves. Maybe monks can sit all day because they are satisfied not to move, but most humans become dissatisfied and feel the need to get off spot A and move to spot B, even if it's just to stretch or use the remote, or whatever, which is the movement of life over which we have no control.

That may be true but as you try to understand the reason he makes a point of this, you will see its significance.

Significance? That is just a way of telling me that you are relying on this thing for your argument. I might care later, but right now there is the open question of why I am wrong not to buy this argument. It being useful to you later is a shit reason. Give me a good reason please.

You are wrong not to buy this argument because of the meaning that follows, and we will never get there if you call my saying to you that we haven't even gotten to the discovery itself --- which becomes the first principle in the very equation that this discovery is based on --- a shit reason.

[peacegirl]

Please just explain how this miraculous vision thing works. It seems improbable that this is simply derived from nothing but determinism, what are the other ingredients?

These two findings are unrelated. Vision is not derived from determinism. That makes no sense.

Please do explain though, I am sure you have something that does make sense, quite sure.

I want to continue discussing why man's will is not free, according to Lessans, and the other side of this equation, which has not been shown. I must have been dreaming thinking that when I posted these chapters, you were actually reading them. Little did I know, you were just playing me.

I did read them, twice. You have ignored my most recent questions about that portion of yor text and moved ontot he vision stuff. I am ok with that, but if you want to go back to the other stuff, those questions remain.

I thought I answered your questions. Could you repeat them? I have said again and again that although whatever we choose is due to our motivations and desires, the point being made here is that, once a choice is made, it could NOT have been otherwise, rendering free will a realistic mirage. I need some kind of agreement [temporarily] so we can move forward, even if you think the point I'm making has no value, or we will be at a dead end.

You wrote stuff in response to stuff you had just read. You did not appear to bother wondering if your responses answered the actual questions though. You can click the link on the quote below to take you to the ignored post, it is the blue up arrow...

Click this blue arrow to be taken to the questions you ignored...

Light is a condition of sight. It does not bring anything to the eye. We see the object in real time if the object is large enough and luminous enough to be seen, which would automatically put light at the eye, or we wouldn't be able to see said object. Please, let's go back to his first discovery. Then we can talk about this one. Game?!

Light is a measurable phenomenon in the world around us. It brings similar information to cameras and sensors, which are able to recreate the same images that an eye would upon receiving that same light....?

Images can be recreated, that is true, but it still does not prove that we see delayed images in the brain rather than seeing the actual object or event in real time. If he is right, camera's, being like the eye, would work in the same way.

Sounds exciting. Please explain how it works.

I'm not going any further than this excerpt. If it's exciting (sarcasm will not win me over lol), but I didn't want to ignore you. Please stop asking about the eyes, as I know it will slant the entire conversation.

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words. To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't know why half of the post got cut off. It was a much longer post and I answered many more of your questions.

You screwed up the quoting. I don't know why you are so incapable of using this simple too, but you keep nesting everything in layer on layer of unnecessary nonsense and then it gets more than three layers deep and the software automatically prunes your post because you are so clumsy. You've done such a poor job it's not even worth my time quoting your post as half disappears again.

Here's some issues with what you were able to post:

1. If you get given the set of propositions "it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time", and "it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life", and "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", what type of argument is being presented? The first claim is tautologically true otherwise it would be contestable. The second is ... also tautological? The third is just an assertion though.

So that raises the problem of how these things relate to each other. If we are now mixing up mathematical axiomatic reasoning, with scientific empirical reason, and deductively assured truisms all as the same thing, then we don't know at all what sort of logical relationship is being asserted between premises and conclusion. Thus when we get to the supposedly rhetorical question in that text "Is it possible to disagree with this?" the correct answer is maybe... but what exactly am I disagreeing with?

This is not hair splitting. I am asking what sort of argument your dad wrote? You probably don't know the answer to that question. But if you do, please furnish an explanation of how the premises support the conclusions in this section of the text. If you can't do that, you don't understand the book any more than the rest of us do. What I can safely say is that the correct answer is neither "mathematical" nor (undeniable). It is too loosely put together for that. IT's not inductive in any way, so any claim of scientific reasoning is entirely bogus.

2. Please pay attention while I try to get you to understand why the tautology thing is actually a problem. A tautology is true by definition. A tautology is known to be true before you have the option of investigating its truth. A tautology cannot be tested, because it is automatically true, there is no test for whether the tautologically true is true. Same as there is no test for whether "it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time". A tautology cannot be a discovery. A tautology cannot be the thing that you demonstrate.

You cannot demonstrate or discover that thinking agents act in accord with their motivating beliefs & desires, and that every such act is to be understood as the cumulative result of a calculation (which could be a matter of choice or could be determined it really makes no difference here) about the best fit to those desires. It is a given in advance that we will always interpret actions that way, because it is built into our concepts of belief, desire and other action guiding psychological objects.

Your theory does go beyond that. But it does so by applying the psychological motivation of "satisfaction" to unthinking objects such as sunflowers and jellyfish. Sadly, there is no indication of the argument that extends the concept of satisfaction to a microbe, a virus, a prion, phage or an elderberry. All you've got is the wild assertion that they move so they must yearn for something. Now this crap is not tautological, and frankly I think it's total bullshit. But if there's an actual argument with premises that demonstrably support the conclusion that a blade of grass has the psychological motivation of satisfaction to pursue, then please do share.

[Atla]

These two findings are unrelated. Vision is not derived from determinism. That makes no sense.

Please do explain though, I am sure you have something that does make sense, quite sure.

I thought I answered your questions. Could you repeat them? I have said again and again that although whatever we choose is due to our motivations and desires, the point being made here is that, once a choice is made, it could NOT have been otherwise, rendering free will a realistic mirage. I need some kind of agreement [temporarily] so we can move forward, even if you think the point I'm making has no value, or we will be at a dead end.

You wrote stuff in response to stuff you had just read. You did not appear to bother wondering if your responses answered the actual questions though. You can click the link on the quote below to take you to the ignored post, it is the blue up arrow...

Click this blue arrow to be taken to the questions you ignored...

Images can be recreated, that is true, but it still does not prove that we see delayed images in the brain rather than seeing the actual object or event in real time. If he is right, camera's, being like the eye, would work in the same way.

Sounds exciting. Please explain how it works.

I'm not going any further than this excerpt. If it's exciting (sarcasm will not win me over lol), but I didn't want to ignore you. Please stop asking about the eyes, as I know it will slant the entire conversation.

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words. To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.

We can kinda see why he dropped out of school

[peacegirl]

If I do anything, I would cut and paste so there's no chance of misunderstanding. You obviously did not read the chapter because YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE DISCOVERY!!!!


Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.

Why should I bend over backwards when you're not even meeting me halfway by reading what I posted? You're playing me for fool!!!

Of course I didn't miss the "first discovery", I already said of it.... (on page 4 of this now 37 page thread)

The first "discovery" was just hard determinism. Wooo determinism. Great. You seem to have some confusion where you don't think the will itself is subject to the same deterministic forces as the entire universe, leading to strange phrasings such as "Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent".... but nobody cares.

This is a big deal because it leads to the two-sided equation. We are all subject to deterministic forces because we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, but by the same token, determinism (the way it's presently defined) implies that we are forced by antecedent events to do what we do even if we don't want to do it. This is a flaw in the definition (not in determinism itself) and why so many libertarians are against this school of thought. I will cut and paste this part because it's important. I am not going to try to please everyone by explaining things in my own words.

The government holds each person responsible for obeying the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility. But how is it possible for someone to obey that which, under certain conditions, appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people; we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO — but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.
“It’s amazing; all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”
Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied, but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that? He brought out something I never would have thought of.”

“All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

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

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The words ‘cause’ and ‘compel’ are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause,’ like ‘choice’ and ‘past,’ is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now.

I've read all the stuff you have posted for me. I think I have understood insofar as it can be understood. Feel free to explain why I am wrong if I am, and please show me how I ought to have understood.

Please stop with these mendacious efforts to derail your own thread. Just answer questions without the inept efforts at guile you just don't possess. Explain how the vision thing works. Explain why it would be erroneous to refuse to anthropomorphise a daisy's growth as a yearning for "greatest satisfaction".

Again, he was referring to a discovery regarding human nature, but all of life is in constant flux. No one yearns for "greatest satisfaction," even in the human population. I don't yearn to get up and go to the grocery store just because I need food. Moreover, all living things move according to their characteristics and their needs. They are pushed by life and instinct to move. You don't have to call it "greater satisfaction," which is a human term. The words "greater satisfaction" don't apply to flowers who don't ruminate over options or have conflict with their fellow flowers. This discovery is about humans who have the intellectual capacity to alter their lives in beneficial ways and in so doing, can help other animal species who don't have this capacity.

[Atla]

but by the same token, determinism (the way it's presently defined) implies that we are forced by antecedent events to do what we do even if we don't want to do it. This is a flaw in the definition (not in determinism itself) and why so many libertarians are against this school of thought.

Maybe, I'm a determinist and I've never heard this definition before. Where is it defined like that?

[FlashDangerpants]

I've read all the stuff you have posted for me. I think I have understood insofar as it can be understood. Feel free to explain why I am wrong if I am, and please show me how I ought to have understood.

Please stop with these mendacious efforts to derail your own thread. Just answer questions without the inept efforts at guile you just don't possess. Explain how the vision thing works. Explain why it would be erroneous to refuse to anthropomorphise a daisy's growth as a yearning for "greatest satisfaction".

Again, he was referring to a discovery regarding human nature, but all of life is in constant flux. No one yearns for "greatest satisfaction," even in the human population. I don't yearn to get up and go to the grocery store just because I need food. Moreover, all living things move according to their characteristics and their needs. They are pushed by life and instinct to move. You don't have to call it "greater satisfaction," which is a human term. The words "greater satisfaction" don't apply to flowers who don't ruminate over options or have conflict with their fellow flowers. This discovery is about humans who have the intellectual capacity to alter their lives in beneficial ways and in so doing, can help other animal species who don't have this capacity.

Hmmm, the thing is you needed that to be in play in order for your theory to be useful for something. Now that all the bloviated talk about movement being life itself is unmasked as nothing but an overblown turn of phrase when all he was really talking about was restless human nature, then there is no longer any content that isn't obvious. It's all stuff that we knew before we ever heard of Lessans and will still know long after he is forgotten again.

Without the flowers and the microbes, there is nothing on offer from this theory that isn't contained in the tautology I already described. So we don't need it. You might like to have it because you think your two-sided equation matters, but I don't think either is important to anything except your book, which is of very little importance to me.

So, what actual logical argument shows I am mistaken in not taking up your redundant theory of motivation in order to try and find a use for the baselessly asserted two-sided equation? You require people to be enthusiastic for your argument, you have no explanatory or persuasive power to overcome objections with. At this point you have so far taken mostly to sulking.

[FlashDangerpants]

but by the same token, determinism (the way it's presently defined) implies that we are forced by antecedent events to do what we do even if we don't want to do it. This is a flaw in the definition (not in determinism itself) and why so many libertarians are against this school of thought.

Maybe, I'm a determinist and I've never heard this definition before. Where is it defined like that?

Sure seems strange for deterministic forces to force us to do things against our will rather than to nudge us towards just willing them.

[peacegirl]

I don't know why half of the post got cut off. It was a much longer post and I answered many more of your questions.

You screwed up the quoting. I don't know why you are so incapable of using this simple too, but you keep nesting everything in layer on layer of unnecessary nonsense and then it gets more than three layers deep and the software automatically prunes your post because you are so clumsy. You've done such a poor job it's not even worth my time quoting your post as half disappears again.

Sorry about that. Some websites don't allow you to go more than 3 layers. I haven't done this in a long time, so I'm forgetting how it works. I'll keep trying to get it right.

Here's some issues with what you were able to post:

1. If you get given the set of propositions "it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time", and "it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life", and "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", what type of argument is being presented? The first claim is tautologically true otherwise it would be contestable. The second is ... also tautological? The third is just an assertion though.

Not really. Based on the first two, we are carried along on the "wings of time," as Lessans put it. We don't have control over our choices because the word "choice" itself is misleading.

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

So that raises the problem of how these things relate to each other. If we are now mixing up mathematical axiomatic reasoning, with scientific empirical reason, and deductively assured truisms all as the same thing, then we don't know at all what sort of logical relationship is being asserted between premises and conclusion. Thus when we get to the supposedly rhetorical question in that text "Is it possible to disagree with this?" the correct answer is maybe... but what exactly am I disagreeing with?

His reasoning was solid. He was asking if you disagreed with the fact that we must live our lives out the best we can, or else commit suicide. What other choice is there? But then he went on to employ what he called "mathematical, undeniable, scientific reasoning. He did not want people to get confused over these words, which is why he said they were synonymous. You need to analyze whether his premises were accurate and whether his reasoning based on his premises were correct, which would then come to an accurate conclusion. He writes:

"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. Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

This is not hair splitting. I am asking what sort of argument your dad wrote? You probably don't know the answer to that question. But if you do, please furnish an explanation of how the premises support the conclusions in this section of the text. If you can't do that, you don't understand the book any more than the rest of us do. What I can safely say is that the correct answer is neither "mathematical" nor (undeniable). It is too loosely put together for that. IT's not inductive in any way, so any claim of scientific reasoning is entirely bogus.

I think you're wrong here. He gave a step-by-step demonstration.

2. Please pay attention while I try to get you to understand why the tautology thing is actually a problem. A tautology is true by definition. A tautology is known to be true before you have the option of investigating its truth. A tautology cannot be tested, because it is automatically true, there is no test for whether the tautologically true is true. Same as there is no test for whether "it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time". A tautology cannot be a discovery. A tautology cannot be the thing that you demonstrate.

This can't be tested using a hypothesis. It doesn't work that way, but again whether it is or isn't a tautology does not make it empty, merely true by definition, and without any value in its ability to contribute to knowledge.

You cannot demonstrate or discover that thinking agents act in accord with their motivating beliefs & desires, and that every such act is to be understood as the cumulative result of a calculation (which could be a matter of choice or could be determined it really makes no difference here) about the best fit to those desires.

When you say the cumulative result of a calculation could be a matter of choice or could be determined? I'm confused with what you call choice and what you call determined.

It is a given in advance that we will always interpret actions that way, because it is built into our concepts of belief, desire and other action guiding psychological objects.

That's all well and good. We know people are motivated by their beliefs and desires. The point that those beliefs and desires lead us to choose the best option, in the direction of greater satisfaction, rendering any other option at that moment an impossibility after a choice has been made.

Your theory does go beyond that. But it does so by applying the psychological motivation of "satisfaction" to unthinking objects such as sunflowers and jellyfish. Sadly, there is no indication of the argument that extends the concept of satisfaction to a microbe, a virus, a prion, phage or an elderberry. All you've got is the wild assertion that they move so they must yearn for something. Now this crap is not tautological, and frankly I think it's total bullshit. But if there's an actual argument with premises that demonstrably support the conclusion that a blade of grass has the psychological motivation of satisfaction to pursue, then please do share.

I think it's bullshit too but he never mentioned anything of the sort. How did this conversation go from the prevention of war and crime in human relations to the concept of satisfaction to a microbe. It actually made me laugh. I needed the comic relief, so thank you.

Summary: Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed, yet war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery regarding a psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was hidden so successfully behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one knew a deeper truth existed. Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction — preventing the never-ending cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

[peacegirl]

but by the same token, determinism (the way it's presently defined) implies that we are forced by antecedent events to do what we do even if we don't want to do it. This is a flaw in the definition (not in determinism itself) and why so many libertarians are against this school of thought.

Maybe, I'm a determinist and I've never heard this definition before. Where is it defined like that?

Sure seems strange for deterministic forces to force us to do things against our will rather than to nudge us towards just willing them.

That's the problem with the present definition. If it doesn't reflect what is going on in reality, we have to tweak the definition to make in line with reality.

de·ter·min·ism
[dəˈtərməˌnizəm]
noun
philosophy
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

[peacegirl]

I've read all the stuff you have posted for me. I think I have understood insofar as it can be understood. Feel free to explain why I am wrong if I am, and please show me how I ought to have understood.

Please stop with these mendacious efforts to derail your own thread. Just answer questions without the inept efforts at guile you just don't possess. Explain how the vision thing works. Explain why it would be erroneous to refuse to anthropomorphise a daisy's growth as a yearning for "greatest satisfaction".

Again, he was referring to a discovery regarding human nature, but all of life is in constant flux. No one yearns for "greatest satisfaction," even in the human population. I don't yearn to get up and go to the grocery store just because I need food. Moreover, all living things move according to their characteristics and their needs. They are pushed by life and instinct to move. You don't have to call it "greater satisfaction," which is a human term. The words "greater satisfaction" don't apply to flowers who don't ruminate over options or have conflict with their fellow flowers. This discovery is about humans who have the intellectual capacity to alter their lives in beneficial ways and in so doing, can help other animal species who don't have this capacity.

Hmmm, the thing is you needed that to be in play in order for your theory to be useful for something. Now that all the bloviated talk about movement being life itself is unmasked as nothing but an overblown turn of phrase when all he was really talking about was restless human nature, then there is no longer any content that isn't obvious. It's all stuff that we knew before we ever heard of Lessans and will still know long after he is forgotten again.

He used the expression, the movement of life in contrast to death. His demonstration was accurate. But for some reason you don't like the idea that we move in one direction and want to equate it with a tautology that has no use. You can't be more wrong. We haven't even gotten to the core of his discovery and you're already concluding there is nothing of value.

Without the flowers and the microbes, there is nothing on offer from this theory that isn't contained in the tautology I already described. So we don't need it. You might like to have it because you think your two-sided equation matters, but I don't think either is important to anything except your book, which is of very little importance to me.

You are so off the mark, it makes me sad, because you are a deep thinker, and you would be the kind of person that could actually understand it if you gave it half a chance. I think sometimes too much philosophy gets in the way. It's like background noise and there is always another theory to defend or refute. So, according to philosohers, what makes this "theory" so different than all the others? They are all on the same playing field and we in here are the gatekeepers. The problem is that it has become difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff using these methods.

So, what actual logical argument shows I am mistaken in not taking up your redundant theory of motivation in order to try and find a use for the baselessly asserted two-sided equation? You require people to be enthusiastic for your argument, you have no explanatory or persuasive power to overcome objections with. At this point you have so far taken mostly to sulking.

I'm not sulking FlashDangerpants, but I am frustrated. What can I say?

[FlashDangerpants]

Maybe, I'm a determinist and I've never heard this definition before. Where is it defined like that?

Sure seems strange for deterministic forces to force us to do things against our will rather than to nudge us towards just willing them.

That's the problem with the present definition. If it doesn't reflect what is going on in reality, we have to tweak the definition to make in line with reality.

de·ter·min·ism
[dəˈtərməˌnizəm]
noun
philosophy
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

The bit we're mocking you for is the "even if we don't want to do it" which is not part of that dictionary definition, nor would it be part of any competent definition. Your claim that (the way it's presently defined) implies we are forced to act against our will is utter nonsense, lies, calumny, a strawman.