New Discovery

[peacegirl]

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.

It’s not a strawman. If determinism means we are caused by antecedent events, this would mean that we don’t have control because what happened in the past “caused” us to do what we did; that whatever we chose was determined for us, which releases us of all responsibility. This is the elephant in the room, for how can we not blame people for shooting someone when they had the free will to do otherwise?.

Lessans argues that nothing from the past can cause because all we have is an eternal present. That is why a more accurate definition has been needed for a very long time. It reconciles “doing of one’s own accord” with “having no free will ” and allows a complete 180 degree turnabout in human conduct.

[FlashDangerpants]

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?”

This reply fails to address the issue at hand. That is not an additional argument, it is just a layer of storytelling. What is the argument that makes it wrong for me to disagree? The scientific, or mathematical or deductive or whatever argument that establishes that I am actually wrong for not accepting this description of affairs as the truth of the matter? Just some guy saying "everyone is mistaken about choice" does nothing. You like it because you are so well disposed to this story, but the rest of the world DGAF and this story is not changing matters in your favour.

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? ...

That reasoning is specious tbh. Most people are not particularly motivated to live a best life, don't you ever just watch some TV and eat some chips? Everything is always so hyperbolic and oversold with your dad. Plus if you sit very still and don't eat the chips, he seems to be calling that suicide.

In short, false dichotomy. The choice isn't between living your best possible life and living no life at all. Most of the time good enough is good enough.

... 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.

The reasoning here, and in the next bit too is specious again. This rubbish about equating movement with life is just another baseless assertion. I reject it, it is stupid. Show me an actual logical reason why I am wrong to do that. There's none to be seen here.

“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.

Bleh.

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.

If I am wrong then just show me instead of telling me. Identify the type of argument and explain the relationship between the premises. A step by step is meaningless. Logical relationships take the form that if p is true and if q is true then pq must be true. That sort of thing please. Flabby narratives about suicide being the only alternative to eating an ice cream are not arguments.

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.

Even though I wrote in really big red letters ... you did not pay attention :s

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

It’s not a strawman. If determinism is defined as being caused be antecedent events, this would mean that we don’t have control because what happened in the past “caused” us to do what we did; that whatever we chose was determined for us, which releases us of all responsibility. This is the elephant in the room.

Lessans argues that nothing from the past can cause because all we have is an eternal present. That is why a more accurate definition has been needed for a very long time.

Seriously, you are just annoying me now. Determinism in philosophy does not say that people are forced to act against their will. Nor does it imply it. Your claimed definition was simply not true.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

I am discussing the argument that you put in front of me. We travel in a single direction through time, why do I need this other crap? Why does it all have to be so overblown when he is discussing banal things of no real importance?

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.

There's no argument there. You are just telling me how sad you feel. Explain a logical reason why I am actually wrong!

Your theory adds nothing, we don't need it to explain a damn thing except some other stuff that only you believe in. This is a problem, simple parsimony suggests we should discard it.

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?

Improve then. You are consistently not providing any actual logical basis for your arguments. They all boil down to story telling and as soon as I ask for any explanation of a detail, there is always nothing there. It's all just his weird way of saying something that if expressed in sensible terms is not very interesting or important. But apparently an amazing thing we cannot know about yet lives behind a magic door guarded by a special dragon with an invisible key..... blah blah blah.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Yeah but...

[peacegirl]

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?”

This reply fails to address the issue at hand. That is not an additional argument, it is just a layer of storytelling. What is the argument that makes it wrong for me to disagree? The scientific, or mathematical or deductive or whatever argument that establishes that I am actually wrong for not accepting this description of affairs as the truth of the matter? Just some guy saying "everyone is mistaken about choice" does nothing. You like it because you are so well disposed to this story, but the rest of the world DGAF and this story is not changing matters in your favour.

If this description doesn't even sound feasible, I really don't know what else to say. You seem very determined to throw this knowledge in the wastebasket. You can. I don't have more in my toolbox to defend his argument.

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? ...

That reasoning is specious tbh. Most people are not particularly motivated to live a best life, don't you ever just watch some TV and eat some chips? Everything is always so hyperbolic and oversold with your dad. Plus if you sit very still and don't eat the chips, he seems to be calling that suicide.

You're very confused with his reasoning. Never was the best life part of his demonstration. NEVER. You haven't been listening. Most of what we do in the world as we know it is the lesser of two or more evils, not the greater of two or more goods.

[quote="FlashDangerpants"}In short, false dichotomy. The choice isn't between living your best possible life and living no life at all. Most of the time good enough is good enough.

There's no false dichotomy because there's no dichotomy to be called false. I'm surprised that you have come to these false conclusions so soon.

... 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.

The reasoning here, and in the next bit too is specious again. This rubbish about equating movement with life is just another baseless assertion. I reject it, it is stupid. Show me an actual logical reason why I am wrong to do that. There's none to be seen here.

“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.

Bleh.

There are some people who really should not read this book. You might be one of them. I think by the end of the book you would really dislike him and would tear the book up.

The taboo reaction is due, in part, to the pride of those people who consider themselves highly educated scholars at the very top echelon of thought and knowledge. They are more interested in who you are than what you have to say. Before this group will even consent to listen, you must qualify not by what you are prepared to prove in a mathematical manner, but by your educational rank. Do you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give me the time, even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all mankind. This pride is the first half of the primary problem, that the very people who have the intellectual capacity to understand the knowledge in this book refuse to investigate what must reveal, if proven true, how unconsciously ignorant they have always been. Is it any wonder they don’t want to check it out? And even if they do, could they be objective enough when their reputation for wisdom and knowledge is at stake? The need to belabor this point should be obvious. Have you noticed the parallels between the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot be what must not be — the clergymen even refused to simply look through Galileo’s telescope and see for themselves because they were so arrogantly convinced that they held the absolute truth in their hands and thus needed no verification) and today’s self-righteous “church” of “scientificality” with its dogmas?

Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask a question of every reader, but especially of philosophers, professors, and theologians. Is there the slightest possibility that the knowledge you possess does not contain as much truth as you would like to believe? Would you gamble your life or the lives of those you love that you really know, or is there just the remotest chance that you only think you know? What is the standard by which you judge the veracity of your knowledge and wisdom — the fact that it was taught in college? Is your determination of truth based on the fact that it was written by a noted author, composed from your own analysis and understanding, or revealed through heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain, so positive, so dogmatic? Because this book dares to oppose the three forces that control the thinking of mankind — government, religion, and education — the most dangerous thinking of all, the kind that really doesn’t know the truth, as Socrates observed, but presumes to know because of some kind of fallacious standard — I have found it necessary to resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope that I can reach those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated relations involved before another century passes by or an atomic explosion destroys millions of lives.

Now be honest with yourselves; do you really know, or only think you know? If you will admit there is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you — I know this is difficult for you to conceive — I say, if there is the slightest possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourselves, then I cordially welcome your company aboard; otherwise, you had better not read this book, for my words are not meant for your ears. But should you decide to accompany me on this voyage, I would like to remind you once again that this book is not a religious or philosophical tract attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination; it is purely scientific, as you will see, and should the word ‘God’ seem incongruous, kindly remember Spinoza, and you will understand immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a mathematical reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth, war and crime are compelled to take leave of the earth.

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

If I am wrong then just show me instead of telling me. Identify the type of argument and explain the relationship between the premises. A step by step is meaningless. Logical relationships take the form that if p is true and if q is true then pq must be true. That sort of thing please. Flabby narratives about suicide being the only alternative to eating an ice cream are not arguments.

That's not what he said. He said that if there is nothing in life that gives a person a reason to want to live, suicide is sometimes the lesser evil. He was trying to explain that even suicide is in the direction of greater satisfaction if living is considered worse in that person's eyes. You have no understanding at all.

Just because there's no test doesn't mean that a person can be dead and alive at the same time. Death is the opposite of life, and I'm pretty sure when a person is dead, he is not alive. You are incorrect that he didn't prove that we can only move in the direction of what offers greater satisfaction. The only way this will be proven is when it is seen that under the changed environmental conditions a person could never desire hurting another when not to do this gives him greater satisfaction, once again, rendering any other choice an impossibility. If will was free, a person could hurt others regardless of the prevailing conditions. He could choose A (to shoot) or B (not to shoot). He would have the free will to choose either/or without any compulsion in either direction. But this is clearly false and will be proven so when the new world gets here.

[peacegirl]

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.

Even though I wrote in really big red letters ... you did not pay attention :s

It's hard to see what you wrote in big red letters when I click on edit. You'll have to grin and bear it and ask me again if it's important to you. I doubt if it will make a difference because you have closed your mind to anything and everything he's written. I'm not blaming you though. I know you use a certain methodology, and because he doesn't fit into any of them, in your mind, his knowledge is false. But it's not false, that's the irony.

[Atla]

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.

That doesn't imply that we are forced to do what we don't want to do.

[Atla]

if determinism means we are caused by antecedent events, this would mean that we don’t have control because what happened in the past “caused” us to do what we did; that whatever we chose was determined for us, which releases us of all responsibility. This is the elephant in the room

No it doesn't release us, it only does so according to the insane hard determinists (woo determinists as FDP said). How many more times do you need to be told this, before it starts to dawn on you? 100 more times? Stop lying already. Why base a book on a fake elephant.

Responsibility is an everyday macro event in the human world, just like everyday human choices are. It doesn't automatically follow from determinism that we throw out one. All that automatically follows is that there are no free will choices.

The only good idea in the book is that we should look at determinism as flowing from the present not from the past (and a similar view is actually supported by modern physics imo, temporal causality simply doesn't exist in QM imo, time seems to be more like an emergence not fundamental), but then you messed up that too by incorrectly mixing time with timelessness.

[FlashDangerpants]

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?”

This reply fails to address the issue at hand. That is not an additional argument, it is just a layer of storytelling. What is the argument that makes it wrong for me to disagree? The scientific, or mathematical or deductive or whatever argument that establishes that I am actually wrong for not accepting this description of affairs as the truth of the matter? Just some guy saying "everyone is mistaken about choice" does nothing. You like it because you are so well disposed to this story, but the rest of the world DGAF and this story is not changing matters in your favour.

If this description doesn't even sound feasible, I really don't know what else to say. You seem very determined to throw this knowledge in the wastebasket. You can. I don't have more in my toolbox to defend his argument.

Again, you don't offer an argument there. His argument wasn't actually an argument, it was a set of statements bundled together that merely mimics what arguments look like. That's why you can't work out what kind of reasoning any of it amounts to.

Every addition is just another layer of narrative, none of it functions as logic. None of it ever explains why anybody who rejects it is wrong to do so. That's the function of a philosophical argument, and it's just not present in this work.

You're very confused with his reasoning. Never was the best life part of his demonstration. NEVER. You haven't been listening. Most of what we do in the world as we know it is the lesser of two or more evils, not the greater of two or more goods.

[quote="FlashDangerpants"}In short, false dichotomy. The choice isn't between living your best possible life and living no life at all. Most of the time good enough is good enough.

There's no false dichotomy because there's no dichotomy to be called false. I'm surprised that you have come to these false conclusions so soon.

... 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.

The reasoning here, and in the next bit too is specious again. This rubbish about equating movement with life is just another baseless assertion. I reject it, it is stupid. Show me an actual logical reason why I am wrong to do that. There's none to be seen here.






There are some people who really should not read this book. You might be one of them. I think by the end of the book you would really dislike him and would tear the book up.

The taboo reaction is due, in part, to the pride of those people who consider themselves highly educated scholars at the very top echelon of thought and knowledge. They are more interested in who you are than what you have to say. Before this group will even consent to listen, you must qualify not by what you are prepared to prove in a mathematical manner, but by your educational rank. Do you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give me the time, even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all mankind. This pride is the first half of the primary problem, that the very people who have the intellectual capacity to understand the knowledge in this book refuse to investigate what must reveal, if proven true, how unconsciously ignorant they have always been. Is it any wonder they don’t want to check it out? And even if they do, could they be objective enough when their reputation for wisdom and knowledge is at stake? The need to belabor this point should be obvious. Have you noticed the parallels between the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot be what must not be — the clergymen even refused to simply look through Galileo’s telescope and see for themselves because they were so arrogantly convinced that they held the absolute truth in their hands and thus needed no verification) and today’s self-righteous “church” of “scientificality” with its dogmas?

Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask a question of every reader, but especially of philosophers, professors, and theologians. Is there the slightest possibility that the knowledge you possess does not contain as much truth as you would like to believe? Would you gamble your life or the lives of those you love that you really know, or is there just the remotest chance that you only think you know? What is the standard by which you judge the veracity of your knowledge and wisdom — the fact that it was taught in college? Is your determination of truth based on the fact that it was written by a noted author, composed from your own analysis and understanding, or revealed through heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain, so positive, so dogmatic? Because this book dares to oppose the three forces that control the thinking of mankind — government, religion, and education — the most dangerous thinking of all, the kind that really doesn’t know the truth, as Socrates observed, but presumes to know because of some kind of fallacious standard — I have found it necessary to resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope that I can reach those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated relations involved before another century passes by or an atomic explosion destroys millions of lives.

Now be honest with yourselves; do you really know, or only think you know? If you will admit there is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you — I know this is difficult for you to conceive — I say, if there is the slightest possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourselves, then I cordially welcome your company aboard; otherwise, you had better not read this book, for my words are not meant for your ears. But should you decide to accompany me on this voyage, I would like to remind you once again that this book is not a religious or philosophical tract attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination; it is purely scientific, as you will see, and should the word ‘God’ seem incongruous, kindly remember Spinoza, and you will understand immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a mathematical reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth, war and crime are compelled to take leave of the earth.






That's not what he said. He said that if there is nothing in life that gives a person a reason to want to live, suicide is sometimes the lesser evil. He was trying to explain that even suicide is in the direction of greater satisfaction if living is considered worse in that person's eyes. You have no understanding at all.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
You really haven't addressed any of the problems at all here. It's all just whining with you.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's hard to see what you wrote in big red letters when I click on edit.

Are you only reading what other people write as you do your reply?

That would explain a lot.

[peacegirl]

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.

That doesn't imply that we are forced to do what we don't want to do.

It actually does. Look at it again:" The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. This is problematic for lots of people understandably. You need to understand why the tweaking of this inaccurate definition changes everything because it leads to the two-sided equation which reconciles these two opposing schools of thought and brings about the possibility of a world we all want. I haven't asked everyone in the world if they want peace, but I can make that assumption using induction.

[Belinda]

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.

There is no such entity as 'will'. Whatever we do, we do because we have been determined to do it by causal chains through time, prevailing causal circumstances, and laws of nature.

Feeling happy or contented about what we voluntarily choose to do is our good fortune: on some other ,less fortunate , occasions we choose the least bad option.

The way to world peace is by way of reasoning which includes empathy and even sympathy. Whether or not any individual is reasonable, empathetic, and sympathetic is a matter or their personal good or bad fortune.

Reasoning, empathy and even sympathy can be learned and taught. It follows that the way to world peace can be learned and taught.


Reasoning is like; the more we know and the better we evaluate the more we contribute to world peace.

[peacegirl]

if determinism means we are caused by antecedent events, this would mean that we don’t have control because what happened in the past “caused” us to do what we did; that whatever we chose was determined for us, which releases us of all responsibility. This is the elephant in the room

No it doesn't release us, it only does so according to the insane hard determinists (woo determinists as FDP said). How many more times do you need to be told this, before it starts to dawn on you? 100 more times? Stop lying already. Why base a book on a fake elephant.

Because it's not fake. It has been a problem in this debate for thousands of years. If will is not free, how can we blame anyone for what they are compelled to do. Punishment is a partial deterrent, and there are good reasons for blame and punishment in today's world, but it still does not answer the question as to why many philosophers could not get past the implications. They turned back to free will because they could not see how we could not blame and punish if will was not free. That IS the elephant in the room and the crux of the problem. Compatibilism has tried to do this very thing by making it appear that these two ideologies are compatible, but they did not accomplish this. All they did was to create a fake definition of free will, allowing people to be blamed as long as they were not addicts, didn't have OCD, or didn't have a gun to their head. My hope is that soon you'll see that this is a genuine discovery. I have had many years studying this, and you've only had a few days.

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.

Responsibility is an everyday macro event in the human world, just like everyday human choices are. It doesn't automatically follow from determinism that we throw out one. All that automatically follows is that there are no free will choices.

You're right, it doesn't if we don't understand the two-sided equation. We can't throw out punishment or people would grab anything that wasn't nailed down. That is why you need to be patient to see how this thing plays out.

The only good idea in the book is that we should look at determinism as flowing from the present not from the past (and a similar view is actually supported by modern physics imo, temporal causality simply doesn't exist in QM imo, time seems to be more like an emergence not fundamental), but then you messed up that too by incorrectly mixing time with timelessness.

The eternal present means that time is not a dimension like space. That is why animals live only in the present. They know nothing of the past because they don't have the ability to access what happened in their brains to make the connections that humans can. Where did I get time and timelessness mixed up? We can think of the past and project what may happen in the future, but the reality is that all we have is the present. We use the past to live our lives which is why the memory part of our brains are so important and give us our humanity, for without it, we would not be able to connect past experiences with what is happening in the here and now in order to make better decisions.

The concepts of time and timelessness are often intertwined in discussions about existence and perception.

Time is generally understood as a linear progression of events, where past, present, and future are sequentially arranged.

1 Timelessness, on the other hand, refers to the idea that there is a non-linear, eternal reality beyond the constraints of time.

2 Carl Jung's theories suggest that understanding timelessness allows for a deeper appreciation of our experiences, transcending the limitations of linear time.

2 Philosophically, timelessness is often associated with concepts like synchronicity, where events occur in a non-linear, interconnected manner, suggesting that past, present, and future can coexist simultaneously.

2 These ideas highlight the complexity of time and its relationship with the concept of timelessness, inviting deeper philosophical and spiritual explorations.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

That doesn't imply that we are forced to do what we don't want to do.

It actually does.

No it doesn't. You are not familiar with the works of any philosopher in this field at all are you?