New Discovery

[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.

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.

Are you trying to communicate with peacegirl or just randomly spamming irrelevant nonsense at me?

[peacegirl]

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?

Why the obvious put down, as if I have to discuss every philosopher that ever existed to prove that he was right all along. Do you actually think he did not know these theories on free will and determinism? Do you think he skipped over all of the philosophers that came before him? You're out of your mind.

Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists.] When first hearing this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit, bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relations) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it.

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

[Belinda]

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.

Are you trying to communicate with peacegirl or just randomly spamming irrelevant nonsense at me?

Just joining in the discussion.There is nothing to take offence at.

[peacegirl]

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.

Are you trying to communicate with peacegirl or just randomly spamming irrelevant nonsense at me?

Even though she does not know how the discovery can change our entire world for the better, she is on the right track. Deal with it FlashDangerpants. You seem to be offended that anyone dare disagree with you. A healthy give and take is the very foundation of what philosophy is supposed to be about.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Are you trying to communicate with peacegirl or just randomly spamming irrelevant nonsense at me?

Just joining in the discussion.There is nothing to take offence at.

I'm not offended, I am just wondering if you hit reply on the wrong post or something? Most of that stuff is of no interest to me and doesn't refer to anything I have written, but your posts tend to have that flavour.

[FlashDangerpants]

Even though she does not know how the discovery can change our entire world for the better, she is on the right track.

Yeah yeah yeah, whatever. You can probably sell your rubbish to Belinda and Fairy, I just don't see much point using me as the middleman for that.

[FlashDangerpants]

It actually does.

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

Why the obvious put down, as if I have to discuss every philosopher that ever existed to prove that he was right all along. Do you actually think he did not know these theories on free will and determinism? Do you think he skipped over all of the philosophers that came before him? You're out of your mind.
[/i]

He left school at 14 and repeatedly references one specific "philosopher" as the guy who speaks against determinism. I forget the name, but that guy is just a writer of a couple of history of philosophy books for the Reader's Digest crowd in the 30s and is utterly forgotten today.

So yeah, I don't think your dad knew a lot about philosophy, and when I mentioned a very influential yet not actually important paper from the 1960s by Strawson at the start of this thread your response was to ask ChatGPT how to argue against Strawson. So no, I don't think you are any better.

So yes please. Rather than saying "the philosophers" all think that determinism means we are forced to act against our will, even though everyone here disagrees with that assessment, tell us which philosophers you are actually speaking against so that we can compare findings without bullshitting each other.

[peacegirl]

Even though she does not know how the discovery can change our entire world for the better, she is on the right track.

Yeah yeah yeah, whatever. You can probably sell your rubbish to Belinda and Fairy, I just don't see much point using me as the middleman for that.

Maybe you didn't vote to be the middleman, but you have become the middleman by default. Yow have become the nemesis for good reason, because you are stating emphatically that this knowledge is nonsense, which is extremely myopic. This thread may go by the wayside if you, Atla and even Age don't participate because most people are not sure who is right and therefore don't want to inject their opinions. They would rather take a backseat and watch from afar.

[FlashDangerpants]

Maybe you didn't vote to be the middleman, but you have become the middleman by default. Yow have become the nemesis for good reason, because you are stating emphatically that this knowledge is nonsense, which is extremely myopic.

I have been stating emphatically that your arguments are bad. They lack structure and nothing much links premises to conclusions other than a position you give them in a story. The "knowledge" that you intended to convey (sell) is neither here nor there, most of it concealed behind your paywall.

What is being rejected is your arguments. Until you understand that you can never improve them. And you really need to improve a lot if you don't want this book to die when you do.

This thread may go by the wayside if you, Atla and even Age don't participate because most people are not sure who is right and therefore don't want to inject their opinions. They would rather take a backseat and watch from afar.

You think there's a silent majority who are tempted by your wisdom but afraid of little old Flash and Atla? That's funny. You're funny you are.

[peacegirl]

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

Why the obvious put down, as if I have to discuss every philosopher that ever existed to prove that he was right all along. Do you actually think he did not know these theories on free will and determinism? Do you think he skipped over all of the philosophers that came before him? You're out of your mind.
[/i]

He left school at 14 and repeatedly references one specific "philosopher" as the guy who speaks against determinism. I forget the name, but that guy is just a writer of a couple of history of philosophy books for the Reader's Digest crowd in the 30s and is utterly forgotten today.

So yeah, I don't think your dad knew a lot about philosophy, and when I mentioned a very influential yet not actually important paper from the 1960s by Strawson at the start of this thread your response was to ask ChatGPT how to argue against Strawson. So no, I don't think you are any better.

So yes please. Rather than saying "the philosophers" all think that determinism means we are forced to act against our will, even though everyone here disagrees with that assessment, tell us which philosophers you are actually speaking against so that we can compare findings without bullshitting each other.

This isn't even about particular philosophers and debating them individually. It is a definition that many people use, which states that determinism bypasses the will of the individual. Determinism, as defined in many philosophical circles, may include the will of the individual, but this definition is also problematic for the reasons given. Determinism, according to the present definition, implies we are caused by previous events to do what we do, which was corrected by Lessans since nothing from the past can cause anything if the past is not here. This tweaking of the definition is not only more accurate but leads to reconciling these two opposing ideologies without causing a contradiction by saying determinism and free will are compatible.

[peacegirl]

Maybe you didn't vote to be the middleman, but you have become the middleman by default. Yow have become the nemesis for good reason, because you are stating emphatically that this knowledge is nonsense, which is extremely myopic.

I have been stating emphatically that your arguments are bad. They lack structure and nothing much links premises to conclusions other than a position you give them in a story. The "knowledge" that you intended to convey (sell) is neither here nor there, most of it concealed behind your paywall.

You are not correct. You are using what you call "structure" to fit him into a mold that you believe must be followed. The irony here is that he was the most careful and astute observer, and because he didn't do it your way, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He did connect premises with conclusions, but you're failing to see it. And the crazy part of all of this is we haven't even gotten to the discovery.

What is being rejected is your arguments. Until you understand that you can never improve them. And you really need to improve a lot if you don't want this book to die when you do.

There is no way I'm redoing the book. I have faith that it won't die, but I've done my part regardless. Now it's up to people who see the soundness of his writing. You haven't even understood how the extension of Chapter Two (the two-sided equation) leads to a world of peace, so you really can't speak to the ability of this knowledge to fulfill its claims.

This thread may go by the wayside if you, Atla and even Age don't participate because most people are not sure who is right and therefore don't want to inject their opinions. They would rather take a backseat and watch from afar.

You think there's a silent majority who are tempted by your wisdom but afraid of little old Flash and Atla? That's funny. You're funny you are.

I have no idea. It just could be that this is a difficult subject and people don't want to interfere with a dialogue already going on. Regardless, you are here, and they are not, so you are who I'm stuck with.

[FlashDangerpants]

He did connect premises with conclusions, but you're failing to see it.

If that's true, please show me a simple list of them. Premise 1, premise 2, conclusion.

Then we can get to the bottom of what sort of reasoning is being used to link them.

And then you will finally have answered a question.

[peacegirl]

He did connect premises with conclusions, but you're failing to see it.

If that's true, please show me a simple list of them. Premise 1, premise 2, conclusion.

Then we can get to the bottom of what sort of reasoning is being used to link them.

And then you will finally have answered a question.

premise 1. Man's will is not free because we are always moving in the direction of what offers greater satisfaction from moment to moment. (YOU DISGARDED THIS BECAUSE IN YOUR MIND IT'S USELESS, SO WHAT'S THE POINT?)

Premise 2: Although will is not free, nothing can make a person do anything against his will. (THIS WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP)

There is no conclusion yet. These two principles lead to the discovery.

Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality. The truth of the matter is that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is beneficial or harmful to oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life, but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the lesser of two evils, which gave him greater satisfaction.

Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying. For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off, he has three possibilities: commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what he needs to survive, he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill, and do any number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things. All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does not yet remove the implications.

The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO, since absolutely nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point. Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people, and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even though he constantly faced the possibility of death. But this doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face death than to forgo his fight for freedom. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being forced to do something against his will. What he actually meant was that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable, so rather than continue suffering this way, he preferred, as the lesser of two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this because he wanted to, not because some external force made him do this against his will. If by talking he knew that someone he loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did, but he wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature allows absolute control — and that his will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will reveal a third invariable law, the discovery to which reference has been made.

[Atla]

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.

That doesn't imply that we are forced to do what we don't want to do. It says that our wants and actions were determined in an arbitrarily distant past, say before humans even existed.

Okay I admit that "external" is too ambiguous here. If it can refer to the present, then according to this definition, physical laws aren't deterministic.

[FlashDangerpants]

He did connect premises with conclusions, but you're failing to see it.

If that's true, please show me a simple list of them. Premise 1, premise 2, conclusion.

Then we can get to the bottom of what sort of reasoning is being used to link them.

And then you will finally have answered a question.

premise 1. Man's will is not free because we are always moving in the direction of what offers greater satisfaction from moment to moment. (YOU DISGARDED THIS BECAUSE IN YOUR MIND IT'S USELESS, SO WHAT'S THE POINT?)

Premise 2: Although will is not free, nothing can make a person do anything against his will. (THIS WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP)

There is no conclusion yet. These two principles lead to the discovery.

That's not an argument with premises and conclusion.

If premise 1 is contested at present that doesn't prevent you from establishing a valid argument (one in which the conclusion must true if the premises are true), it merely interrupts the arrival of a sound argument (same as before but in which the premises are demonstrated true and thus the conclusion is now known to be true).

So please try again.