New Discovery

[Age]

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

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

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

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

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

What 'we' have, here, is another prime example of when another one does not 'see' 'the same' as one does, then it is only 'the other one' who is not seeing clearly.

[Age]

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



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

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

Why is there a question mark here...

You still don’t understand that although we are subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe in that we could not do otherwise?

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

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

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

We are, that's why man's will is not free,

Why is it only 'man's will' that is, supposedly, not free?

but determinism has no power to force a choice on us that we don't want to make.

And, to some anyway, the words 'free will' mean and/or refer to, the ability to choose. Therefore meaning that both 'free will', and, 'determinism', exist.

Having 'the ability to choose' is means 'human beings' will' is free. Human being are absolutely free to choose/make a choice/s. However, and obviously what they have an ability to 'choose from' is limited, and clearly depended upon past experiences, which is more or less just 'determinism', itself.

But, you are obviously 'free' to choose to believe otherwise, or not as well.

This is the crux of the problem and where his tweaking of the definition makes things much clearer.

If 'that tweaking of the definition' is, supposedly, making things much clearer, then why are others, and you, not seeing things clearly, here?

Also, what even is the so-called 'problem', here, exactly?

[peacegirl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes please, let's.

I need to explain why man's will is not free, according to Lessans. I will cut and paste portions of the text and if you have questions as we go along, I'll try to answer them. That's the best I can do without exerting an inordinate amount of energy to answer questions that would have been answered in the text itself if it was read carefully. Actually, I will continue to post the second principle that, when brought together with the first, creates the Two-Sided Equation --- the core of the discovery.

[peacegirl]

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

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

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

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

[peacegirl]

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.

To give you a more familiar example, if it were possible that B could be selected even though A was the desirable choice, it would permit a woman to spend on a dress she doesn’t prefer when a dress she does prefer is available, or to pick from a selection of dresses the one she finds the least desirable. Let us imagine for a moment that this woman is late for a business meeting and must quickly choose between one of two dresses. If both are undesirable, she is compelled to select the dress that is the least undesirable of the two; consequently, her choice in this comparison is the preferable alternative. Obviously, she has other options; she could leave both dresses and wear something from home, continue to shop and call in late, etc. This is a hypothetical situation for the purpose of demonstrating that once she decides to buy a dress as a solution to her problem — regardless of the factors that contribute to her final decision — she is compelled to prefer the dress that gives every indication of being the best possible choice under the circumstances. For example, if cost is an important consideration, she may desire to buy the less expensive dress because it fits within her price range, and though she would find great satisfaction seeing herself in the more expensive dress, she finds greater satisfaction choosing the dress that appeals to her the least. Therefore, her preference is based on what is “good” for her in comparison to the “evil” of being short of money. This is where there could be some misunderstanding. Moving toward greater satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied; it just means that we are compelled to prefer what we believe to be the best possible choice of the options that are available to us. [Note: This also does not mean we have considered all possible options, only those that have come to mind or have been brought to our attention at any given moment in time. Nor does it mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability of choices depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social factors.] After coming home, she may have a change of heart and wish she had splurged on the more expensive dress. She may decide to go back to the store to make an exchange, or she may decide to just keep the dress because returning it involves too much time and effort making this the least preferable choice. Each moment offers a new set of alternatives, but always in the direction of greater satisfaction.

“Is that it? You mean there is nothing else, and this is supposed to satisfy me? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that other people are just as confused as me. Frankly, you could never prove by me that man’s will is not free simply because I can’t follow your reasoning. Isn’t there something else you can add to prove your equation, just as we can prove that two from six leaves four because four plus two equals six?”

[peacegirl]

To satisfy you, I shall put this to a mathematical test for further proof and clarification. Imagine that you were taken prisoner in wartime for espionage and condemned to death but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference that is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take, which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, provided no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?”

“No, I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”

"You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be chosen over something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control. Let me explain this in another way. Once it is understood that life is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and if two such alternatives were presented to you as in the example above, what choice would you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils? Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled, completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer A? And since the definition of free will states that man can choose good over 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 since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not be selected in this comparison of possibilities?

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?"

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘It makes no difference’?”

"Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice.

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied with things that I have done, and at that exact moment, isn’t it obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example of this. Go ahead and try.”

[peacegirl]

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red; consequently, my taste lies in the direction of the latter, which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this, I am going to eat it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied and prefer the yellow apple, I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”
In response to this demonstration, isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment of time gave you greater satisfaction; otherwise, you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow one? The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove a point; therefore, it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice (because it gave you less satisfaction under the circumstances), you were not free to choose A.

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction; otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life, pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment, and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

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.”

[Age]

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

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

In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature.

Here is 'another' who believes, absolutely, that the Universe began.

It is like 'they' have no ability to see, nor choose. 'they' just accept and agree with what they are told, and taught. It is like 'they' have absolutely no 'free will' at all, and are complete and utterly pre-determined beings.

Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop.

What are 'you' even on about, here, exactly?

you human beings 'have the ability to choose', And, when the words 'free will' are being defined as, 'having the ability to choose', then you human beings have 'free will'. End of story.

The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil.

And, you human beings will also have the ability to, consciously, choose between good and evil, once you have also evolved enough to, consciously, know what the actually difference is between good and evil.

Until then you are, still, just in a state of learning, from your mistakes and Wrong doings.

In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free?

you adults have done worse. you kill people does for having different thoughts.

To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control.

And, at every waking moment you adult human beings do 'have the ability to choose', 'another alternative'.

Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found.

1. Why do you believe that your so-called 'discovery' had never been found previously?

2. If 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' was developed because you adults started believing that you could punish each other in 'any way', then this would be because you have the ability of 'being able to choose', how to punish.

3. Also, one can not be given a choice, if there are no choices.

No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point?

The solution to 'what', exactly?

How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions?

Well considering no one else besides you adult human beings, do these things, then it is obvious that only you are to blame/responsible.

Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature?

Why do you keep asking 'leading questions', here? Why not just ask Truly open 'clarifying questions', instead?

Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel?

If you want to speak untruths, then you will continue to be misunderstood.

What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true.

But, 'it' is not a theory, and, 'it' has already been proved True.

[FlashDangerpants]

Hmmm. Currently I am happy to stipulate to:

Determinism. Seemingly this is to be incompatibilist hard determinism - under which theory it is further stipulated that 'ought implies can', or in other words there is no means to direct blame or praise to those whose actions are guided entirely by inescapable material causation. Somewhere further down the line apparently this circle will be squared by clever argument that restores those missing things.

Causal Motive Forces. Normally this would go without saying, but seemingly we are required to make a special note of the role of motivation in "moving" creatures away from what they find unsatisfying towards greater satisfaction. Presumably this is somehow key to the aforementioned transformation. Consider this also stipulated.

Hopefully Lessan's own arguments on behalf of these things are moot if we stipulate to the outcomes of them. I can be a determinist based on arguments of Churchland or Fischer, and I can throw in the incompatibilism easily enough, as its the intuitive default.

But erm, that "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" .... yeesh. Let's just not with that bit please.

I similarly propose to politely skip over the bit about free will implying preferences for non-preferred things. It's hopefully not necessary to the big discovery yet to come. And the dress shopping example. And the head in the bucket.

None of these matters, determinism is stipulated, as is that everybody is motivated to pursue ends and by definition those ends which they pursue are the ones they take to be the best.

But I have to add one more thing.....

“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.”

That's what I'm talking about when I say he uses his fictional counterpart to pitch himself the softest possible balls.

[peacegirl]

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

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

In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature.

Here is 'another' who believes, absolutely, that the Universe began.

That statement was not here nor there. It was not meant to be literal at all. Maybe the universe did not begin then. It doesn't change what he was demonstrating.

It is like 'they' have no ability to see, nor choose. 'they' just accept and agree with what they are told, and taught. It is like 'they' have absolutely no 'free will' at all, and are complete and utterly pre-determined beings.

This is hard. We are not predetermined beings before we make a choice. Looking back, yes, we could not have done otherwise.

Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop.

What are 'you' even on about, here, exactly?[/qupte]

Why free will continues to be a prominant belief.
As sad as it is, you won in an unfair advantage. I cannot go on. Tnank you for saving me lots of energy when nothing he would say would make a difference. Dissecting this knowledge with these crazy conclusions indicates to me that you have not only not studied this work but did not read it with a fine-tooth comb. You have done a disservice to this thread. You are not god's gift to knowledge flash. Thank you for letting me know where you stand. This will save me time unless someone else comes forward and shows interest.

[peacegirl]

Where do I sign up?

Luckily, for a small monthly fee you can receive enlightenment via a an inexpensive email based highly affordable self-improvement course, at very reasonable prices.

But first I believe you have to buy the starter pack

Check out the review: ★☆☆☆☆ The Plan 9 From Outerspace of Books. Who could possibly resist?

He lied. Why are you trusting some troll on the internet that never bought the book? You are right in that you should not read it which is laughably $1.95, not a self-improvement course. Oh, the irony!

[FlashDangerpants]

Hmmm. Currently I am happy to stipulate to:

Determinism. Seemingly this is to be incompatibilist hard determinism - under which theory it is further stipulated that 'ought implies can', or in other words there is no means to direct blame or praise to those whose actions are guided entirely by inescapable material causation. Somewhere further down the line apparently this circle will be squared by clever argument that restores those missing things.

Causal Motive Forces. Normally this would go without saying, but seemingly we are required to make a special note of the role of motivation in "moving" creatures away from what they find unsatisfying towards greater satisfaction. Presumably this is somehow key to the aforementioned transformation. Consider this also stipulated.

Hopefully Lessan's own arguments on behalf of these things are moot if we stipulate to the outcomes of them. I can be a determinist based on arguments of Churchland or Fischer, and I can throw in the incompatibilism easily enough, as its the intuitive default.

But erm, that "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" .... yeesh. Let's just not with that bit please.

I similarly propose to politely skip over the bit about free will implying preferences for non-preferred things. It's hopefully not necessary to the big discovery yet to come. And the dress shopping example. And the head in the bucket.

None of these matters, determinism is stipulated, as is that everybody is motivated to pursue ends and by definition those ends which they pursue are the ones they take to be the best.

But I have to add one more thing.....

“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.”

That's what I'm talking about when I say he uses his fictional counterpart to pitch himself the softest possible balls.

[peacegirl]

Hmmm. Currently I am happy to stipulate to:

Determinism. Seemingly this is to be incompatibilist hard determinism - under which theory it is further stipulated that 'ought implies can', or in other words there is no means to direct blame or praise to those whose actions are guided entirely by inescapable material causation. Somewhere further down the line apparently this circle will be squared by clever argument that restores those missing things.

Causal Motive Forces. Normally this would go without saying, but seemingly we are required to make a special note of the role of motivation in "moving" creatures away from what they find unsatisfying towards greater satisfaction. Presumably this is somehow key to the aforementioned transformation. Consider this also stipulated.

Hopefully Lessan's own arguments on behalf of these things are moot if we stipulate to the outcomes of them. I can be a determinist based on arguments of Churchland or Fischer, and I can throw in the incompatibilism easily enough, as its the intuitive default.

But erm, that "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" .... yeesh. Let's just not with that bit please.

I similarly propose to politely skip over the bit about free will implying preferences for non-preferred things. It's hopefully not necessary to the big discovery yet to come. And the dress shopping example. And the head in the bucket.

None of these matters, determinism is stipulated, as is that everybody is motivated to pursue ends and by definition those ends which they pursue are the ones they take to be the best.

But I have to add one more thing.....

“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.”

That's what I'm talking about when I say he uses his fictional counterpart to pitch himself the softest possible balls.

It’s too easy to criticize when I barely started. If you think he’s wrong, so be it. Anyone who is interested in the book can read the first 3 chapters which I offered. That’s really all I have to say.

[FlashDangerpants]

Hmmm. Currently I am happy to stipulate to:

Determinism. Seemingly this is to be incompatibilist hard determinism - under which theory it is further stipulated that 'ought implies can', or in other words there is no means to direct blame or praise to those whose actions are guided entirely by inescapable material causation. Somewhere further down the line apparently this circle will be squared by clever argument that restores those missing things.

Causal Motive Forces. Normally this would go without saying, but seemingly we are required to make a special note of the role of motivation in "moving" creatures away from what they find unsatisfying towards greater satisfaction. Presumably this is somehow key to the aforementioned transformation. Consider this also stipulated.

Hopefully Lessan's own arguments on behalf of these things are moot if we stipulate to the outcomes of them. I can be a determinist based on arguments of Churchland or Fischer, and I can throw in the incompatibilism easily enough, as its the intuitive default.

But erm, that "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" .... yeesh. Let's just not with that bit please.

I similarly propose to politely skip over the bit about free will implying preferences for non-preferred things. It's hopefully not necessary to the big discovery yet to come. And the dress shopping example. And the head in the bucket.

None of these matters, determinism is stipulated, as is that everybody is motivated to pursue ends and by definition those ends which they pursue are the ones they take to be the best.

But I have to add one more thing.....

“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.”

That's what I'm talking about when I say he uses his fictional counterpart to pitch himself the softest possible balls.

It’s too easy to criticize when I barely started. If you think he’s wrong, so be it. Anyone who is interested in the book can read the first 3 chapters which I offered. That’s really all I have to say.

I have agreed to stipulate to all of your conclusions thus far.

Are you saying that you can only explain the reasoning of your case to those who are infatuated with the unnecessary details of the supporting case?

[peacegirl]

Hmmm. Currently I am happy to stipulate to:

Determinism. Seemingly this is to be incompatibilist hard determinism - under which theory it is further stipulated that 'ought implies can', or in other words there is no means to direct blame or praise to those whose actions are guided entirely by inescapable material causation. Somewhere further down the line apparently this circle will be squared by clever argument that restores those missing things.

Peacegirl: PLEASE EXPLAIN what 'ought implies can' means. And what do you mean by "clever argument that restores those missing things." What things?


Causal Motive Forces. Normally this would go without saying, but seemingly we are required to make a special note of the role of motivation in "moving" creatures away from what they find unsatisfying towards greater satisfaction. Presumably this is somehow key to the aforementioned transformation. Consider this also stipulated.

There is a stipulation based on what comes next, which was not shown yet. Your impatience is ruining it for everyone because now I'm losing patience.

Hopefully Lessan's own arguments on behalf of these things are moot if we stipulate to the outcomes of them. I can be a determinist based on arguments of Churchland or Fischer, and I can throw in the incompatibilism easily enough, as its the intuitive default.

Yes, it is a default but it is defined in a way that allows him to show the other side of this equation. That's why he wrote:

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.

But erm, that "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" .... yeesh. Let's just not with that bit please.

You cannot tell me to change his wording. He made a distinction between mathematical, theoretical, and scientific AND opinion, theory, and hypothesis. He uses the word "mathematical" throughout the book. You will hate reading it so it's best you don't.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the “exact sciences” in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

I similarly propose to politely skip over the bit about free will implying preferences for non-preferred things. It's hopefully not necessary to the big discovery yet to come.

You are making all kinds of conjectures, and so early in the discussion.

And the dress shopping example. And the head in the bucket.

So you didn't like that example. Oh well. Please explain how "head in the bucket" relates.

None of these matters, determinism is stipulated, as is that everybody is motivated to pursue ends and by definition those ends which they pursue are the ones they take to be the best.

You may get that part, but not everybody does. Sometimes our options are so limited that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction doesn't seem to be correct. It would seem we are moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, which he was trying to show is not possible. Even suicide is moving in the direction of satisfaction when life appears less satisfying.

But I have to add one more thing.....

“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.”

That's what I'm talking about when I say he uses his fictional counterpart to pitch himself the softest possible balls.

What does "pitch himself the softest possible balls?" mean in this context? He tried to make it as reader friendly as possible. He was explaining that we are free to choose, but once the choice is made, it could never have been otherwise. There was nothing wrong with his dialogue. In fact, it was the easiest way to get his concepts across. You are too quick to criticize the form of his writing, which you really need to work on.