The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 8:39 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 1:07 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 12:02 pm

Your metaphor "two sided equation" does not fit with my scant mathematical knowledge. I did algebra at school but was never good at it. I think there were bilateral equations but I have long since forgotten what they were. Can you give me another metaphor? Or maybe say literally what you mean.


For the rest of my reply, I did gather this was not, nor intended to be ,a scholarly book. But that is okay by me as long as the author does not pretend his writings are scholarly.

BELINDA: I think a popular book that combines science and philosophy can have value despite its not being scholarly. That is not the problem . The problem is mainly the extraordinary claim that people will stop harming each other.

PEACEGIRL: But it's true. What can I say? It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I know this doesn't come along often, or even at all, but that does not mean that every extraordinary claim cannot be true.

BELINDA: You must be aware that this claim has been made before, conditionally, not usually as a predetermined conclusion. I encountered a belief in ages of man's evolution , ages that are named after metals.

The “Age of Gold” (from Hesiod’s Works and Days) began as a myth of a lost primordial harmony, when humans lived effortlessly in justice and abundance under divine order. Versions appear across Indo-European traditions (Vedic Satya Yuga, Norse Gullaldr, etc.) and later merged with Edenic imagery in biblical thought.

Over time, this cyclical view — where history inevitably declines from perfection — came to express a kind of cosmic determinism: humanity moves through preordained ages governed by fate, not by human choice. In modern eras, thinkers inverted this fatalism, imagining a future Golden Age achievable through reason or progress, but the deterministic pattern of rise and decline remained embedded in the myth’s structure.
(ChatGPT)

PEACEGIRL: All of these explanations had their place in history as we are evolving, but this discovery is not myth, nor is it fatalism. I'm not sure why you are comparing the many different beliefs, myths, and narratives throughout history with this discovery, as if it's just another story. It isn't.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 9:06 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 1:07 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 12:02 pm

Your metaphor "two sided equation" does not fit with my scant mathematical knowledge. I did algebra at school but was never good at it. I think there were bilateral equations but I have long since forgotten what they were. Can you give me another metaphor? Or maybe say literally what you mean.

Analogy is not equation.
A part of a mathematical equation would be nonsensical. The mathematical equation is complete or else it is meaningless. A simple mathematical equation is 2+2=4.

PEACEGIRL: You are right. It would be meaningless, which is why Chatgpt gave half of his equation, which made it meaningless.

BELINDA: Determinism means what happens in the future is caused . An equation is uncaused.

PEACEGIRL: First of all, he redefined determinism to be more accurate. The past does not cause the present because the past does not exist. We live in the present, so when you say that determinism causes, that is incorrect. Nothing from the past can cause us to do anything. Again, that is why he tweaked the definition to be more accurate. You were very perceptive when you said an equation is uncaused. He even clarified that two plus two does not cause four. It is that already. The same goes for the two-sided equation.

BELINDA: Peacegirl wrote:

Is not an equation it is a disjunctive.

PEACEGIRL: I did not write "it is not an equation it is a disjunctive."

BELINDA: Besides, man is responsible despite that what he does is caused by matters beyond his control. This is because a free man is a man who voluntarily shoulders responsibility for himself.

PEACEGIRL: No Belinda. That is a contradiction. If something is beyond his control, it cannot be within his control. You seem to be defining "a free man" as a man who has freedom of the will." These two words are not synonymous. A free man (your definition here) does not necessarily shoulder responsibility for himself if by shouldering that responsibility, he is reprimanded and possibly given severe consequences. That is why people often try to shift their responsibility to something or someone else so as not to take the blame. In the new world, a man will have no choice but to take responsibility for himself, which you don't seem to understand in the slightest because you haven't read a thing.

To make sure we are on the same page, here is the definition of free will used in the free will/determinism debate.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose 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?

BELINDA: I'm inclined to give Lessans top marks for trying. Unfortunately sometimes we fail despite our best efforts.

PEACEGIRL: That is very nice of you, but he deserves a lot more than top marks for trying because he did not fail.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:06 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 8:39 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 1:07 pm

BELINDA: I think a popular book that combines science and philosophy can have value despite its not being scholarly. That is not the problem . The problem is mainly the extraordinary claim that people will stop harming each other.

PEACEGIRL: But it's true. What can I say? It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I know this doesn't come along often, or even at all, but that does not mean that every extraordinary claim cannot be true.

BELINDA: You must be aware that this claim has been made before, conditionally, not usually as a predetermined conclusion. I encountered a belief in ages of man's evolution , ages that are named after metals.

The “Age of Gold” (from Hesiod’s Works and Days) began as a myth of a lost primordial harmony, when humans lived effortlessly in justice and abundance under divine order. Versions appear across Indo-European traditions (Vedic Satya Yuga, Norse Gullaldr, etc.) and later merged with Edenic imagery in biblical thought.

Over time, this cyclical view — where history inevitably declines from perfection — came to express a kind of cosmic determinism: humanity moves through preordained ages governed by fate, not by human choice. In modern eras, thinkers inverted this fatalism, imagining a future Golden Age achievable through reason or progress, but the deterministic pattern of rise and decline remained embedded in the myth’s structure.
(ChatGPT)

PEACEGIRL: All of these explanations had their place in history as we are evolving, but this discovery is not myth, nor is it fatalism. I'm not sure why you are comparing the many different beliefs, myths, and narratives throughout history with this discovery, as if it's just another story. It isn't.

"Just another story" ! This book is in narrative form therefore it's a story. Any deterministic account is narrative .
'Myth' is often used as you do----an old or new story that is not true. I was not using 'myth' in that sense. Myths actually are ageless accounts of the human condition, not trivial stories but important stories that mean something that applies generally to human life.

PEACEGIRL: No Belinda. You are creating a contradiction. If something is beyond his control, it cannot be within his control. A free man does not necessarily shoulder responsibility for himself. That is what is hoped for, but it doesn't always occur. In the new world, a man will have no choice but to take responsibility for himself, which you don't understand because you haven't read the book.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:18 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:06 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 8:39 pm

"Just another story" ! This book is in narrative form therefore it's a story. Any deterministic account is narrative .

Peacegirl: A deterministic account is not narrative as in a story. This is getting ridiculous.

PEACEGIRL: How can it be anything but narrative?

BELINDA: 'Myth' is often used as you do----an old or new story that is not true. I was not using 'myth' in that sense. Myths actually are ageless accounts of the human condition, not trivial stories but important stories that mean something that applies generally to human life.

PEACEGIRL: Myths are wonderful ways to explain the human condition. But this discovery is not a myth; it is not a story; and it is not a narrative. You're going to have to do better than this. How can I talk to someone in all seriousness who has no idea what the discovery is? The unfortunate part in all of this is that you don't seem to care. How can anyone disagree with someone's writing without reading or understanding what he wrote?

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:29 am Peacegirl wrote:

PEACEGIRL: No Belinda. You are creating a contradiction. If something is beyond his control, it cannot be within his control. A free man does not necessarily shoulder responsibility for himself. That is what is hoped for, but it doesn't always occur. In the new world, a man will have no choice but to take responsibility for himself, which you don't understand because you haven't read the book.

I don't have to read any more books to understand that freedom and responsibility are linked by the same cause. The more free a man is the more responsibility he can and should take. The converse is that the less free a man is the less responsibility he can and should take.

In the "new world" you praise so much is a man free , or is he caused to be what he is by fate?

You have claimed that a deterministic process will lead inevitably to the "new world". Your "new world" is therefore not a place that would be full of free agents.

Freedom relates to levels of agency.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:08 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:18 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:06 pm

PEACEGIRL: Myths are wonderful ways to explain the human condition. But this discovery is not a myth; it is not a story; and it is not a narrative. You're going to have to do better than this. How can I talk to someone in all seriousness who has no idea what the discovery is? The unfortunate part in all of this is that you don't seem to care. How can anyone disagree with someone's writing without reading or understanding what he wrote?

True, but it's your account of the author's narrative that I find interesting. Some of things you say make me think again, which I like to do. In my real life few people wan to discuss difficult philosophical ideas.

If Lessans's book is not narrative what is it?

A narrative book moves through a sequence — it tells or explains something step by step.
A non-narrative book is organized by topic or category — it lays things out side by side, not as a story or unfolding argument.

I presumed Lessans's book was the former, explaining something step by step.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 9:27 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:08 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:18 am
True, but it's your account of the author's narrative that I find interesting. Some of things you say make me think again, which I like to do. In my real life few people wan to discuss difficult philosophical ideas.

If Lessans's book is not narrative what is it?

A narrative book moves through a sequence — it tells or explains something step by step.
A non-narrative book is organized by topic or category — it lays things out side by side, not as a story or unfolding argument.

I presumed Lessans's book was the former, explaining something step by step.

I have always thought of a narrative or story to mean that it’s a fictional account of something. Since the definition includes nonfiction, I can accept that it’s a narrative as long as it is considered another way (other than an argument) of presenting factual material and not diminished or thought of as an inferior method of proof that has created a lack of interest.

https://celadonbooks.com/what-is-narrative-nonfiction/

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 11:41 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 9:27 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:08 am

I have always thought of a narrative or story to mean that it’s a fictional account of something. Since the definition includes nonfiction, I can accept that it’s a narrative as long as it is considered another way (other than an argument) of presenting factual material and not diminished or thought of as an inferior method of proof that has created a lack of interest.

https://celadonbooks.com/what-is-narrative-nonfiction/

A history book is a narrative as it tells a sequence of events through time. A book that for instance describes species of trees, or for instance describes makes of automobiles is not a narrative. A mathematics book is not a narrative. A chemistry book is not a narrative , however a book that tells the history of chemistry is a narrative.

If Lessans's book tells the development of mankind over time it's a narrative.
If Lessans's book describes what mankind will be sometime in the future it's not a narrative.

The problem I have with taking Lessans's book seriously is that he seems to believe that there will be end of history when mankind has become cooperative, loving, and peaceful. End of history explanations have been done before . End of history theories depend upon absence of wild cards from the natural environment. But there always are wild cards, and determinism does not imply prediction.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:45 pm If this doesn’t show our very basic humanity toward each other when which side others are on doesn’t matter, what does? I’m bringing in anything that will shake people up and loosen them to other ways of solving deep issues that don’t seem solvable, but that requires a shift in mindset to open up one’s worldview in order to give this author a chance. He has not been given that chance. It’s not a good sign when arrogance imitates intelligence.

Indeed! Isn't that what you are doing. You have not enlarged your mind by studying basic philosophical ideas yet you accuse others of arrogance.

I believe you have an undeveloped capability which is why I talk to you.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 2:16 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 11:41 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 9:27 am
A history book is a narrative as it tells a sequence of events through time. A book that for instance describes species of trees, or for instance describes makes of automobiles is not a narrative. A mathematics book is not a narrative. A chemistry book is not a narrative , however a book that tells the history of chemistry is a narrative.

If Lessans's book tells the development of mankind over time it's a narrative.
If Lessans's book describes what mankind will be sometime in the future it's not a narrative.

The problem I have with taking Lessans's book seriously is that he seems to believe that there will be end of history when mankind has become cooperative, loving, and peaceful.

PEACEGIRL: How can there be an end to history when history is what pushes humanity forward?

BELINDA: End of history explanations have been done before End of history theories depend upon absence of wild cards from the natural environment. But there always are wild cards, and determinism does not imply prediction.

PEACEGIRL: Predictions based on history cannot know what is ahead with absolute accuracy. How could it? Prediction is an educated guess as to what will occur based on the past. But this can be wrong. No algorithm or the knowledge of history can accurately predict what will occur when there are changes that could never have been predicted. Look at AI as an example. How could the impact of major shifts in how we learn be predicted when this technology was not yet conceived of? That is a huge wildcard. I think you have a wrong conception of determinism based on the belief that everything can be predicted in advance. That is impossible and it isn’t necessary. The only thing this knowledge can predict with accuracy, is that given no reason to hurt others, no one will desire to hurt others. Predicting what someone will have for breakfast in ten years is frivolous and irrelevant.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:29 am Peacegirl wrote:

PEACEGIRL: No Belinda. You are creating a contradiction. If something is beyond his control, it cannot be within his control. A free man does not necessarily shoulder responsibility for himself. That is what is hoped for, but it doesn't always occur. In the new world, a man will have no choice but to take responsibility for himself, which you don't understand because you haven't read the book.

I don't have to read any more books to understand that freedom and responsibility are linked by the same cause.

PEACEGIRL: Incorrect. We don't have the kind of freedom that would allow for responsibility because that would mean we could have chosen otherwise. How could someone choose otherwise when that would have been the worst possible choice in his eyes? This brings into play the other side of this two-sided equation, which is key to understanding how we can prevent these "evils."

BELINDA: The more free a man is the more responsibility he can and should take. The converse is that the less free a man is the less responsibility he can and should take.

PEACEGIRL: Shoulds and oughts don't apply here. How can someone listen to shoulds or oughts when doing what someone believes a person ought to do appears to them worse? Having plenty of options (your definition of freedom) has nothing to do with the freedom of will to have chosen otherwise.

BELINDA: In the "new world" you praise so much is a man free , or is he caused to be what he is by fate?

PEACEGIRL: We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is based on our genetics and environment. Being freer by having more opportunities does not always guarantee greater responsibility. There are a lot of wealthy people who have unlimited freedom, but who are irresponsible. The word fate implies that our choices are not our own because we have no choice as to what happens. I consider it fate when we have exhausted all possibilities to improve our circumstances, and if nothing helps, we can then call it fate.

BELINDA: You have claimed that a deterministic process will lead inevitably to the "new world". Your "new world" is therefore not a place that would be full of free agents.

Freedom relates to levels of agency.

PEACEGIRL: Our agency is our ability to make choices. No one is denying that. There are no levels of agency. Some people have more options than others, which is true, but this does not mean that some people have more freedom of the will than others. This is creating a lot of confusion due to definition. We are not dominoes, although being able to choose (or having this kind of agency) does not grant us the freedom of the will to choose otherwise, or there would be no need to weigh our options to start with. What would be the point? In fact, it would make no difference what we would choose because there would be no meaningful differences between them, such as choosing between A and A. Furthermore, why would we have been given the attribute of contemplation if it were not to weigh the pros and cons to determine the best possible course of action (in our eyes) based on what we know?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 4:47 pm I ADDED A LITTLE MORE TO THIS POST.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:29 am Peacegirl wrote:

PEACEGIRL: No Belinda. You are creating a contradiction. If something is beyond his control, it cannot be within his control. A free man does not necessarily shoulder responsibility for himself. That is what is hoped for, but it doesn't always occur. In the new world, a man will have no choice but to take responsibility for himself, which you don't understand because you haven't read the book.

I don't have to read any more books to understand that freedom and responsibility are linked by the same cause.

PEACEGIRL: Incorrect. We don't have the kind of freedom that would allow for responsibility because that would mean we could have chosen otherwise. How could someone choose otherwise when that would have been the worst possible choice in his eyes? This brings into play the other side of this two-sided equation, which is key to understanding how we can prevent these "evils."

BELINDA: The more free a man is the more responsibility he can and should take. The converse is that the less free a man is the less responsibility he can and should take.

PEACEGIRL: Shoulds and oughts don't apply here. How can someone listen to shoulds or oughts when doing what someone believes a person ought to do appears to them worse? Having plenty of options (your definition of freedom) has nothing to do with the freedom of will to have chosen otherwise.

BELINDA: In the "new world" you praise so much is a man free , or is he caused to be what he is by fate?

PEACEGIRL: We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is based on our genetics and environment. Being freer by having more opportunities does not always guarantee greater responsibility. There are a lot of wealthy people who have unlimited freedom, but who are irresponsible. The word fate implies that our choices are not our own because we have no choice as to what happens. I consider it fate when we have exhausted all possibilities to improve our circumstances, and if nothing helps, we can then call it fate.

BELINDA: You have claimed that a deterministic process will lead inevitably to the "new world". Your "new world" is therefore not a place that would be full of free agents.

Freedom relates to levels of agency.

PEACEGIRL: Our agency is our ability to make choices. No one is denying that. There are no levels of agency. Some people have more options than others, which is true, but this does not mean that some people have more freedom of the will than others. This is creating a lot of confusion due to definition. We are not dominoes, although being able to choose (or having this kind of agency) does not grant us the freedom of the will to choose otherwise, or there would be no need to weigh our options to start with. What would be the point? In fact, it would make no difference what we would choose because there would be no meaningful differences between them, such as choosing between A and A. Furthermore, why would we have been given the attribute of contemplation if it were not to weigh the pros and cons to determine the best possible course of action (in our eyes) based on what we know?

I agree with all you say, except for one thing regarding determinism and agency .
Freedom is freedom to make mistakes, Responsibility includes responsibility for admitting errors and ignorance.
Determinism is not prediction, therefore a man may be partly right and partly mistaken.
It is true that we can't have chosen otherwise than we did , however we can choose an entirely different course of action tomorrow.You write

does not grant us the freedom of the will to choose otherwise, or there would be no need to weigh our options to start with. What would be the point? In fact, it would make no difference what we would choose because there would be no meaningful differences between them, such as choosing between A and A.

Even if the universe is fully determined, we still act, reflect, and bear responsibility — and it all depends on the structure of the human self.
We are free to take responsibility for our actions because we have brains with processes that flow through multiple memories, and reflect on events through time. Neuro science shows that we do indeed have brains that memorise and reflect on events through time.
This is why freedom and determinism are compatible.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 10:58 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 4:47 pm I ADDED A LITTLE MORE TO THIS POST.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:29 am Peacegirl wrote:



I don't have to read any more books to understand that freedom and responsibility are linked by the same cause.

PEACEGIRL: Incorrect. We don't have the kind of freedom that would allow for responsibility because that would mean we could have chosen otherwise. How could someone choose otherwise when that would have been the worst possible choice in his eyes? This brings into play the other side of this two-sided equation, which is key to understanding how we can prevent these "evils."

BELINDA: The more free a man is the more responsibility he can and should take. The converse is that the less free a man is the less responsibility he can and should take.

PEACEGIRL: Shoulds and oughts don't apply here. How can someone listen to shoulds or oughts when doing what someone believes a person ought to do appears to them worse? Having plenty of options (your definition of freedom) has nothing to do with the freedom of will to have chosen otherwise.

BELINDA: In the "new world" you praise so much is a man free , or is he caused to be what he is by fate?

PEACEGIRL: We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is based on our genetics and environment. Being freer by having more opportunities does not always guarantee greater responsibility. There are a lot of wealthy people who have unlimited freedom, but who are irresponsible. The word fate implies that our choices are not our own because we have no choice as to what happens. I consider it fate when we have exhausted all possibilities to improve our circumstances, and if nothing helps, we can then call it fate.

BELINDA: You have claimed that a deterministic process will lead inevitably to the "new world". Your "new world" is therefore not a place that would be full of free agents.

Freedom relates to levels of agency.

PEACEGIRL: Our agency is our ability to make choices. No one is denying that. There are no levels of agency. Some people have more options than others, which is true, but this does not mean that some people have more freedom of the will than others. This is creating a lot of confusion due to definition. We are not dominoes, although being able to choose (or having this kind of agency) does not grant us the freedom of the will to choose otherwise, or there would be no need to weigh our options to start with. What would be the point? In fact, it would make no difference what we would choose because there would be no meaningful differences between them, such as choosing between A and A. Furthermore, why would we have been given the attribute of contemplation if it were not to weigh the pros and cons to determine the best possible course of action (in our eyes) based on the information we have?

BELINDA: I agree with all you say, except for one thing regarding determinism and agency .
Freedom is freedom to make mistakes, Responsibility includes responsibility for admitting errors and ignorance.

PEACEGIRL: This has nothing to do with the definition of determinism, according to this author. We have freedom to make mistakes. Responsibility is taking accountability for one's errors, but don't you see that people can easily get off the hook of responsibility in a free will society? That is the central issue.

BELINDA: Determinism is not prediction, therefore a man may be partly right and partly mistaken.

PEACEGIRL: Mistaken for what? This law does not predict every single person's movement, and it isn't required. The only thing it predicts is that when we stop blaming (which I hope you won't take this out of context), we can predict that people will not want to hurt others with a first blow. This has only to do with hurt to others, nothing more. It does not claim to be able to predict what you will have for breakfast ten years from now because, once again, it is irrelevant.

BELINDA: It is true that we can't have chosen otherwise than we did , however we can choose an entirely different course of action tomorrow.You write


PEACEGIRL: Belinda, that this the whole point of this thread, that we can change tomorrow what has happened today.

PEACEGIRL: Even if the universe is fully determined, we still act, reflect, and bear responsibility — and it all depends on the structure of the human self.

BELINDA: We are free to take responsibility for our actions because we have brains with processes that flow through multiple memories, and reflect on events through time. Neuro science shows that we do indeed have brains that memorise and reflect on events through time.
This is why freedom and determinism are compatible.


PEACEGIRL: They are actually not compatible. You are conflating freedom with freedom of the will which mean two very different things. Free will and determinism do not mesh with the use of sheer logic. They are incompatible. Neuroscience tells us that we have brains that reflect on events through time, but where does free will enter into it? Once again, you are conflating "freedom" with "freedom of the will." To repeat: Because we can reflect on events through time in no way indicates that freedom of the will and determinism are compatible. I think you're concerned that if we lose our "freedom" due to the knowledge of determinism, then our choices would not be our own. This is not true. In the new world, we will have more "freedom" than ever because no one will be restricting what we want to do. The reason for this is because, under the changed conditions, we will never desire to hurt others when given this freedom. Not only that, but responsibility will be increased, not decreased. This is the other half of the two-sided equation which explains why we cannot shift our responsibility in an action (when we are not being blamed) to someone or something else in order to mitigate our involvement, which is necessary for conscience to permit said action. It's a win-win for everyone, not just a few. You will have to stick with me because you are far from understanding what it means to have no free will, which takes nothing away from anyone. It only adds to our understanding of human nature and what can be achieved as a consequence.