Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:23 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:16 pm And for whatever reason, that may be your preference IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION which renders any other contemplative choice an illusion because it could never have been made. Remember, we are not talking about options before making a choice. We are talking about the choice that was compelled to be made based on the agent's thought process. We can't leave the agent out, which the present definition does,which has caused a lot of confusion.

So then neither you nor I have free will.

Your proselytism is deterministic and entirely out of your control. You are doing it in pursuit of greater satisfaction.

You can no more choose to not prosletyze than I can choose to not change my mind given your flawed argument.

It has already been decided. What will be will be.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:27 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:23 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:16 pm And for whatever reason, that may be your preference IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION which renders any other contemplative choice an illusion because it could never have been made. Remember, we are not talking about options before making a choice. We are talking about the choice that was compelled to be made based on the agent's thought process. We can't leave the agent out, which the present definition does,which has caused a lot of confusion.
So then neither you nor I have free will.

Your proselytism is deterministic and entirely out of your control. You are doing it in pursuit of greater satisfaction.

You can no more choose to not prosletyze than I can choose to not change my mind given your flawed argument.

It has already been decided. What will be will be.

Sure, looking back it could not have been different, but we still must make choices. You can't say what will be will be, and not do what you find preferable. Fate implies throwing up your arms and doing nothing because nothing matters in the end. This is NOT what is being described here. If after doing everything in your power to prevent a tragedy, and it still happens, then you can say it was fate ordained, but not before.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:30 pm**

I like that.

I would phrase it: The human individual is the only Oracle machine.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:36 pm**

"How can what Henry chooses to do be caused by any other means than natural, social, or divine?"

As I say: 'I' cause things to happen. 'I' apprehend, assess, conclude, act. 'i' am the source.

'But you were caused, Henry!'

No. I was born, grew up, became my own.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:38 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:27 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:23 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:16 pm And for whatever reason, that may be your preference IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION which renders any other contemplative choice an illusion because it could never have been made. Remember, we are not talking about options before making a choice. We are talking about the choice that was compelled to be made based on the agent's thought process. We can't leave the agent out, which the present definition does,which has caused a lot of confusion.
So then neither you nor I have free will.

Your proselytism is deterministic and entirely out of your control. You are doing it in pursuit of greater satisfaction.

You can no more choose to not prosletyze than I can choose to not change my mind given your flawed argument.

It has already been decided. What will be will be.
Sure, looking back it could not have been different, but we still must make choices. You can't say what will be will be, and not do what you find preferable. Fate implies throwing up your arms and doing nothing because nothing matters in the end. This is NOT what is being described here. If after doing everything in your power to prevent a tragedy, and it still happens, then you can say it was fate ordained, but not before.

Which is exactly how most humans think.

What you are being incredibly illusive about is being specific about what it is that is in our power.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:48 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:36 pm "How can what Henry chooses to do be caused by any other means than natural, social, or divine?"

As I say: 'I' cause things to happen. 'I' apprehend, assess, conclude, act. 'i' am the source.

'But you were caused, Henry!'

No. I was born, grew up, became my own.

Henry, you cause things to happen based on your choices, which are not free at all because they are based on your particular circumstances, genetics, environment, state of mind, etc. You cannot take credit for a choice you could not NOT make, but that does not mean your heredity and environment CAUSED you to make a choice since nothing has the power to do that. Nothing can make you choose what you don't DESIRE to choose. This was explained in the few pages I gave you to read. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This is important.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:52 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:38 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:27 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:23 pm
So then neither you nor I have free will.

Your proselytism is deterministic and entirely out of your control. You are doing it in pursuit of greater satisfaction.

You can no more choose to not prosletyze than I can choose to not change my mind given your flawed argument.

It has already been decided. What will be will be.
Sure, looking back it could not have been different, but we still must make choices. You can't say what will be will be, and not do what you find preferable. Fate implies throwing up your arms and doing nothing because nothing matters in the end. This is NOT what is being described here. If after doing everything in your power to prevent a tragedy, and it still happens, then you can say it was fate ordained, but not before.
Which is exactly how most humans think.

What you are being incredibly illusive about is being specific about what it is that is in our power.

You have absolute control over saying NO to what you don't want. This is a crucial point, so please read it carefully.

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 forego 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 means 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 would know 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.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:55 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:27 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:23 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:16 pm And for whatever reason, that may be your preference IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION which renders any other contemplative choice an illusion because it could never have been made. Remember, we are not talking about options before making a choice. We are talking about the choice that was compelled to be made based on the agent's thought process. We can't leave the agent out, which the present definition does,which has caused a lot of confusion.
So then neither you nor I have free will.

Your proselytism is deterministic and entirely out of your control. You are doing it in pursuit of greater satisfaction.

You can no more choose to not prosletyze than I can choose to not change my mind given your flawed argument.

It has already been decided. What will be will be.
Sure, looking back it could not have been different, but we still must make choices. You can't say what will be will be, and not do what you find preferable. Fate implies throwing up your arms and doing nothing because nothing matters in the end. This is NOT what is being described here. If after doing everything in your power to prevent a tragedy, and it still happens, then you can say it was fate ordained, but not before.

But if tomorrow I look back on today’s choices and I determine that they couldn’t have been ANY different, then do I have free will today or not?!?

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:04 pm**

"There is no agent causation (or determiners) where a prediction can be made with 100% accuracy, or where a particular choice has been made in advance, in other words, without our consent."

1-There's no such thing as the 100% accurate prediction (a thought experiment about knowing the state of every particle in a system doesn't mean you can actually do that).

2-I choose to go to gas station A (cheap gas) and enroute I note station B has even cheaper gas. I chose, in advance, to go to A and I changed my mind.

3-Stan, without my consent, volunteers me to work at the soup kitchen. Fuck Stan: I ain't goin'.

#

"For the purposes of the free will/determinism debate, free will means that we are able to choose A or B equally, without necessity or compulsion."

That ain't how I define free will.

#

"Where did you think he took the agent out of the equation?"

Your words (a take on your dad's): "There is no agent causation (or determiners) where a prediction can be made with 100% accuracy, or where a particular choice has been made in advance, in other words, without our consent."

#

"Show me where the difference is critical."

Free will isn't about 'good & evil'. Your dad thought the opposite and it colors his works.

#

"that was not his proof that man's will is not free"

Yes, it is. Your dad sez a will is not free cuz it always moves toward greater satisfaction. This is no different than sayin' the individual is naturally self-interested. Your dad thinks self-interest makes a will un-free while I say self-interest is what a sane person is. Again 'free' as it pertains to 'will' doesn't mean 'unlimited' (just as 'free' as it pertains to market doesn't mean 'gratis').

What else you got, Peace?

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:09 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:55 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:27 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:23 pm
So then neither you nor I have free will.

Your proselytism is deterministic and entirely out of your control. You are doing it in pursuit of greater satisfaction.

You can no more choose to not prosletyze than I can choose to not change my mind given your flawed argument.

It has already been decided. What will be will be.
Sure, looking back it could not have been different, but we still must make choices. You can't say what will be will be, and not do what you find preferable. Fate implies throwing up your arms and doing nothing because nothing matters in the end. This is NOT what is being described here. If after doing everything in your power to prevent a tragedy, and it still happens, then you can say it was fate ordained, but not before.
But if tomorrow I look back on today’s choices and I determine that they couldn’t have been ANY different, then do I have free will today or not?!?

Of course you have the ability to make a different choice TODAY even though you recognize that your choices YESTERDAY could not have been any different. But this choice making does not entail the kind of free will that you are suggesting. You are FREE (no constraints, no gun to your head) to make a different choice TODAY knowing what you know now that you didn't know yesterday, but the choice you ultimately make is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose what you believe is the better option.

Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:12 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:09 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:55 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:27 pm

Sure, looking back it could not have been different, but we still must make choices. You can't say what will be will be, and not do what you find preferable. Fate implies throwing up your arms and doing nothing because nothing matters in the end. This is NOT what is being described here. If after doing everything in your power to prevent a tragedy, and it still happens, then you can say it was fate ordained, but not before.
But if tomorrow I look back on today’s choices and I determine that they couldn’t have been ANY different, then do I have free will today or not?!?
Of course you have the ability to make a different choice TODAY even though you recognize that your choices YESTERDAY could not have been any different. But this choice making does not entail the kind of free will that you are suggesting. You are FREE (no constraints, no gun to your head) to make a different choice TODAY knowing what you know now that you didn't know yesterday, but the choice you ultimately make is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose what you believe is the better option.

Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

Naturally.

My ability to choose a better option over a worse option is what I call “free will”.

What is so revolutionary about this idea ?

Between a BLT and a kick to the groin. I choose the BLT.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:14 pm**

"Henry, you cause things to happen based on your choices, which are not free at all because they are based on your particular circumstances, genetics, environment, state of mind, etc"

Nope. My choices are based on me (my apprehending, assessing, concluding). 'circumstances, genetics, environment' are the context of my choices. My state of mind (my state of 'me') is 'me'.

#

"You cannot take credit for a choice you could not NOT make"

I can choose anything. Implementing that choice is another matter, success largely resting on how sane the choice.

I choose to fly: I can jump off the roof and flap my arms or I can charter a plane. I can choose anything but not every choice is wise.

#

"Nothing can make you choose what you don't DESIRE to choose."

Yep, cuz I'm a self-interested free will.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:25 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:04 pm "There is no agent causation (or determiners) where a prediction can be made with 100% accuracy, or where a particular choice has been made in advance, in other words, without our consent."

1-There's no such thing as the 100% accurate prediction (a thought experiment about knowing the state of every particle in a system doesn't mean you can actually do that).

But 100% predictions are not required to prove that man doesn't have free will.

2-I choose to go to gas station A (cheap gas) and enroute I note station B has even cheaper gas. I chose, in advance, to go to A and I changed my mind.

Where does his more accurate definition of determinism say you can't change your mind up until the very last second you make a choice? You're going back to the old definition which states that there is no wiggle room because your choices have already been pre-programmed.

3-Stan, without my consent, volunteers me to work at the soup kitchen. Fuck Stan: I ain't goin'.

Can he force you to go to the soup kitchen without holding you hostage? Can he force you, against your will, to pour soup if you are determined not to?

#

"For the purposes of the free will/determinism debate, free will means that we are able to choose A or B equally, without necessity or compulsion."

henry quirk wrote:That ain't how I define free will.
We can choose "freely" (without external constraint) what we believe is the best option, but just know that this doesn't grant us free will since any other choice that was under consideration could never have been made given the same exact circumstances. Remember, only one choice is possible each moment rendering all other options an impossibility. You don't understand why this is important, but if you read on you will see why.

#

"Where did you think he took the agent out of the equation?"

Your words (a take on your dad's): "There is no agent causation (or determiners) where a prediction can be made with 100% accuracy, or where a particular choice has been made in advance, in other words, without our consent."

#

henry quirk wrote:"Show me where the difference is critical."

Free will isn't about 'good & evil'. Your dad thought the opposite and it colors his works.
The moral implications of this debate are, for most, why they enter this debate in the first place. People are concerned over moral responsibility. That's why he is discussing good and evil in terms of hurt. No one cares if you couldn't help but eat eggs rather than cereal for breakfast.

#

"that was not his proof that man's will is not free"

henry quirk wrote:Yes, it is. Your dad sez a will is not free cuz it always moves toward greater satisfaction. This is no different than sayin' the individual is naturally self-interested. Your dad thinks self-interest makes a will un-free while I say self-interest is what a sane person is. Again 'free' as it pertains to 'will' doesn't mean 'unlimited' (just as 'free' as it pertains to market doesn't mean 'gratis').

What else you got, Peace?
You are using words that don't come into play such as sane and self-interest. Yes, it is true that our choices are usually made to enhance our lives (the pleasure principle for example), but in some cases people will risk their own lives to save another. So the term self-interest can also be misleading. Our choices are usually limited by the options we have, but even if we had an unlimited number of options to choose from, doesn't grant us free will in any sense of the word.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:46 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:14 pm "Henry, you cause things to happen based on your choices, which are not free at all because they are based on your particular circumstances, genetics, environment, state of mind, etc"

Nope. My choices are based on me (my apprehending, assessing, concluding). 'circumstances, genetics, environment' are the context of my choices. My state of mind (my state of 'me') is 'me'.

No one is saying it wasn't you.

#

"You cannot take credit for a choice you could not NOT make"

henry quirk wrote:I can choose anything. Implementing that choice is another matter, success largely resting on how sane the choice.

I choose to fly: I can jump off the roof and flap my arms or I can charter a plane. I can choose anything but not every choice is wise.

Every choice is based on the knowledge you had at the time. You can ponder over many things you could do, some realistic some not, but in the end you will choose what you believe is the best option at that moment. Again, this doesn't mean your choice WAS necessarily the best option according to others, but for you it was the only choice that could have been made.

#

"Nothing can make you choose what you don't DESIRE to choose."

henry quirk wrote:Yep, cuz I'm a self-interested free will.

You're misusing words because you want to believe you have free will. That's what compatibilists do. They redefine words to make it appear that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive, which they are.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:51 pm**

...but, angry as I am at the failure of this old crapsack Ipad, I choose to simply set it aside instead of slam it down on the concrete.

I can do this (be angry but not act from anger) cuz I'm a free will.

More later (perhaps a replication of the lost post).

Philosophy Now Forum

Revolution in Thought

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"Humans are the only Oracle machines"

Re: Re:

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re:

Re:

just lost a lengthy post to the ether, sumthin' I had no choice in...