Page 27 of 46
Re: just lost a lengthy post to the ether, sumthin' I had no choice in...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:39 pm
by peacegirl
sorry, repeat
Re: just lost a lengthy post to the ether, sumthin' I had no choice in...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:40 pm
by peacegirl
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:39 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:31 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:28 pm
It couldn't have been any other way because we cannot undo the past. The present is still an unknown.
You are stating the obvious.
Still waiting for the “revolution”
The revolution is coming but you wouldn't know because you didn't read far enough. Before I would move ahead I need to know that you understand why man's will is not free. Even if you fight me on this, the proof is what I just posted. If will was free this new world could not come about because even under the changed conditions we could still prefer A (hurting someone) over B (not hurting them) IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. But we won't be able to when there can be no justification to do so.
Re: just lost a lengthy post to the ether, sumthin' I had no choice in...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:43 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:40 pm
The revolution is coming but you wouldn't know because you didn't read far enough. Before I would move ahead I need to know that you understand why man's will is not free. Even if you fight me on this, the proof is what I just posted.
What I have understood so far is "because we can't change the past man's will is not free.".
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:40 pm
But we won't be able to when there can be no justification to do so.
So do you think this will be in 5 minutes or 5 million years?
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:46 pm
by Eodnhoj7
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:35 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:29 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm
So predict SOMETHING.Anything!
Currently all that is being said is that "people will choose that which brings upon maximum satisfaction".
What is THE satisfaction that majority of people desire? You would expect that to maximise through the system.
That is nothing more than a re-wording of the selection principle. That which is being selected FOR will maximise through the system.
Natural selection selects for survival. Therefore there are more surviving species and less extinct species to be observed (DUH!)
This is (literally) survivorship bias.
That is how positive feedback loops work.
But you can't tell me WHICH species will survive and which will be extinct 1000 years from now.
Why don't you predict something and prove prediction works without relying on probabalism.
You know so much about prediction, so define it.
This is going in a direction that is unnecessarily argumentative. Prediction is not required to bring about this new world other than to know, that under changed environmental conditions (the conditions that I touched on but didn't elaborate) man will be unable to prefer hurting others when not to hurt them becomes the better, or more preferable, choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. Remember, this is the only direction we can go. We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when something better is offered as an alternative.
It's all determined.
Re: just lost a lengthy post to the ether, sumthin' I had no choice in...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:51 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:43 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:40 pm
The revolution is coming but you wouldn't know because you didn't read far enough. Before I would move ahead I need to know that you understand why man's will is not free. Even if you fight me on this, the proof is what I just posted.
What I have understood so far is "because we can't change the past man's will is not free.".
No, that's not it. Man's will is not free because we are always moving off of the present position toward what is more satisfying. That is the only direction we can go, which makes choice a mirage because the word implies that either choice is possible --- either this or either that without compulsion, but if there are meaningful differences; if we are comparing different scenarios to decide which choice
we believe will be the better one based on our present knowledge and circumstances, we are COMPELLED to pick that alternative that offers the greater satisfaction or the least dissatisfaction. What would be the purpose of comparing the pros and cons of different alternatives if not for the fact that we are trying to decide which choice would be the one that would be more satisfying when all other choices have been considered. That's what contemplation is for or we wouldn't contemplate. I don't get what's so hard about this except for belief that it can't be this simple. This proof is not an opinion. This is an invariable law.
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, 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.
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.
Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we
shall designate 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
was 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.
Re: just lost a lengthy post to the ether, sumthin' I had no choice in...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:52 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:51 pm
No, that's not it. Man's will is not free because we are always moving off of the present position toward what is more satisfying.
So if we were moving towards a direction that was less satisfying then man's will would be free?
That's easy to fix you know. We could totally work towards making society progressively more terrible for everyone.
Re: just lost a lengthy post to the ether, sumthin' I had no choice in...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:10 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:52 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:51 pm
No, that's not it. Man's will is not free because we are always moving off of the present position toward what is more satisfying.
So if we were moving towards a direction that was less satisfying then man's will would be free?
That's easy to fix you know. We could totally work towards making society progressively more terrible for everyone.
Man's will would be free if we could pick what is less satisfying when something more satisfying is available, but that's impossible. Could you prefer to be unhappy if you had a choice of being happy? Could you prefer to be sick if you knew how to be well? Could you prefer that your children fail in life if you knew how to help them be successful? I don't want to get into what constitutes success. I'm just asking a simple question.
i'm time-pressed and just don't have the will (get it? i made a funny) for lengthy debate, so you'll do with bon mots.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:03 pm
by henry quirk
"You're misusing words because you want to believe you have free will."
No, that's what you and your dad do through redefining 'determinsm'. Me, I'm repurposing placeholders to more accurately fit the reality of things, that being: you, me, him, her we're ALL free wills.
#
"That's what compatibilists do."
As an advocate of agent causality: I'm an incompatibilist.
"Your choice not to throw the ipad on the ground was not done by your free will"
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:11 pm
by henry quirk
Correct.
I chose to keep the pad even though it would better serve me to just trash it and get another, and I can do this cuz I'm a free will.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:14 pm
by henry quirk
Yeah, I'm sorrry man, but I don't know what any of this...
Value is a focal point we curve our actions and emotions around, we are left with an inherent nature of measurement itself. A strict deterministic model of the universe requires space folding through space in various degrees at its core.
Even the basic values, through which we are tied by intuitive reasoning (emotion) reduce basic emotions to spatial terms and as such have a deterministic nature in the respect one limit replicates into another showing an inherent cause and effect paradigm.
...means.
"Your state of mind, of you, is caused too, by entirely natural causes."
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:17 pm
by henry quirk
Yes, my state of myself is caused by me (a natural cause).
Re: i'm time-pressed and just don't have the will (get it? i made a funny) for lengthy debate, so you'll do with bon mot
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:18 pm
by peacegirl
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:03 pm
"You're misusing words because you want to believe you have free will."
No, that's what you and your dad do through redefining 'determinsm'.
He did not redefine determinism. He just clarified what determinism means. It does not mean that we are forced by antecedent events to do anything against our will. I think you can agree with that.
henry quirk wrote:Me, I'm repurposing placeholders to more accurately fit the reality of things, that being: you, me, him, her we're ALL free wills.
You obviously haven't absorbed why man's will is not free. I cannot do better in explaining these facts, so let's agree to disagree. Some people just won't get it, and that's okay.
#
henry quirk wrote:"That's what compatibilists do."
As an advocate of agent causality: I'm an incompatibilist.
I thought you were a free willer.
Re: "Your choice not to throw the ipad on the ground was not done by your free will"
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:24 pm
by peacegirl
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:11 pm
Correct.
I chose to keep the pad even though it would better serve me to just trash it and get another, and I can do this cuz
I'm a free will.
No, you chose to keep the ipad (for whatever reason; maybe you wanted to give it one more try), but it was a better choice in your eyes than to trash it AT THAT MOMENT or you would have done so. And even though you were "free" in the sense that you had nothing external constraining you (which many people falsely believe is free will), the choice to keep it was not a free one. If B (trashing the ipad) was an impossible choice because it gave you less satisfaction under the conditions, you were not free to choose A (to keep the ipad)
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:30 pm
by henry quirk
"He did not redefine determinism."
I believe if you review this thread you'll find you yourself claimed the old definition of determinism is wrong and your dad's definition was correct...sound like 'redefining' to me.
#
"He just clarified what determinism means."
And I just clarified what free will means.
#
"You obviously haven't absorbed why man's will is not free."
No, you obviously haven't accepted that you are a free will.
#
"I cannot do better in explaining these facts, so let's agree to disagree."
Okay.
#
"Some people just won't get it, and that's okay."
Oh, I get it. Thing is: your dad is wrong.
#
"I thought you were a free willer."
I am...libertarian agent causation is the particular strain of free will (action/agency) theory I hold to, and it's incompatible with determinism (that is: if I am an agent [and I am] then some aspect of determinism is wrong or misunderstood).
Re: just lost a lengthy post to the ether, sumthin' I had no choice in...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:33 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:10 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:52 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:51 pm
No, that's not it. Man's will is not free because we are always moving off of the present position toward what is more satisfying.
So if we were moving towards a direction that was less satisfying then man's will would be free?
That's easy to fix you know. We could totally work towards making society progressively more terrible for everyone.
Man's will would be free if we could pick what is less satisfying when something more satisfying is available, but that's impossible. Could you prefer to be unhappy if you had a choice of being happy?
You mean like how just about every religion has some sort of fast where you deny yourself basic items like food and water?
You mean like how a billion or so if the human population keeps to the fast despite discomfort?
You mean like how people make constant trade-offs and sacrifices so that their partners/children/famil can be better off?
If my children went on a diet I sure could afford a Ferrari!
Or are you going to re-interpret those as acts of self-satisfaction?
An entire school of Stoics disagrees with your world-view.