Revolution in Thought

[peacegirl]

If you say you're a free will, I can say I'm a no free will. It doesn't change anything.

Exactly!

You are just playing language games.

So whether you label or don't label yourself as a 'free will' it makes no difference.

What we do makes a difference.

You are still no closer to telling us what we SHOULD do to fix the world.

Relabeling 'free will' to 'non-free will' is unlikely to fix anything.

You are right Logik that relabeling does nothing to fix the world. And you're also right that what we do is what makes a difference. But unfortunately, most people get stuck on their conception of free will, and will not listen. If you can accept axiomatically that man does not have free will for the purposes of me showing you why this makes a big difference pragmatically, we could make progress.

[Logik]

He tried to distinguish logic --- which can often be valid but unsound --- from mathematics which is sound when done correctly.

There is no validity/soundness distinction in the 21st century. This is the old way of thinking.

There is the only the decidability criterion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

Each logical system comes with both a syntactic component, which among other things determines the notion of provability, and a semantic component, which determines the notion of logical validity.

He didn't want people to get caught up in the language because he knew it was imprecise. He wanted to convey that the words mathematical, scientific, and undeniable were being used interchangeably so that people would know not to get caught up so much in the words but rather the proof.

'Proof' is a syntactic component of logical/mathematical systems.

All logic/mathematics is deductive. The conclusion of any logical/mathematical deduction is still just a hypothesis. Which needs to be empirically verified.

[Logik]

You are right Logik that relabeling does nothing to fix the world. And you're also right that what we do is what makes a difference. But unfortunately, most people get stuck on their conception of free will, and will not listen. If you can accept axiomatically that man does not have free will for the purposes of me showing you why this makes a big difference pragmatically, we could make progress.

As far as I am concerned you have not conveyed a new conception of free will.

And you aren't saying anything more than Shannon said in 1948 when he published Information Theory.

shannon.jpg

[Logik]

You are right Logik that relabeling does nothing to fix the world. And you're also right that what we do is what makes a difference. But unfortunately, most people get stuck on their conception of free will, and will not listen. If you can accept axiomatically that man does not have free will for the purposes of me showing you why this makes a big difference pragmatically, we could make progress.

This is incoherent.

In the words of the father of Pragmatism himself:

There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and some-when.

And so if the difference between 'free will' and 'no-free will' is merely language. If the difference is merely in what people say about free will, and not whether they actually have it or not then the distinction is merely abstract.

You need to demonstrate that it's more than just a re-interpretation.

[peacegirl]

He tried to distinguish logic --- which can often be valid but unsound --- from mathematics which is sound when done correctly.

There is no validity/soundness distinction in the 21st century. This is the old way of thinking.

There is the only the decidability criterion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

Each logical system comes with both a syntactic component, which among other things determines the notion of provability, and a semantic component, which determines the notion of logical validity.

So what are you saying? That his discovery can't be proven to be an absolute truth?

He didn't want people to get caught up in the language because he knew it was imprecise. He wanted to convey that the words mathematical, scientific, and undeniable were being used interchangeably so that people would know not to get caught up so much in the words but rather the proof.

'Proof' is a syntactic component of logical/mathematical systems.

So does that mean his knowledge is automatically flawed and not worth understanding? If that is that case, then I'm not sure why I'm here because the sole purpose of my being here is to show how our world can be better served by the knowledge I am sharing.

All logic/mathematics is deductive. The conclusion of any logical/mathematical deduction is still just a hypothesis. Which needs to be empirically verified.

I have said over and over again that the ultimate proof will be empirically verified, but the problem is we are living in a free will environment. Any simulation will be contaminated (like in Johnathon Schooler's experiment) unless we can isolate all of the variables that could contribute to a flawed conclusion. That being said, there is no need to go through all this when the proof is there, just as we didn't need to simulate a bridge based on mathematical principles that were valid and sound.

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

<snip>

It is true that many men before me, including socialists,
communists, even capitalists also thought they had discovered the
cause of, and solution to, the various problems of human relation, and
their enthusiasm was no doubt just as positive and sincere as my own.
However, there is this difference between us. I have absolute proof
that cannot be denied by any reader; they did not. Mine can be
adequately communicated; theirs was never disentangled from the
illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought and imagination.
Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic belief.

In view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which will
beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah, and since
it also contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am
once again asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from
jumping to any premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the
time being the unverified knowledge gathered from books and teachers
and heed only the truth reflected in my words. “But what is truth?”
you might ask. “Let us say it is that which cannot be denied by
anyone anywhere.” “But,” you might reply, “that’s just common
sense; everyone knows that.” Well it is just this common sense; that
sense common to us all that I am making the very foundation of this
book. It is for this reason that what I write will be understood not
only by those who can read the English language, but by the entire
literate world.

There will be no sleight of hand revelation as is
dreamed up in philosophical circles by epistemologists; only a clear
undeniable explanation about facts of man’s nature never before
understood. Knowledge in this context is to truly know ourselves. If
you are coming along on this journey you will need to put on your
thinking caps and try to understand the mathematical relations soon
to be revealed which permit you to see this miracle.

[Logik]

So what are you saying? That his discovery can't be proven to be an absolute truth?

There no absolute truths in a relative reality.

So does that mean his knowledge is automatically flawed and not worth understanding? If that is that case, then I'm not sure why I'm here because the sole purpose of my being here is to show how our world can be better served by the knowledge I am sharing.

I told you what my criterion for knowledge is. Predictive utility.

If we change X to Y then we will get more of Z.
More of Z is good so we should change X to Y.

Now you keep insisting that the above is precisely against evidence for free will, but it's just more of the same logic.

If we change X to Q then LESS of Z will happen.
LESS of Z is good so we should change X to Q.

Explain to me what it is that you prose we ought to change! Other than the definition of 'free will'. Re-defining things has zero practical consequences.

I have said over and over again that the ultimate proof will be empirically verified, but the problem is we are living in a free will environment.

*sigh* you said there is no free will, but we are living in a free will environment? So what you are saying is that you want to get rid of free will?

I am getting tired now. You lack so much theoretical and empirical grounding I think I am just wasting my time.
I see absolutely no value in your idea because you've engaged in nothing but rhetoric so far.

You made no proposition as to what we ought to change whatsoever. Are you saying that all we have to do is re-define free will?

[peacegirl]

So what are you saying? That his discovery can't be proven to be an absolute truth?

There no absolute truths in a relative reality.

There is only one standard, this hurting of others.

There is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire
hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those
schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope
with a hostile environment that will no longer be. In fact, since
anyone who tells others how to live or what is wrong with their
conduct blames them in advance for doing otherwise — which is a
judgment of what is right for someone else — all sermonizing and the
giving of unasked for advice are displaced. You see, this discovery
draws a mathematical line of demarcation between hurt that is real
and hurt that exists only in the imagination. The hurt of ridicule and
criticism is real, but in the world of free will there existed many forms
of hurt that justified ridicule and criticism. When the hurt that
motivated this behavior is removed, then there can be no justification
which means that any ridicule and criticism that exists thereafter
strikes a first blow, but this is controlled by the realization that it will
never be blamed or punished. Consequently, there is no further need
to tell others what to do./i]

So does that mean his knowledge is automatically flawed and not worth understanding? If that is that case, then I'm not sure why I'm here because the sole purpose of my being here is to show how our world can be better served by the knowledge I am sharing.

I told you what my criterion for knowledge is. Predictive utility.

We can predict with great accuracy that no one henceforth will desire to hurt another human being under the changed conditions. We will not be able to predict a person's every move in the direction of what gives him greater satisfaction. All we will need to know is that no one will desire to strike a first blow as a preferable choice.

If we change X to Y then we will get more of Z.
More of Z is good so we should change X to Y.

If Z prevents all hurt in human relations, then it would be wise to change X to Y (a world of blame to a world of no blame).

Now you keep insisting that the above is precisely against evidence for free will, but it's just more of the same logic.

If we change X to Q then LESS of Z will happen.
LESS of Z is good so we should change X to Q.

This is not whac-a-mole. There is only one change (creating an environment where no one is hurt).

Explain to me what it is that you prose we ought to change! Other than the definition of 'free will'. Re-defining things has zero practical consequences.

You are right. That's why the author said that it is fine to use the term "free will" to mean I was free to do this because I wanted to. He uses the phrase throughout the entire book: I was compelled "of my own free will" (which is not a contradiction). It only means I did it of my own desire because I wanted to, but this in no way means my will is free.

I have said over and over again that the ultimate proof will be empirically verified, but the problem is we are living in a free will environment.

*sigh* you said there is no free will, but we are living in a free will environment? So what you are saying is that you want to get rid of free will?

We want to get rid of every form of blame (the corollary that goes along with man's will is not free) but only through a transitional period. He is not advocating suddenly stopping all blame. That would be catastrophic.

I am getting tired now. You lack so much theoretical and empirical grounding I think I am just wasting my time.
I see absolutely no value in your idea because you've engaged in nothing but rhetoric so far.

You made no proposition as to what we ought to change whatsoever. Are you saying that all we have to do is re-define free will?

I am not saying we have to redefine free will. I am saying that free will doesn't exist in the sense that we could choose other than what we have chosen IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. I gave you the first three chapters. If you took the time to read, you would see that this is not just rhetoric.

[Logik]

We can predict with great accuracy that no one henceforth will desire to hurt another human being under the changed conditions.

Then you are necessarily claiming that you know WHY people hurt others. You are necessarily claiming that you understand the causal chain of events that leads people to violence.

Lets hear it?

This is not whac-a-mole. There is only one change (creating an environment where no one is hurt).

Yes! You are promising that your knowledge will bring upon this environment.

HOW?

We want to get rid of every form of blame (the corollary that goes along with man's will is not free) but only through a transitional period. He is not advocating suddenly stopping all blame. That would be catastrophic.

Finally! Some substance! Yes. I agree. Blame is not on my list of useful tools.

This is built upon the pre-supposition of good-faith. It's built upon Hanlon's razor.
That ignorance, not malice is the cause of most suffering - hence learning from our mistakes makes for smarter people

This is common practice in my field of work - engineering. We do retrospective root-cause analysis on any systemic failures.
The purpose is not to blame, but to learn. The exact sequence of events which led to the incorrect choice being made.

The outcome of this process is rules. New rules which prevent this mistake from being repeated.
The outcome of this process is NOT punishing people.

It builds trust and transparency and encourages people to introspect and speak candidly. Blame-environments are toxic!

Collective failures should not be pinned on individuals.

saying we have to redefine free will. I am saying that free will doesn't exist in the sense that we could choose other than what we have chosen IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. I gave you the first three chapters. If you took the time to read, you would see that this is not just rhetoric.

Existential claims are for metaphysicists. To argue over the existence of ANYTHING is to argue till the cows come home.

Not interested. Show me results.

[henry quirk]

I am a decisive will, I don't have a decisive will.

What you wanna know is how I am such a thing. More specifically: you wanna know how it is I can stand apart from the apparently unbroken and unbreakable chain of cause & effect; you wanna know what the mechanism is, how the 'magic' works.

Hell if I know.

I understand the determinist's incredulity: reality apparently is mechanistic, a line of dominos falling, and yet folks like me claim to be able to step out of the domino line, to be able to begin new domino lines, to end domino lines, to shape domino lines to their liking (or, at least, make the attempt).

Madness!

Again: hell if I know how it all works.

Now, I believe agent causality/agent causation/free will is part and parcel of mind which is the 'action' of a particular and peculiar brain embedded in a particular and peculiar body embedded in the world. That is: mind, self, 'I', agency, free will, etc. are all placeholders for the same thing (an 'action' or 'actions' ['action' in the same way 'walking' is the action of 'legs']). Havin' said this, however, I understand I haven't really said anything, haven't explained anything.

Seems to me: these are the options...

There is sumthin' unique about the human individual that allows the individual to be apart, in a significant way, from the normal chains of cause & effect.

...or...

Determinism is wrong (or we misunderstand some aspect of cause & effect).

...or...

I'm wrong, deluded, mad.

As I self-interrogate, as I assess myself, and myself in the world, it doesn't seem to me that I'm mad, deluded, or wrong, so determinism is (partly) wrong, our understanding of cause & effect is faulty, or there is a yet to be identified 'uniqieness' to the human individual.

*shrug*

There you go, B: I've written a whole bunch of nuthin' in defense of what may be nuthin' (but, really, is sumthin').

[peacegirl]

We can predict with great accuracy that no one henceforth will desire to hurt another human being under the changed conditions.

Then you are necessarily claiming that you know WHY people hurt others. You are necessarily claiming that you understand the causal chain of events that leads people to violence.

There are reasons why people choose to hurt others and when they are eliminated, our problem is solved.

Lets hear it?

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that
self-preservation demands and justifies this, that he was previously
hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back an eye for an
eye, which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and
positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others
if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of free will and a part
of the present environment permits the consideration of hurt for it is
the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires,
but when blame is removed so that the advance knowledge that it no
longer exists becomes a new condition of the environment, then the
price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt is completely
out of reach because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting those who
will refuse to blame him or retaliate in any way. To hurt someone
under these conditions he would have to move in the direction of
conscious dissatisfaction (by picking the least preferable choice of
available alternatives), which is mathematically impossible.

From a
superficial standpoint it might still appear that man would take
advantage of not being blamed and punished and risk hurting others
as a solution to his problems, but this is a mathematical impossibility
when he knows that blame and punishment are required for advance
justification. In other words, the challenge of the law absolves his
conscience with threats of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
which is payment in full for the risks he takes. He may risk going to
prison or be willing to pay the ultimate price with his life for the
satisfaction of certain desires. An individual would not mind taking
all kinds of chances involving others because he could always come up
with a reasonable excuse to get off the hook, or he could pay a price,
if caught. If he borrowed a thousand dollars and was unable to pay all
of it back, he could easily say, “Sue me for the rest.” If he tries to
hold up a bank, however, and fails, the legal system does not allow him
to excuse himself and he is sent to prison.

Without the knowledge
that he would be blamed and punished should he fail; without this
advance justification which allowed him to risk hurting others, the
price of this hurt is beyond his purchasing power. How could
someone plan a crime knowing that no one — not even the ones to
be hurt — would ever blame him or retaliate in any way — even if
they knew what he was about to do? Has it been forgotten already
that we are compelled, by our very nature, to choose the alternative
that gives us greater satisfaction, which is the reason our will is not
free? Consequently, to solve this problem it is only necessary to
demonstrate that when all blame and punishment are removed from
the environment — and when the conditions are also removed that
make it necessary for a person to hurt others as the lesser of two evils
— the desire to hurt another with a first blow will be the worst
possible choice.

In the world of free will man blamed man and
excused himself. In the new world man will be excused by man for
everything he does and consequently will be compelled, of his own free
will, to hold himself responsible without justification. In other words,
once man knows that he is truly responsible for what others will be
compelled to excuse and he would be unable to justify, he is given no
choice but to forgo the contemplation of what he foresees can give
him no satisfaction. It becomes an impenetrable deterrent because
under these conditions no person alive is able to move in this
direction for satisfaction, even if he wanted to. This natural law raises
man’s conscience to such a high degree because there is no price he
can pay when all humanity, including the one to be hurt, must excuse
him.

“I am still having a difficult time. Could you explain the two-
sided equation again?”

This is not whac-a-mole. There is only one change (creating an environment where no one is hurt).

Yes! You are promising that your knowledge will bring upon this environment.

HOW?

I'm trying to show you. Read!

We want to get rid of every form of blame (the corollary that goes along with man's will is not free) but only through a transitional period. He is not advocating suddenly stopping all blame. That would be catastrophic.

Finally! Some substance! Yes. I agree. Blame is not on my list of useful tools.

Good, so maybe you'll give this knowledge the careful scrutiny it deserves.

This is built upon the pre-supposition of good-faith. It's built upon Hanlon's razor.
That ignorance, not malice is the cause of most suffering - hence learning from our mistakes makes for smarter people

No, that's not true. There's plenty of malice to go around. Ignorance is not the cause of retaliation, although ignorance can lead to many forms of injustice.

This is common practice in my field of work - engineering. We do retrospective root-cause analysis on any systemic failures.
The purpose is not to blame, but to learn. The exact sequence of events which led to the incorrect choice being made.

Then you should be interested in what this author has to say because he's getting to the root cause.

The outcome of this process is rules. New rules which prevent this mistake from being repeated.
The outcome of this process is NOT punishing people.

But it goes beyond that. If we rid the world of hurt, there will be no need for punishment because no one will do things that necessitate the need to blame and punish.

It builds trust and transparency and encourages people to introspect and speak candidly. Blame-environments are toxic!

We're finally making some progress. I hope it continues.

saying we have to redefine free will. I am saying that free will doesn't exist in the sense that we could choose other than what we have chosen IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. I gave you the first three chapters. If you took the time to read, you would see that this is not just rhetoric.

Existential claims are for metaphysicists. To argue over the existence of ANYTHING is to argue till the cows come home.

Not interested. Show me results.

You have to understand that the reason this knowledge works is predicated on the FACT that man's will is not free. This may be considered metaphysical because we cannot pinpoint anything physical that proves this, but through astute observation, impeccable reasoning and inference, it can be stated with absolute certainty that man's will is not free. We can go forward without harping on this, but that is one of the foundational principles.

[henry quirk]

Indeed...feel free.

How you choose to define yourself (no matter how wrong-headed you are) is no business of mine.

What 'is' my business: a growing trend among movers & shakers to deny 'free will'. Such denials inevitably lead to criticisms of 'self-responsibility' which lead to denigrations of what it is to be an individual.

Bottomline: if I were lookin' to, over the long haul, demoralize populations, make them believe they have little value as individuals, make them compliant, I would work to erode notions of self-direction, self-responsibility, self-ownership. Makin' free will into a fairytale (along with makin' everyone dependent on a central authority) would be a damned good way to go about it.

After all: cows that quietly trundle through the chute to the abattoir are preferable to cows that resist.

But: I'm goin' off on a tangent (revealin' my nutty conspiracy theorist nature [cuz, of course, no one is lookin' to turn humans into a renewable resource ])...back to you, PG: yeah, go be bioautomation, I don't care.

[henry quirk]

...sez the pot to the kettle.

[peacegirl]

I am a decisive will, I don't have a decisive will.

What you wanna know is how I am such a thing. More specifically: you wanna know how it is I can stand apart from the apparently unbroken and unbreakable chain of cause & effect; you wanna know what the mechanism is, how the 'magic' works.

Hell if I know.

I understand the determinist's incredulity: reality apparently is mechanistic, a line of dominos falling, and yet folks like me claim to be able to step out of the domino line, to be able to begin new domino lines, to end domino lines, to shape domino lines to their liking (or, at least, make the attempt).

Madness!

Again: hell if I know how it all works.

Now, I believe agent causality/agent causation/free will is part and parcel of mind which is the 'action' of a particular and peculiar brain embedded in a particular and peculiar body embedded in the world. That is: mind, self, 'I', agency, free will, etc. are all placeholders for the same thing (an 'action' or 'actions' ['action' in the same way 'walking' is the action of 'legs']). Havin' said this, however, I understand I haven't really said anything, haven't explained anything.

Seems to me: these are the options...

There is sumthin' unique about the human individual that allows the individual to be apart, in a significant way, from the normal chains of cause & effect.

...or...

Determinism is wrong (or we misunderstand some aspect of cause & effect).

...or...

I'm wrong, deluded, mad.

As I self-interrogate, as I assess myself, and myself in the world, it doesn't seem to me that I'm mad, deluded, or wrong, so determinism is (partly) wrong, our understanding of cause & effect is faulty, or there is a yet to be identified 'uniqieness' to the human individual.

*shrug*

There you go, B: I've written a whole bunch of nuthin' in defense of what may be nuthin' (but, really, is sumthin').

I have said umpteen times (why aren't you listening?) that you have this kind of freedom (i.e., the ability to choose). You have mind, self, 'I', agency, free will (in the sense that nothing external is stopping you from making a choice), etc. No one is taking this away under the accurate definition of determinism.

..."are all placeholders for the same thing (an 'action' or 'actions' ['action' in the same way 'walking' is the action of 'legs'])."

That you are "free" to make choices; you are not part of a causal chain where you have no say in those choices. That IS the other side of the two-sided equation which you haven't studied. That the more accurate definition this author offers does not mean we are mechanistic, a line of dominoes falling.

That folks like you claim to be able to step out of the domino line, to be able to begin new domino lines, to end domino lines, to shape domino lines to their liking (or, at least, make the attempt).

...The standard definition of determinism is that we are caused by external forces (as in a software program) to stay within the causal chain. No wonder people can't accept determinism the way it's defined. He explained that the word cause is misleading. The ability you say we have is correct, but this does not translate to freedom of the will. He tried in Chapter One to correct the faulty definition of determinism to a more accurate one. He didn't change the definition, he refined it. It's important that you don't ignore it, or you will keep saying the same thing; that we are free to choose. Who said we aren't free in that way? Remember, definitions mean nothing unless they reflect what is going on in reality.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

[henry quirk]

"NONE OF THE ABILITY YOU TALK ABOUT (WHICH HE IS NOT DENYING EXISTS) TRANSLATES TO WILL BEING FREE"

As I define 'free' (in the context of 'free will'): yeah it does.

Excuse me, I have to run to the free market and buy some ramen noodles.

[peacegirl]

"NONE OF THE ABILITY YOU TALK ABOUT (WHICH HE IS NOT DENYING EXISTS) TRANSLATES TO WILL BEING FREE"

As I define 'free' (in the context of 'free will'): yeah it does.

Excuse me, I have to run to the free market and buy some ramen noodles.

There are many definitions for the word "free". How you're using the word is perfectly fine. I'm free to go outside and turn my computer off if I want to. I'm free to go to the store if I want to. I'm free to visit a friend if I want to. All these options are possible which is why I'm deciding which one I want to pick. Since only one choice can be made each moment in time, I am compelled to choose the option that offers me the greatest satisfaction (based on my considerations) rendering all the other choices an impossibility although I could choose a different option a second later.