Revolution in Thought

[henry quirk]

If your dad had written sumthin' along the lines of...

'You're free to walk across the parking lot but you're not free to walk on water (though you're free to try)' that woulda worked. He woulda been pointin' out that world works a certain way and we, in the world, must abide.

But, instead, your dad redefines 'free' (or just plain misunderstands it), redefines 'determinism' (or just plain misunderstands it) and writes a whole damn book based on the redefintions (or misunderstandings), and you doggedly promote the hell out of it.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and yeah, I got my prejudices, and I'm a mule, but -- damn, PG -- you're just as bad (that's a compliment, by the way...I admire persistence [even when wrong-headed]).

[henry quirk]

Yeah, this here...

"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."

...is the sticking point.

You say 'compelled to greater satisfaction"; I say 'choosing sanely'.

impasse (based soley on use of language...neither of us will yield)

[peacegirl]

Yeah, this here...

"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."

...is the sticking point.

You say 'compelled to greater satisfaction"; I say 'choosing sanely'.

impasse (based soley on use of language...neither of us will yield)

There is no impasse because I am agreeing that the way you use the word "free" does not conflict. Why can't you accept this and keep an open mind? Why is it that when I answer your question with clarity, all you do is tell me that you won't yield. There's nothing to yield to, do you not see that? And "choosing sanely" is not a synonym for "greater satisfaction." You may call sane what someone calls insane. What people choose is related to their experiences, their genetics, their predispositions, and their immediate circumstances. You can't speak for someone else by judging their choices.

[peacegirl]

If your dad had written sumthin' along the lines of...

'You're free to walk across the parking lot but you're not free to walk on water (though you're free to try)' that woulda worked. He woulda been pointin' out that world works a certain way and we, in the world, must abide.

It's true that you're once again using the word "free" in a way that is not being disputed. I'm not free to fly like a bird. I'm not free to turn into a cat. I'm not free to be you because I'm me. The world does work in a certain way, and we must abide. We've been abiding since day one, but due to the fact that we're developing, we had to blame and punish the evils in the world. But now that we know how to prevent the evils, we will have made a giant leap forward toward a more peaceful world.

But, instead, your dad redefines 'free' (or just plain misunderstands it), redefines 'determinism' (or just plain misunderstands it) and writes a whole damn book based on the redefintions (or misunderstandings), and you doggedly promote the hell out of it.

I know what he has, and I have to try to reach people who can help bring this discovery to light. I am compelled to do this because of its importance. Whether my efforts will do any good, only time will tell. I need people who see the value of this work to get involved if they want to. It will be their choice in the direction of greater satisfaction.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and yeah, I got my prejudices, and I'm a mule, but -- damn, PG -- you're just as bad (that's a compliment, by the way...I admire persistence [even when wrong-headed]).

It's not wrong-headed, but thanks for the compliment!

[peacegirl]

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.

You’re right, I’m not. But as I have said, this free will, this ability to choose does not give us freedom of the will which means freedom to choose what is less satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is available. This has tremendous implications as you will see, if you choose to stick around.

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

shannon.jpg

The past is over, the future is not known but we can predict a happier and safer future as we understand man’s nature and use this knowledge for our betterment.

[Logik]

You’re right, I’m not. But as I have said, this free will, this ability to choose does not give us freedom of the will which means freedom to choose what is less satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is available. This has tremendous implications as you will see, if you choose to stick around.

And I told you that the entire school of Stoicism disagrees with that claim.

The past is over, the future is not known but we can predict a happier and safer future as we understand man’s nature and use this knowledge for our betterment.

Yes. This is the Epicurean approach. it has lead to the death of many societies.

Instant gratification and short-term satisfaction is also harmful.

As paradoxical as it may sound - the betterment of society requires self-sacrifice sometimes.

Some people are willing to pay that price.

[peacegirl]

You’re right, I’m not. But as I have said, this free will, this ability to choose does not give us freedom of the will which means freedom to choose what is less satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is available. This has tremendous implications as you will see, if you choose to stick around.

And I told you that the entire school of Stoicism disagrees with that claim.

Do you think a stoic would rather endure hardship without complaint or not have to endure hardship any more?

sto·i·cism
/ˈstōəˌsizəm/
noun
1.the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.

The past is over, the future is not known but we can predict a happier and safer future as we understand man’s nature and use this knowledge for our betterment.

Yes. This is the Epicurean approach. it has lead to the death of many societies.

Instant gratification and short-term satisfaction is also harmful.

As paradoxical as it may sound - the betterment of society requires self-sacrifice sometimes.

Some people are willing to pay that price.

I agree. Self-sacrifice is often done to help another person. You mentioned that this is an Epicurean approach. It is not. People will not be gluttonous lying around doing nothing except eating and drinking to excess. I don’t know where you got that idea. People will be working, they will have families to support, just like they do today. You've got the wrong impression. People will be more responsible, not less.

You cannot begin to compare the world in which we're living with this new world because there's no comparison. Until you understand these principles and how they can prevent the first blow of hurt (which has nothing to do with hedonism), you will be skeptical, but please don't state the impossibility of creating this kind of world when you don't yet know how it could actually become a reality. I think most people would want to live in a world without war and crime, don't you?

[Belinda]

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').

Henry I'll stop nagging you now that you understand that Free Will is uncaused. I like your explanation.

[henry quirk]

"Why can't you accept this and keep an open mind?"

Shit, I'm well pass the time when an open mind is a good thing. In my view: by the time a body reaches the middle years his mind damn well better be shut tight.

#

"Why is it that when I answer your question with clarity, all you do is tell me that you won't yield."

Mebbe cuz I'm a jackass?

#

"And "choosing sanely" is not a synonym for "greater satisfaction."

Probably not: I like it better than yours...mine is about assessments, yours is about compulsions.

#

"You can't speak for someone else by judging their choices."

I don't speak for them (I only speak for me): what I do is assess and conclude.

[henry quirk]

I'm flabbergasted and miffed.

Where the hell did I agree to, or concede, such a thing?

[Logik]

Do you think a stoic would rather endure hardship without complaint or not have to endure hardship any more?

sto·i·cism
/ˈstōəˌsizəm/
noun
1.the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.

The former.

The choice to not endure hardship exists before every Stoic. Today.

Drugs.
Suicide.
Surrender.
Indifference.
Abdication of responsibility.

[Belinda]

I'm flabbergasted and miffed.

Where the hell did I agree to, or concede, such a thing?

You wrote:

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.

That sums up what most people believe about Free Will. It also implies what many Free Will believers won't or can't admit that the human individual is unique(your word too) in that particular .

The whole of your post is also engagingly explicit about the dilemma of an observant man who nevertheless feels that he can originate what he does.

[peacegirl]

"Why can't you accept this and keep an open mind?"

Shit, I'm well pass the time when an open mind is a good thing. In my view: by the time a body reaches the middle years his mind damn well better be shut tight.

An open mind may keep the brain from shrinking.

#

"Why is it that when I answer your question with clarity, all you do is tell me that you won't yield."

Mebbe cuz I'm a jackass?

I don't think you're a jackass. I just think you're hard pressed to leave your comfort zone, especially when it shakes up our world view.

#

"And "choosing sanely" is not a synonym for "greater satisfaction."

Probably not: I like it better than yours...mine is about assessments, yours is about compulsions.

But we're talking about determinism, which involves assessments but it's not the same thing because you can assess and conclude your will is free. Greater satisfaction explains why will is not free even when you assess.



#

"You can't speak for someone else by judging their choices."

I don't speak for them (I only speak for me): what I do is assess and conclude.

That's what everybody does without having free will. Welcome to the club!

[peacegirl]

I'm flabbergasted and miffed.

Where the hell did I agree to, or concede, such a thing?

Unless you're a compatibilist (which is a shift in semantics), you are a libertarian. Libertarians believe actions are uncaused.

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen

[peacegirl]

Do you think a stoic would rather endure hardship without complaint or not have to endure hardship any more?

sto·i·cism
/ˈstōəˌsizəm/
noun
1.the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.

The former.

The choice to not endure hardship exists before every Stoic. Today.

Drugs.
Suicide.
Surrender.
Indifference.
Abdication of responsibility.

All of us on Earth (not just Stoics) have to endure hardship, and most of us don't give up by opting out (e.g., drugs, suicide, surrender, indifference, abdication of responsibility,etc.) It's a daily struggle for everyone because we all have hardship (some harder than others, granted), but that doesn't mean that if there's a better way to live on this Earth that we have to continue to endure hardship just to prove we can.