Free will versus determinism
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
- Status
what is your definition of determinism?
Regardless Free will all the way, it will either make or break you
Regardless Free will all the way, it will either make or break you
I just want to say that the definition of determinism in no way conflicts with the ability to contemplate and decide. Most people are up in arms when they think of determinism because, in their minds, this would turn them into robots with no say in what they do, nor would they be responsible for their actions. This in incorrect on both counts. The knowledge of our true nature has the power to change our world for the better because it prevents that for which blame and punishment came into existence. The author passed away in 1991 and I compiled 7 of his books. If you are interested in learning more, the book that discusses this new definition is online for free, so this is not an advertisement. If you do link on, please read the first two chapters before moving on, or else the book will sound like a fairy tale.
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado - The Agora
I'm interested in principle, but whether or not I'm interested in discussing your particular definition of determinism and how it affects our understanding etc. depends on what it is. You haven't given us anything to base a choice on yet.
I haven't because this knowledge comes from a book entitled, Decline and Fall of All Evil. It is online for free but the administrators have not posted the link yet. I guess they have to filter spam, which this thread is definitely not. It is very difficult to explain in a post why man's will is not free, except to say that we are compelled to choose the option that [we believe] is the best choice under our particular circumstances. Hope that helps give you some idea of where I'm going with this discussion.
I'm very interested in this topic. But I agree with Dexter Sinister that we'd need a more substantial definition of determinism to discuss it.
What I find fascinating with this subject is that nearly everyone considers themselves free, yet I've never met anyone who was able to propose a reasonable hypothesis as to how free will can even be possible from a scientific and rational point of view.
In other words, there is nothing science has found so far that lays the ground for the concept of a truly free mind. Until then, science seems to be condemned to view the mind as being totally subordinated to brain chemistry.
What I find fascinating with this subject is that nearly everyone considers themselves free, yet I've never met anyone who was able to propose a reasonable hypothesis as to how free will can even be possible from a scientific and rational point of view.
In other words, there is nothing science has found so far that lays the ground for the concept of a truly free mind. Until then, science seems to be condemned to view the mind as being totally subordinated to brain chemistry.
I agree that looking at free will from a philosophical perspective is wonting because nothing is chosen without antecedent events influencing that decision. As far as brain chemistry, this is also an aspect that flies in the face of free will. But the definition the author proposes reconciles free will and determinism in such a way that man still is able to contemplate and decide. Therefore, the agent is part of the equation. As I just mentioned, he can think about, ponder, consider, weigh, analyze, and ultimately choose. It is also true that nothing can make someone do anything against his will (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink), and in this respect a person can say with accuracy, "I did it of my own free will" meaning "I did it because I wanted to do it." But this does not make his will free. This is an important aspect of the implications which has eluded the most profound philosophers. If anyone is interested, I can explain why man's will is not free, according to this author, but not in the depth that it is deserving of. That is why I put the link to the actual text online for free. The implications are fantastic, but only if the knowledge is understood.
Hello - We have a number of differing philosophies - not religious one - but by renowned Philosophers - have you ever noticed that with any of them - 1 is right - the other is wrong - Rather simple people these renowned philosophers, and their camp followers with big ideas etc that cannot accept criticism - most not all mind you.
Myself - I am a free will - as i am a religious person and that was Gods gift to mankind - You, the individual will decide what you do or not do. And accept the repercussions of such decisions. Realizing we all make bad decisions -
The easy ones are helping those in need, not killing, I am a former soldier and yes i would kill, bit of a conundrum there for some - Not I mind you -
Doing the least harm possible as many decisions, regardless of what decision you make will cause harm.
If you are convinced that man has free will, then maybe this thread isn't for you. I don't want to take away your strong held beliefs if it gives you comfort. I happen to love the wisdom of Christianity, even though I am not Christian; I am Jewish. And I also believe in God, just not a personal God. Your last comment is in keeping with what I know to be true. We always make decisions that [we believe] will help us in some way, even if it means that someone else might get hurt as a consequence. We also can choose as a preferable alternative to help someone else, even if we get hurt in the process. This is an individual choice based on our values, needs, wants, and desires, but it does not take away from the fact that we must choose that which gives us greater satisfaction.
Let me change God to a creator - i do not believe as Muslims and many Christian sect do that my life has been pre ordained -
I belive in the free will - who else makes the choices.
We make the choices, but those choices are driven by a compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time. We cannot choose an alternative that is worse for ourselves when a better alternative is available. This is an invariable law and there are no exceptions. But this must be qualified because what is good for me might not look to the observer as the best choice. It also means that given the same circumstance, another person might choose something different because we are all different to a degree.
Karrie, the book is posted on that forum. Just click on New Discovery. It's the very first thread on that page. I want to say that I have updated the book because I changed a few sentences to clarify the concept a little better, but it is not posted online yet. Also, just so you are aware, there was a computer glitch that messed up two sentences. One sentence in Chapter Five was superimposed on another sentence in Chapter Six. Lastly, I hope that you read the first two chapters before moving on, otherwise this knowledge will appear like a fairy tale since the two-sided equation IS the foundation for the extension of these principles.
Then you do not believe in Self Sacrife for another benefit - as that would the " worse choice" dying for someone else to live.
That's not what I'm saying Goober. All I am saying is that every individual has reasons for why they choose certain things. I, personally, would rather sacrifice my happiness for my children's happiness. I also give as much as I can to charity, as long as I don't end up in the poor house. And I doubt whether I would jump in a lake to save someone when I can't swim. :-(
We make the choices, but those choices are driven by a compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time. We cannot choose an alternative that is worse for ourselves when a better alternative is available. This is an invariable law and there are no exceptions. But this must be qualified because what is good for me might not look to the observer as the best choice. It also means that given the same circumstance, another person might choose something different because we are all different to a degree.
Your words - You did not state your point clearly - When you make a point such as above you should consider all, not just the few things such as compulsion in which you are completely wrong - you are trying to put people, like Physiologist 7 psychiatrists do by having then take a test or 2 -
While these tests can provide valuable information, they are not always, and can be far off the mark. The key is knowing the individual, why they made that decision, could be any number of things.
But stating that i will make a decision based upon an inner uncontrollable compulsion and the decision i make will be of most benefit to me is ludicrous to say the least.
I think that you have a heck of a lot to learn about individualism, and not society as a general rule to go by.
Please goggle - "We are the weird ones" - a National post article that may surprise you
That presupposes you can accurately predict the outcomes of every possible alternative and choose the best one, which you're implicitly arguing isn't in fact a choice at all because the best alternative is, by the way you've defined things, the only possible thing to do. But unless you claim god-like omniscience, you cannot possibly know enough to always identify the best alternative.
I read the first 30 pages of "Decline and Fall of Evil." That's all I'm going to read of it, I'm not interested in anything else Seymour Lessans has to say about anything. I was a little put off by the sub-title, "The Most Important Discovery of our Times." What kind of monster of vanity and arrogance was this guy? The first 30 pages are a turgid, self-congratulatory, repetitive, and rather smug description of how much smarter he is than everybody, how he bested highly educated people in argument, and what a wonderful thing he's discovered, but he doesn't actually say anything useful about it. He just claims (falsely) he's proven determinism, without actually doing so, he's just playing word games. I figure that anybody who hasn't said anything useful in 30 pages isn't likely to say anything useful in 478 more pages. This guy does it better, much more briefly, and intelligently.
But bring beer, imported of course as we have a delicate palate and busty strippers.
- Status