I'd suggest you might want to summarize what his great discovery was. I got tired of reading his discussions with other people, and him leading up to his point and wandering off again. If you can summarize it, I'll gladly discuss it. But I suspect that something that required so much energy in setting up arguments for how arguments against it validate it, is shaky at best.
Free will versus determinism
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
- Status
No one is claiming to know what is the best alternative for YOU. I can only know what is the best alternative FOR ME, and even here I don't always get it right. I base my decision on the information I have at the moment. That is why most of us look back in hindsight to reevaluate our choices so if we were mistaken, we won't make the same choice again in the future.
Dexter Sinister said:
You're wrong about that. This guy was very humble. He was just sharing what he went through. Some of the repetition is my fault, not his, but if you actually only read 30 pages and have come to the conclusion that he has nothing to offer, I agree with you that you should not read this book. BTW, I chose the subtitle, not him. And it IS the most important discovery of our times if this knowledge can rid our world of hatred, war, and crime. :roll:
Sorry karrie, I can't do that. It won't do the book justice. It took me 8 years to compile 7 books, and I cannot summarize it in a few posts. But I can direct you to Chapters One and Two, if you want to skip the introduction. If that's too difficult, then I suggest finding another book to read. Sorry.
He doesn't write that way, he writes in fact like a crank who's convinced the establishment is against him and his brilliant discovery because it doesn't suit current prejudices. That's one of the defining features of pseudoscience. If he can't demonstrate any credibility or even say anything specific about his brilliant discovery in 30 pages of turgid prose, I tend to think he's blowing smoke.
Which is the same as saying you DON'T know; if you did you'd always get it right.
You're asking us to read only one, and really only the first two chapters of one. If you can't summarize his claims (or yours about him) in a paragraph or two, then I think you don't really understand them. I've just read the final chapter, in which he refers to the scientific equation he presented in the introduction. There is no such equation. He didn't really understand what he was claiming either, and he certainly didn't prove his claim by the point where I read that he claimed he had.
I started reading the book and am now at page 45.
I find the book interesting because it deals with a subject that has captivated my mind for as long as I was mature enough to think of such things. But that being said, it's a frustrating read because the book would benefit from some serious editing. And as Dexter Sinister already pointed out, the ''prophetic'' tone of the book is very much a turn off.
From what I've read, it seems clear to me that the whole introduction is rather unnecessary, considering the author repeats the same message at the beginning of Chapter 1. The message being ''Keep an open-mind and be willing to reconsider things that seem obvious to you, despite what the establishment or society has to say about it''. It's a good message and it needs to be insisted on, but personally, I feel like I've understood this a good while ago so I could have easily skipped all that part.
I am taking the liberty to quote (in blue) an excerpt from the book because I feel it is a good summary of what the author has been trying to say so far... I'm doing this in the hope that this can lead to constructive discussion about the book's subject by those who are turned off by the long and frustrating read...
(I'll keep my opinion of it for later.)
I will now put the conclusive proof that man’s will is not free to a mathematical test.
Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”
“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?”
“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”
“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B.
In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled completely beyond control to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control.
I find the book interesting because it deals with a subject that has captivated my mind for as long as I was mature enough to think of such things. But that being said, it's a frustrating read because the book would benefit from some serious editing. And as Dexter Sinister already pointed out, the ''prophetic'' tone of the book is very much a turn off.
From what I've read, it seems clear to me that the whole introduction is rather unnecessary, considering the author repeats the same message at the beginning of Chapter 1. The message being ''Keep an open-mind and be willing to reconsider things that seem obvious to you, despite what the establishment or society has to say about it''. It's a good message and it needs to be insisted on, but personally, I feel like I've understood this a good while ago so I could have easily skipped all that part.
I am taking the liberty to quote (in blue) an excerpt from the book because I feel it is a good summary of what the author has been trying to say so far... I'm doing this in the hope that this can lead to constructive discussion about the book's subject by those who are turned off by the long and frustrating read...
(I'll keep my opinion of it for later.)
I will now put the conclusive proof that man’s will is not free to a mathematical test.
Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”
“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?”
“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”
“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B.
In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled completely beyond control to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control.
The establishment was not against him per se, but because of a standard that existed in which you had to be a college graduate, no one would take the time to even read his work. He was trying to preface this so that people would know why he was upset. And I grant you, he was upset. But wouldn't you be if you were rejected because you didn't have the 'right' credentials to make such a discovery? As I said Dexter, if you choose to conclude that he has nothing to offer after just 30 pages of introduction, you need not read the book.
The author said at the end of the book that if anyone can explain this better than him, please come forward. He never presumed that he was the only one who could explain this knowledge. I actually wrote the introduction so please blame me if it is too long winded. I know there is some repetition, but I felt it was that important to explain why he had such a hard time bringing this knowledge to light, so if it was too repetitive, I apologize. If that's all that you can criticize, then we're doing okay so far, right? ;-)
You have to be kidding Dexter. I suggest you read Chapter Two very carefully. It was very explicit what the discovery is. Can you explain why man's will is not free? Do you understand the two-sided equation? If you can't, you seriously need to reread the first two chapters. I promise you, if you do this, you will eventually get it, but if you choose not to do this, then you won't get it and you will think he has no discovery. It doesn't matter to me either way because some people will just not understand, and that's okay.
I just finished chapter 1 and am interested in seeing where he wants to go with this.
I can't really comment for the time being, I need to know what all this is leading to.
But for the sake of discussion I can tell you what are my thoughts on free will and determinism and it will be interesting to see if this book can make me change my mind.
After having thought about it, I came to the conclusion that no one seems to have managed to explain how free will could even remotely be possible in a world understood as being ruled by the laws of physics. The irony is that almost all people, even scientists, will prefer viewing themselves as having free will, despite their incapacity to formulate a coherent hypothesis as to how it could be possible.
That being said, even though I can't figure out a way to explain how free will could be a fact, I still consider myself free. I choose to consider myself free and that is very ironic isn't it? I don't see the sense in considering myself as not being free because my life would lose meaning. What makes life interesting is precisely the fact that I can profoundly influence it with the decisions I take.
In other words, it goes beyond common sense to consider oneself not free. Life is much more interesting when you can be an active participant.
I see life as some form of video game. Did you ever play Super Mario Bros.? You are free to move around Mario wherever you want, but there are rules and there are things you cannot do. You can't do anything the game doesn't let you do, but you are still relatively free.
A more poetic example is one where you are traveling down a river. You can't paddle against the current of the river. That would be futile and it would be a waste of energy. But you can decide to go left or right. You can do your best to avoid collisions with rocks can't you?
The current of the river represents all our determinisms. We are determined. There's nothing we can do to change the laws of physics. But if we understand them properly, we can learn to navigate, using them to our advantage.
No I'm not. His discovery appears to be this: given a choice between two alternatives, one of which you find clearly preferable, then you must choose that one, you're compelled by your cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives and thus are not actually free to choose. That seems a reasonable summary of the extract s_lone provided. I also think it's stupid. What he's saying in effect is that after you've chosen based on your analysis and the choice has been implemented, the other alternative disappears, which is trivially obvious. It's hardly a surprise that people who've studied philosophy would reject such a facile analysis.
Try this instead: Notes on Free Will and Determinism - Prof. Norman Swartz
The link I provided above might help you there. What we call the laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive, which makes a critical difference.
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate... HATE.. this debate.
But +1 for free will.
Maybe I'll muster an actual argument later. ugh.
But +1 for free will.
Maybe I'll muster an actual argument later. ugh.
Thanks Dex, I'll print this out and read it on my hour long mass transit ride to work today. Gladly, I can choose to make the best out of something that can otherwise be rather boring.
What a great analogy s_lone. That's exactly what happens when the author reconciles these two principles. Even though will is not free, we still have the capacity to choose one thing over another within the framework of natural law. This knowledge does not decrease our freedom, it increases our freedom because our choices will not be limited by the cultural, economic, and social factors that exist today.
s_lone said:
You got it! I hope you keep reading.
What a great analogy s_lone. That's exactly what happens when the author reconciles these two principles. Even though will is not free, we still have the capacity to choose one thing over another within the framework of natural law. This knowledge does not decrease our freedom, it increases our freedom because our choices will not be limited by the cultural, economic, and social factors that exist today.
You got it! I hope you keep reading.
As I said, I still need to keep on reading. But how does the author end up with the conclusion that we still have the capacity to choose one thing over another after he so explicitly makes the point that in the end, we always end up choosing what appears to lead to the best satisfaction (or the least dissatisfaction)?
I confess I haven't read any part of the book, just the posts above, but I must add - one persons free
will isn't another's, as people are made up of so many different reactions to situations, out of fear,
anger, shock, and other feelings as well.
We are free to react in any way we feel comfortable, or, our minds allow us, but it is always our choice,
even under severe torture, we can fight till death, or give up early on, it is our free choice, according
to our inner make-up.
If given only two choices, we can choose 'not' to pick either one, but stand firm with no choice, which is
our free choice.
will isn't another's, as people are made up of so many different reactions to situations, out of fear,
anger, shock, and other feelings as well.
We are free to react in any way we feel comfortable, or, our minds allow us, but it is always our choice,
even under severe torture, we can fight till death, or give up early on, it is our free choice, according
to our inner make-up.
If given only two choices, we can choose 'not' to pick either one, but stand firm with no choice, which is
our free choice.
I don't know what you have read, but I will post the end of Chapter One for those who have not read this part, which is extremely important for understanding the two-sided equation. He writes:
The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will’ which has come to signify this aspect — that nothing can compel man to do what he doesn’t want to do — is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO — but that does not make his will free.
In other words, if someone was to say — "I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances," which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he admits he was not free to act otherwise, that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control."
"It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free."
Another friend commented, "You may be satisfied but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make me do it because over this I have mathematical control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?"
"How about that, he brought out something I never would have thought of."
"All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend pointed out, that man has mathematical control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?
Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man 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 which makes the motion of all life just as harmonious as the solar system — because we are these laws.
"Can you clarify this a little bit more?"
"Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide. 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? Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another."
"His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do something against my will does not mean my will is free because my desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, "I did it of my own free will, nobody made me do it," mean that I actually did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.
"He does understand."
"Does this mean you are also in complete agreement so I can proceed?"
"Yes it does."
Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality. The truth is that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying. For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still considered worse under his particular circumstances.
The law of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things. All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this once again. 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. This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature allows absolute control; and that his will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has been made.
You are correct that we can stand firm in our decision, but you are incorrect in that this makes our will free. Please read the previous post and it may help you understand what the author is trying to say.
yeah OK, I read the above post and I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of course we make our choices
within the world we live. We are creatures who need to live together in groups, not alone, and even if we
did live alone our choices, being free for us, would depend on other circumstances, that is just common
sense. so, our free choices are our free choices, within our situations we have 'chosen' to live, or
within our situations 'we have not chosen to live'. If we had truly free choices, not influenced by anything
else, there wouldn't be anything else around us. Just common sense, I accept that, and not sure where all of
this is going, but if it ends up being all about 'god', it is my free choice to opt out, not interested.
The laws of our nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. In that sense we're in agreement;
If you read the first couple pages of the book, it explicitly states:
Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout the book and conclude that this is an evangelical work. Perhaps the ‘G’ word even makes them want to shut down and disconnect from what is being said. This would be unfortunate. As you carefully read the text you will see that the word God (often referred to as ‘He’) is simply a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.
Can you supply said 'law'? I simply can not find the equation anywhere in his text.
PeaceGirl
I continue to see the inevitable "lesson" in your choices for us - one which you finally let loose a few posts up in your description on Mankind's Free Will.
One thing seems remiss to me personally in your drive to make us see your view,
while requesting discussion pro or con.
Honest Freedom of Will has elements of responsibility attached to it or it can never be Free Will. True freedom is emancipation of man himself and others in his environment, in mind, lifestyle, treatment of others, respect for all, and honesty to conduct his/her life in honor of all.
Mankind indeed has all the attributes of being able to exercise his/her Free Will
regardless of the consequences.
I continue to see the inevitable "lesson" in your choices for us - one which you finally let loose a few posts up in your description on Mankind's Free Will.
One thing seems remiss to me personally in your drive to make us see your view,
while requesting discussion pro or con.
Honest Freedom of Will has elements of responsibility attached to it or it can never be Free Will. True freedom is emancipation of man himself and others in his environment, in mind, lifestyle, treatment of others, respect for all, and honesty to conduct his/her life in honor of all.
Mankind indeed has all the attributes of being able to exercise his/her Free Will
regardless of the consequences.
- Status