Free will versus determinism
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
- Status
The elephant in the closet is in point #3. Lessans argues that because nobody can force us to do something against our will, that means nothing causes us to do what we do except for ourselves, meaning we are 100% responsible. But the problem is that at the same time, he repeatedly states that we have no free will whatsoever.
There is a big slimy contradiction despite Peacegirl's refusal to accept it or inability to see it
''There are no outside causes to what I choose to do '' contradicts ''I have no free will whatsoever''
No free will means that there are only outside causes to what we end up doing!
The notion of free will implies that an agent has the capacity to overcome anything that could lead the agent to do something that is unchosen. In simpler words, free will implies the capacity to choose one's actions.
But if there is no free will whatsoever, then you can explain one's choices with outside causes. We are back to determinism. Natural selection has programmed us to always go in the direction of better satisfaction. The choices we have are illusions. There is no choice if it's already established what will be chosen. And Peacegirl backs this up with her own words!
''Where is the moment of contemplation to change our minds free? Just because we can change our minds a nano second before a choice is made, does not make that moment of contemplation free. The decision to change our mind is a given, and the availability of options in a situation where we have more than one choice to pick from is a given. The going back and forth because we aren't sure which choice to make until the very last minute is just as determined as the choice itself because this is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. ''
So in the end, there is no free will whatsoever. But Lessans' tries to avoid his own fact by stating that nobody can force us to anything we don't want to do, making us 100% responsible for our actions. But we've just shown that we have no control whatsoever on what we end up doing. What we end up ''choosing'' could not have been otherwise because we are 100% determined and that means that there are outside causes to what we do. All we are are very fancy and complex machines programmed to always go in the direction of greater satisfaction. Free will is all a big fat illusion and if that's the case, than it is possible to escape the responsibility of your actions because there is none.
You could only do what God caused you to do.
s_lone, as I'm reading through this whole thing, the phrase 'cognitive dissonance' just keeps echoing through my head. Lessans had apparently never heard the phrase, or he'd be aware that we often make decisions which are NOT the ones of most reward, and then change our minds later about what makes us happy to help us live with the decision we made. Cognitive dissonance also drives us to justify unfavourable actions, and I can't see some magic mindset making it disappear from human psychology. Cognitive dissonance is also what would push one to overlook flaws in a theory that they've invested immense amounts of time and energy in, only to see fail.
Yes and this has been a lingering issue since the beginning of the discussion. I'm tempted to say that Lessans would probably discard what you just said by saying that when we do make decisions, we always necessarily think the option we choose is what will bring us the most satisfaction even though it might not be. The important point being that ''we are not free because you can only necessarily choose what you think will bring you most satisfaction''
If cognitive dissonance is what pushes you to overlook slaws in a theory than Lessans was full of it.
Generally trying to be a polite sort of lad, I was a little slow in getting started being obnoxious about Lessans "theory" and Peacegirls defense of it, but I did have an inkling from the getgo that it is no more than a bunch of nonsense. :smile:
Actually, the book is 569 pages and without chapter ten it is 22 pages less. What you are saying doesn't fly JLM. If you are not curious about this book, then don't read it, but don't keep acting as if you know what it's about because you believe Dexter gave a fair refutation, which he did not. He gave absolutely nothing to discredit this work. So if you want to be involved in the discussion, join the program and study the book before making unfounded accusations.
I think you understand that we must necessarily choose what we think will bring us the most satisfaction. It's not that our choices are the best from someone else's point of view, or even after we have experienced the negative consequences long enough. That's called looking back in hindsight in order to make a different choice the next time a similar situation presents itself, or at least try to make a better choice when all the available options are on the table. It is also true that we might not know all of the ramifications of a particular choice, but at that moment, we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though we know in the long run we might have to pay the price by ruining our life or the life of others. For example, if someone is an addict, the momentary high may compel him or her to choose shooting up to be the best choice, even though he knows that the end result will be more pain. He may eventually get enough help to where he can resist his temptations. But he does have the ability to resist if he had to. In other words, if he knew that his family would be instantly killed if he shot up one more time, he would suddenly have the strength to go through whatever he had to in order to save his family. There are no exceptions to this principle, and if you can find one, then show me, and I will point out where you are mistaken. It appears that many people cannot adjust their philosophy of life to include something that is so far removed from their way of thinking. It is not me that has cognitive dissonance, IT IS THEM!
Last edited:
"Accusations" isn't quite the right word. There simply isn't any substance to the "philosophy". You should listen to Dexter (who isn't particularly a friend of mine) just a sensible, clear thinking sort of guy. :smile:
There are no exceptions to what principle? The principle that we can't ever choose anything else but what brings us more satisfaction?
I think this has been beaten to death.
1: We do not have free will because we can only and necessarily choose what brings us the most satisfaction.
That statement alone is very erroneous- many people donated to the Haiti fund because it was the decent thing to do instead of spending the money on beer which would give them a lot more satisfaction. That should end this argument. :smile:
1: We do not have free will because we can only and necessarily choose what brings us the most satisfaction.
That statement alone is very erroneous- many people donated to the Haiti fund because it was the decent thing to do instead of spending the money on beer which would give them a lot more satisfaction. That should end this argument. :smile:
Exactly. Even if our choices are the lesser of two evils.
S_lone said:
This is not about should or shouldn't. It's about how this principle works. As we extend the truth of our nature, which is that man's will is not free, we can see, for the very first time, that by not blaming, people don't become less responsible, they become more responsible.
S_lone said:
Very good.
s_lone said:
That is true, for how can we transfer that which is our responsibility to someone or something else, when no one is holding us responsible? In order to shift responsibility someone must be holding us accountable? The second part is showing that nothing other than you yourself are choosing your actions. The big excuse in determinism is that we were caused to hurt others by something external to us; therefore our actions were not our responsibiilty. But that's false because everything we do we do because we want to. The environmental conditons (along with our genetics) create our desire to choose one thing over another, but they don't cause us to do anything against our will. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
s_lone said:
Right. But you need to understand why. When you know in advance that no one in the entire world will ever blame you for your actions, even though you know that you would be striking THE FIRST BLOW, the knowledge that there will be no consequences for this hurt to another presents consequences that are still worse. In fact, they are worse than any punishment society could offer. It's not that there will be no consequences, which I think people are getting confused over; it's that the consequences of causing harm to another without justification, is a painful thought because you would feel terribly guilty over such an action and no way to ease your conscience or to pay a price for what you did. Knowing this in advance, the desire to hurt someone with a first blow would be impossible because it would be the worst possible choice in comparison to not hurting someone. You have to remember that it is our nature that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is why man's will is not free, and when hurting others becomes the least favorable choice, our problem is solved because we will get less satisfaction, not more.
s_lone said:
Pretty good synopsis overall. But when you say as long "as everyone agrees", that might cause confusion. People don't have to agree to anything if they don't want to. But how can they not want to when they realize that what they will be getting in return is so much better than what we have now. To repeat: They don't have to do anything if they don't want to (this new world is coming about by choice), but when they realize that 'not blaming another' will bring about the very thing that all of the blame, judgment, and punishment could never bring about, they will willingly agree to do what it takes to get this transition to a new way of life, underway.
Last edited:
The reason because people would not want to go along Lessans' ''no blame'' principle is that they simply don't see how it follows that it can wipe out war, crime and hatred from the face of the earth.
This is exactly what you and Lessans fail to do... to convince us that the ''no blame'' principle leads to people being so careful and peaceful that nobody gets hurt by anybody else.
further edited
Peacegirl, I just realized you commented on each point of my synopsis but you have it all quoted as ''s_lone''. It would be good if you edited post #230 to correct the situation. There is a very useful icon that lets you wrap ''quote and unquote'' around selected text. I'm not being critical, just trying to be helpful.
edited after Peacegirl's correction
Thanks peacegirl this is great!
The reason they don't understand how this can wipe out war, crime, and hatred is because they haven't given Lessans a chance. If no one takes this book seriously by carefully studying the first two chapters (I am not saying you s_lone; I know you have), how can I move forward?
Peacegirl, I've tried a couple times to explain why I think Lessans' theory is faulty. To put it very briefly, I think he cheats his own statement that we don't have free will by saying nobody can force us to do what we don't want to do. He's avoiding the fact that our will is determined by nature. ''What we don't want to do'' or want to do becomes irrelevant if in the end, choices are just illusions.
Choices are not illusions if one has the power to change what one desires. I can very easily see Lessans' new world falling apart as soon as someone starts telling another something like this:
''I won't blame you for taking what was mine. But I will blame you for having desired to take what was mine, which lead you take it!!!''
If this book is to be taken seriously, it needs to reworked on. Big time. Forget all the crap about vision not being one of the five senses. It serves no purpose in supporting his point that words like 'beautiful' and 'ugly' have no basis in external reality. And especially, forget every thing he says on how we would see the sun explode instantly if it did.
The only thing that instantly happens in this case is him losing his credibility to anyone with a little capacity to understand science.
He also needs to avoid all the bull**** about mathematical truths. There are no such things in what he has to say. The human issues he is dealing with are much too complex to be stated as ''mathematical facts''. It's NOT a fact that 2 people who have fallen in love with one another can't un-fall in love.
What I find sad in all this is that I do see potential for a nice and thought provoking reflection on what a truly kind and peaceful humanity could look like, but it's all wasted in Lessans' incapacity to understand that this kind of thing can't be presented as scientific fact. The tone of the book literally does not fit with its subject.
A long time ago, I read a book by the Dalai-Lama on how to cultivate happiness. The man has his faith, and of course, it seriously colours anything he has to say. And he's not trying to hide any of his faith. But at least he didn't present his ideas as scientific facts that couldn't be denied. He simply asks people to meditate on what he has to say about happiness and see how it applies to our own personal lives.
Lessans doesn't ask you to meditate. He asks you to accept what he has to say as undeniable truth. And as you can see, nobody is taking him seriously except you.
Choices are not illusions if one has the power to change what one desires. I can very easily see Lessans' new world falling apart as soon as someone starts telling another something like this:
''I won't blame you for taking what was mine. But I will blame you for having desired to take what was mine, which lead you take it!!!''
If this book is to be taken seriously, it needs to reworked on. Big time. Forget all the crap about vision not being one of the five senses. It serves no purpose in supporting his point that words like 'beautiful' and 'ugly' have no basis in external reality. And especially, forget every thing he says on how we would see the sun explode instantly if it did.
The only thing that instantly happens in this case is him losing his credibility to anyone with a little capacity to understand science.
He also needs to avoid all the bull**** about mathematical truths. There are no such things in what he has to say. The human issues he is dealing with are much too complex to be stated as ''mathematical facts''. It's NOT a fact that 2 people who have fallen in love with one another can't un-fall in love.
What I find sad in all this is that I do see potential for a nice and thought provoking reflection on what a truly kind and peaceful humanity could look like, but it's all wasted in Lessans' incapacity to understand that this kind of thing can't be presented as scientific fact. The tone of the book literally does not fit with its subject.
A long time ago, I read a book by the Dalai-Lama on how to cultivate happiness. The man has his faith, and of course, it seriously colours anything he has to say. And he's not trying to hide any of his faith. But at least he didn't present his ideas as scientific facts that couldn't be denied. He simply asks people to meditate on what he has to say about happiness and see how it applies to our own personal lives.
Lessans doesn't ask you to meditate. He asks you to accept what he has to say as undeniable truth. And as you can see, nobody is taking him seriously except you.
Peacegirl- Let's just pretend for sake of argument that Lessan's theory and yours are correct? How would that improve the world?
There is no big slimy contradiction s_lone.
peacegirl said:
No, it does not. The reason you are confused is because of the classifcal definition. Just because nothing other than yourself has the power to 'cause' you to act a certain way unless you want it, does not mean we have free will. You are trying to put a square into a round peg, and it's all because of the conventional definition you hold in your head. What Lessans is proposing is not contradictory at all.
s_lone said:
Yes, according to the old definition. But definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. This definition does not describe reality accurately. People believed that if nothing causes us to do what we do, then we must be doing the things we do of our own free will. It sounds logical because if we are not caused to do the things we do, we must be choosing of our own free will. It sounds logical, but it's not accurate.
s_lone said:
Going back to what I was just saying, the confusion over the definition of determinism has not allowed people to see how these two principles are actually reconciled through this knowledge. We can do things of our own accord; our own volition, but this in no way means our will is free. If you understand Lessans' definition (which is accurate) you will see that there is no contradiction.
s_lone said:
After we choose something, it could have never been otherwise. The act of contemplating is also determined; therefore what appears to be a free act is really not free at all, even though our ability to weigh our options is part of the deterministic process.
peacegirl said:
s_lone said:
s_lone said:
God in this context only mean the laws of our nature, which is our movement always and ever in the direction of greater satisfaction.
As far as being complex machines, it depends how you want to look at it; we don't fall outside of the laws of our nature and in this respect our actions are determined, even though our will is not excluded from the process. It does remove the extreme boastfulness or pride that someone did something of his own free will. The reason you cannot escape responsibility is because of the two-sided equation. Let me repeat:
Everyone in the new world knows your will is not free (and you know this as well), therefore you know in advance that no matter what you do to hurt others, no one will blame you for this hurt. When no one is holding you responsible, you are compelled to hold yourself responsible because there is no way you can rationalize, justify, or excuse away your behavior. How can you justify your behavior by shifting the responsibility to someone else when no one is holding you responsible? It can't be done. The only way you can make excuses for your behavior, or make someone else culpable for your actions, is if someone is blaming you which gives you the opportunity to ease your conscience because you can blame someone else as being partly or solely responsible for what you did.
Remember, we are talking about a situation before it occurs. Therefore, when it fully dawns on you that the person you are about to hurt (along with the entire world) will not judge you, criticize you, or condemn you for what they know is not your responsibility (because your will is not free, but you know IS your responsibility FOR OVER THIS YOU HAVE MATHEMATICAL CONTROL, you will be compelled (of your own free will or desire) to relinquish this act because it can give you NO SATISFACTION under the changed conditions. I am repeating this over again because it is the key to this discovery, and until you grasp it you will tell me he's being contradictory. Not only is he not contradictory; he is 100% correct. There are no flaws in his analysis, which is a good thing because we can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment was previously necessary.
How can you blame someone for anything? You can't because his will is not free. But you are projecting that there will be situations in which he will desire taking something that is yours. There is no way he would desire this when these principles become a permanent condition of the environment. The only way someone would take something from someone else is if he doesn't have the necessaries of life. Therefore self-preservation, which is the first law of nature, would come into play. That's why this principle could not work unless the economic system allows everyone in the world to have a basic standard of living.
s_lone said:
He had his reasons for coming to this conclusion. As I mentioned, we will need to be patient and let time prove one way or another if he was wrong or right. He said himself that it's not whether the eyes are, or are not, a sense organ that matters; it is the removal of words that hurt half of the human race that is paramount, because these words are not symbolic of reality.
s_lone said:
I hope it doesn't. I couldn't leave it out just because people don't like what they are reading.
s_lone said:
Once again, he was saying that in order to understand why people will stay together is to first put the cart before the horse. He is extending these principles to demonstrate when these words are removed from the environment, and when we stop doing things that strike a first blow, which then creates a chain reaction of blame and retaliation, there will be nothing standing in the way for love to blossom and grow throughout a couple's married life.
s_lone said:
It absolutely does IF you understand how these principles extend mathematically into every single area of human relation. He said that the mankind system is just as mathematically governed as the solar system, but we couldn't see this until now because of all the disharmony in the world.
s_lone said:
But this IS mathematical in every way. Why do you think I'm working so hard to get people to understand this knowledge. I'm not in a dreamworld; I know what this man has.
s_lone said:
No one yet. This book hasn't even been sold on the market yet. There is no telling where it will lead, but the problem on the internet is that it is full of sound bites. Forums such as this don't usually want to read anything; they just want to talk and give their opinions. If you say you have something to offer, they say you're preaching. It's a tough venue for this type of work, and I'll probably stop doing this as soon as I am able to create my own website and blog. I'll advertise through youtube, facebook, and twitter. I have heard though that people can ruin interesting conversations just to be mean spirited. It seems that this is something people (who do have something worthy to say) must go through, in order to get the benefits.
Last edited:
OK. Two simple question.
If nothing other than myself causes me to take the decision, what does?
Why is the self free of causal relations?
If definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned, why would Lessans' definition of determinism describe reality any more accurately than the classical definition? At least the latter is consistent. But Lessans leaves out a blank spot. He says the will is neither free nor determined in the classical sense. Yet you say:
''After we choose something, it could have never been otherwise. The act of contemplating is also determined; therefore what appears to be a free act is really not free at all, even though our ability to weigh our options is part of the deterministic process.
You also say:
we don't fall outside of the laws of our nature and in this respect our actions are determined, even though our will is not excluded from the process.
How is this deterministic process different than in the classical definition?
I still see one. I guess I must no understand. :roll:
I understand that this is what Lessans means by ''God''. And that is the meaning I was using in my comment. If God compels to always go in the direction of greater satisfaction no matter what, than I don't see how we escape classical determinism. The will is not free. We can't control our will. So I don't see how this all makes us responsible. Why not say that God is responsible?
Why can't it be done? Even though nobody else is blaming you, the guilt that you have towards your own self means that you are blaming yourself. Perhaps you can escape outside blame if somehow, Lessans' No Blame principle was applied magically, but you can't escape your own blame towards yourself, which is what causes guilt in the first place. What would stop someone from escaping this self-blame by saying that in the end, he couldn't have done otherwise, that he was compelled by God (nature) do do what he did?
As I just said, you can blame yourself. And there is no reason why some people wouldn't want to escape this inner guilt by holding God responsible.
How do you have ''mathematical'' control? The notion of ''control'' suggests some form of free will right? If the will is not free, than we have no control whatsoever, mathematical or not.
Unless the economic system forces everyone to the exact same condition, some people will always have more than others. And for that reason alone, people will desire to have things that they do not and that others do. Even in a system where everybody has a basic standard of living, if some people have more than others, than some people will envy and desire what these lucky people have.
If what Lessans' says is so undeniable I guess we must all be incredibly stupid right? Me, the others participating in this thread, all the other fools you tried to convince in other forums. It must be painful to live in a world of such ignorance!:roll:
I started reading it and stopped because it was boring, repetitive and poorly written and especially, especially boastful while being severely flawed.
I wish you good luck in your advertising. But if I were you, considering you really go along with Lessans, I'd put more energy in working on what makes the book indigestible than advertising it.
Why can't you talk to me directly? This has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. Lessans was not trying to fit something into his worldview to make it work. So you're wrong once again.
The self is not free of causal relations. There is always a reason why a person chooses one thing over another. I hope keep trying to understand the two-sided equation. I don't know how else to get this concept across.
s_lone said:
Because it does. It is a more accurate definition because it is based on an accurate observation.
s_lone said:
You are getting all mixed up again. Our will is part of the process of determinism because we must choose what gives us greater satisfaction. But we have a will and we can choose. Can you agree with that? :confused3:
s_lone said:
Because the classical definition says that we are caused by other forces that take our will completely out of the equation. This is not accurate.
s_lone said:
You see one what?
s_lone said:
God is responsible because God (the laws of our nature) cannot be escaped. What prevents someone from striking a first blow to another, is for the reason that everyone must forgive him; they must turn the other cheek. And he knows this is in advance. This causes a change in his attitude because of his conscience. Conscience works in a very predictable way. In a free will environment, conscience has never been able to reach the temperature necessary to prevent these terrible crimes. But that changes with this knowledge.
s_lone said:
The guilt toward yourself is what prevents the act because no one can get satisfaction out of doing something to someone with no justification. This principle removes the justification because there is nowhere for conscience to go to ease itself. I know it's hard to understand why responsibility for one's actions cannot be shifted, but that's exactly what happens under these conditions. And that is where conscience steps in because it cannot find a way to rationalize its behavior.
s_lone said:
Don't you see that's just another excuse to justify your actions. But when no one is holding you responsible, you can't use God or any other excuse to justify your behavior. The responsibility therefore rests on your shoulders, and there is no way to shift it.
This proves conclusively that the only time he can say, "I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free," or offer any kind of excuse, is when he knows he is being blamed for this allows him to make this effort to shift his responsibility. Let me explain this in still another way.
When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you do it also means that you must assume complete responsibility for what you do because you cannot shift it away from yourself under the changed conditions We have become so confused by words in logical relation that while we preach this freedom of the will we say in the same breath that we could not help ourselves, and demonstrate our confusion still more by believing that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, would lessen our responsibility when it does the exact opposite. Did you ever see anything more ironically humorous? The only time we can use the excuse that our will is not free is when the world believes it is free. The world of free will (the world of blame) has allowed people to lie and cheat in order to get what they want and then shift responsibility away from themselves when questioned.
Many philosophers have gotten confused over this one point because it was assumed that a world without blame would only make matters worse, decreasing responsibility to an even greater extent and giving man the perfect opportunity to take advantage of others without having to worry about consequences. But this can only occur when man knows he will be blamed, which allows him to come up with reasonable excuses. When he knows in advance that no matter what he does to hurt others the response will be one of no blame because the world knows his will is not free — he cannot find justification for what he is about to do. In other words, the knowledge that the world must excuse what he can no longer justify prevents the desire to take even the slightest chance of hurting another. Under these conditions, responsibility reaches a level never seen before in all of history. This will become clearer as we continue.
s_lone said:
No s_lone, just because nothing can make us do what we choose not to do, doesn't make our will free. It just means that we can't point to something outside of ourselves and say that without our permission, this caused me to do what I did. The conditions of our life create the desire to choose one option over another, which is why our will is not free. All this statement is saying that you alone are making the choice and nothing but you. If I hit you, I did it, even though the world knows, once it occurs, I was under a compulsion to do it. The only real difference between Lessans' definition and the classical definition is the idea of 'greater satisfaction' and the idea that 'cause' does not mean that something other than you is performing the action.
s_lone said:
Wrong. There is a big difference between gaining something at someone else's expense when not to hurt them does not make you a loser; and hurting someone in order to survive. Conscience knows the difference. One is a first blow, the other is not and can be justified by conscience.
s_lone said:
Not really. It's not up to me. We're developing and when it's the right time, this knowledge will be understood by science. Until then, we will continue developing and using our laws to prevent man from doing bad things to people. It's up to something much bigger than me or Lessans. All he was doing was sharing his observations.
s_lone said:
I cannot do more. I've worked on this a long time and I've realized that no matter how it is written, there will be people who find it offensive. Yet, they won't take the time to read the book in its entirety as the author asked. But they will have a lot to say about how wrong Lessans was. And that's okay. I have no control over what other people think, or do. I do suggest s_lone to keep reading because it will clarify a lot of things. If you don't want to, that's your choice in the direction of satisfaction. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Last edited:
Because you complain when I debate Lessans work with you. *shrugs*
btw, I never said Lessans was justifying his work due to dissonance.... I believe the presence of cognitive dissonance disproves that we always make the most rewarding choices for ourselves. If we did, we wouldn't need to change our mindsets later to justify our choices. And when I stated that it would drive one to overlook flaws in a theory they've invested large amounts of time in, I was not referring to Lessans, I was referring to you.
That's because you have nothing substantial to say. You were talking about cognitive dissonance, and assuming that is what Lessans was doing. Without any understanding of the book, you are jumping to another false conclusion. If you don't have something to say based on some kind of substance, why say it?
- Status