Free will versus determinism

[peacegirl]

No, I'm not just listening to the professionals. I have my own observations of humanity under my belt too. If I was merely listening to professionals I'd have posted studies for you to peruse. Everything in my own experiences, my own gut, AND what I know of professional psychology, tells me that his assertion would hold true only in an idealized, perfect world, where humanity was wired to think as he demands. But we are none of those things, and bringing them about would be impossible.

But we are wired to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is our nature, and for that reason we are controlled by the conditions that we are faced with if those conditions don't give us room to hurt others without justification. If we were not controlled by the laws of our nature, we would have the freedom (free will) to do whatever we wanted, which is impossible under the changed conditions. I have a feeling you understood nothing that I just said.

Sorry to interject here as I haven't been following this thread that thoroughly.. but in your view, if war ceased to exist, for instance, would you consider this development to be consistent with the theme of determinism?

Mentalfloss, everything we do is consistent with the theme of determinism, not just ending war, if war turns out to be something we desire to end and are able to prevent.

 

[karrie]

But we are wired to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is our nature, and for that reason we are controlled by the conditions that we are faced with if those conditions don't give us room to hurt others without justification. If we were not controlled by the laws of our nature, we would have the freedom (free will) to do whatever we wanted, which is impossible under the changed conditions. I have a feeling you understood nothing that I just said.


.

Regarding the bold... You throw that insult out at everyone, like we're all below being able to comprehend basic English. Stop it, it's rude. Now, moving on as if it weren't there....

The problem becomes that for the whole world to exist in this blameless state would require a blindness of sorts. We would have to try to make sure that no one ever caught on to the fact that they could abuse it, use it to their advantage. But, because people are always striving to be better, to have more, to compete (that is a scientifically proven function of our evolutionary hold overs), there would always be some incentive to throw the new world order to the wind and seek personal reward. The only way to create this world would be to create criminals out of ambitious people.

 

[talloola]

. I have a feeling you understood nothing that I just said.

The above is 'what' you have told posters over and over, you must step back and take a good look
at that statement, it is insulting and repetitive, and shows no respect for fellow posters at all,
as we are intelligent adult human beings, and have a very solid grip on this subject, and many of
the posts have shown that.
As soon as someone disagrees with your analogy, 'they don't understand'?. come on, clue in please.

I have also stepped back from this thread, and given it a longer harder look, and
it looks to me like 'just' another person 'flogging' another book, and the more
negative attention that comes her way, the more interest there might be in buying
this book, just like any other book or movie, negativity brings attention to something, which is 'sad' indeed, but true.

 

[mentalfloss]

Mentalfloss, everything we do is consistent with the theme of determinism, not just ending war, if war turns out to be something we desire to end and are able to prevent.

Ah, I thought earlier that you were implying that determinism is only relevant to our need for survival as a species. So you are a hard determinist then.

I think that's a tough bullet to bite as it implies that responsibility is irrelevent. Even free will theorists account for the transparent barrier of responsibility for that freedom. It's fine that you can have that belief, but it should end there as you are not free to make any moral or ethical deliberations with determinism as a foundation.

 

[s_lone]

Hi Peacegirl, I'm back.

I think Mentalfloss hits the nail on its head as to what you and I are unable to agree with. You say Lessans found a way to resolve the dichotomy between determinism and free will but I don't see that he has.

He states very clearly that we are not free. That our will is not free. It can only choose what brings most satisfaction in the same way a robot can be programmed to always turn left at every intersection.

Then he wiggles out of this by saying that nobody can force us to do something against our will. In my opinion, this statement is empty because Lessans already states that our will isn't free. Whatever the will desires is already determined and whatever it ''chooses'' also. Responsibility in the moral sense means nothing if all we are are very elaborate automatons.

I know you already said that we are not automatons, but you haven't managed to show how we aren't in a world without free will.

The notion of moral responsibility is incompatible with hard determinism.

 

[peacegirl]

No, I'm not just listening to the professionals. I have my own observations of humanity under my belt too. If I was merely listening to professionals I'd have posted studies for you to peruse. Everything in my own experiences, my own gut, AND what I know of professional psychology, tells me that his assertion would hold true only in an idealized, perfect world, where humanity was wired to think as he demands. But we are none of those things, and bringing them about would be impossible.

Everything your gut tells you is understandable coming from a world of judgment, blame, and condemnation. This is a different animal entirely, so you can't use your gut to judge this knowledge. We are not wired to do as Lessans demands, that is true; we are wired to follow the laws of our nature. Ironically, following the laws of our nature creates the idealized, perfect world, we all want but only if we follow God's demands.

The above is 'what' you have told posters over and over, you must step back and take a good look
at that statement, it is insulting and repetitive, and shows no respect for fellow posters at all,
as we are intelligent adult human beings, and have a very solid grip on this subject, and many of
the posts have shown that.
As soon as someone disagrees with your analogy, 'they don't understand'?. come on, clue in please.

I have also stepped back from this thread, and given it a longer harder look, and
it looks to me like 'just' another person 'flogging' another book, and the more
negative attention that comes her way, the more interest there might be in buying
this book, just like any other book or movie, negativity brings attention to something, which is 'sad' indeed, but true.

Talloola, I in no way meant to insult you. I don't know any other way to tell someone they don't understand except to say they don't understand. Should I agree with them when they have not grasped the entirety of this concept? How can I overcome this stumbling block? I am not flogging another book. When I first came online I thought people would have open arms. I didn't realize how resentful people would feel toward me, let alone the author. But since it is causing such negative attention, maybe that will at least get people to read what is causing the controversy. I might as well use this negativity for something good. I know one thing for sure; if I lose people's attention, then no one will read the book, and that will be a sad day indeed.

Ah, I thought earlier that you were implying that determinism is only relevant to our need for survival as a species. So you are a hard determinist then.

I think that's a tough bullet to bite as it implies that responsibility is irrelevent. Even free will theorists account for the transparent barrier of responsibility for that freedom. It's fine that you can have that belief, but it should end there as you are not free to make any moral or ethical deliberations with determinism as a foundation.

Mental floss, this knowledge does not eliminate responsibility. That is why this knowledge is so groundbreaking. Let me repeat: This new definition of determinism in no way takes away from our responsibility; it increases it, which is why it is a fantastic discovery, and why I am putting myself out there in spite of the risk of being laughed or [at worst] despised.

Hi Peacegirl, I'm back.

I think Mentalfloss hits the nail on its head as to what you and I are unable to agree with. You say Lessans found a way to resolve the dichotomy between determinism and free will but I don't see that he has.

Welcome back s_lone, I hope you had a wonderful vacation. Mental Floss did not hit the nail on the head. We are back to square one because you keep mixing up the two definitions, and until you separate them, you will keep saying that Lessans did not resolve the dichotomy.

He states very clearly that we are not free. That our will is not free. It can only choose what brings most satisfaction in the same way a robot can be programmed to always turn left at every intersection.

Ultimately, we are programmed because our will is not free. But you are forgetting that our will is part of that programming. Until we make a decision (of our own choosing), there is nothing forcing us (which hard determinism implies) to do what we do.

Then he wiggles out of this by saying that nobody can force us to do something against our will. In my opinion, this statement is empty because Lessans already states that our will isn't free. Whatever the will desires is already determined and whatever it ''chooses'' also. Responsibility in the moral sense means nothing if all we are are very elaborate automatons.

I explained to you that the only reason he says that nothing can force us to do what we don't want to do is exactly for this reason. He had to make this distinction because hard determinism implies that we are caused by something external to ourselves that is making the choice for us. This is a fallacy.

I know you already said that we are not automatons, but you haven't managed to show how we aren't in a world without free will.

The notion of moral responsibility is incompatible with hard determinism.

There is a huge difference between doing something because it can predict what you are going to do from step a to step z, and doing something because it gives greater satisfaction to do that over something else. One does not involve the agent at all; the other does. It is true that looking back we could never have done differently, and therefore we cannot have two possible universes. But the classical determinism is lacking in that it's very definition removes the will, which is incomplete.

 

[JLM]

Maybe it's time to quit this thread and just accept the fact that we are all frickin' stupid and don't have the wherewithall to understand this deep psychology (which I sure don't) but I do have an inkling about what works and what doesn't. I'm going to start another thread to help take the pressure off this one. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[talloola]

Talloola, I in no way meant to insult you. I don't know any other way to tell someone they don't understand except to say they don't understand. Should I agree with them when they have not grasped the entirety of this concept? How can I overcome this stumbling block? I am not flogging another book. When I first came online I thought people would have open arms. I didn't realize how resentful people would feel toward me, let alone the author. But since it is causing such negative attention, maybe that will at least get people to read what .

You don't have to ageee with another's opinion, or tell them they don't understand, there are more
intelligent methods of replying.
By respecting others opinions, and realizing that we all will not agree with you, that is not realistic,
as we have different approaches to situations, and different results.

And, because that is the case, it 'does not' mean we don't understand, we just don't agree.

Can you imagine if 'all of us' replied to you with that conclusion, wouldn't we all sound like
a group, who can only send information 'out' but can't seem to allow it 'in', whether we aggree or not.

 

[s_lone]

Welcome back s_lone, I hope you had a wonderful vacation.

I did! Thanks...

Mental Floss did not hit the nail on the head. We are back to square one because you keep mixing up the two definitions, and until you separate them, you will keep saying that Lessans did not resolve the dichotomy.

Actually it's more simple than that. I'm not mixing up definitions. Despite what he thinks, Lessans fails to escape hard determinism in his own version and that is why I can't accept it. I think Lessans' definition of determinism contains a basic flaw, which is to imply that our will can make an authentic decision of its own choosing (because nothing can force it to do anything). But it obviously can't if the will is just another bolt in the machinery of life!

Again, a robot programmed to turn left at every intersection does not ''choose'' to turn left because the other option is not even considered. It MUST turn left. Similarly, if we follow Lessans' point that the will necessarily takes the path of greater satisfaction, the path of least satisfaction is not even considered therefore there is no choice. All there is is an intersection of possibilities, and unless you open up the to the idea that the will might authentically be free, then it's erroneous to say the will is choosing anything at all. The will is no more free than a bug or a rock. The will takes the path of most satisfaction in the same way a rock falls to the ground when you let it go. And because there is no choice, the notion of moral responsibility becomes irrelevant.

Simply put, I think Lessans fails to resolve the dichotomy because after negating free will, he tries to bring it back in the picture through the back door.

Ultimately, we are programmed because our will is not free. But you are forgetting that our will is part of that programming. Until we make a decision (of our own choosing), there is nothing forcing us (which hard determinism implies) to do what we do.

Read my comment above. There are no decisions ''of our own choosing'' if the will is not free. Our will is part of the programming and does not ''choose'' anything at all. Think of the left turning robot again and tell me how humans are different from robots if we have no free will.

I explained to you that the only reason he says that nothing can force us to do what we don't want to do is exactly for this reason. He had to make this distinction because hard determinism implies that we are caused by something external to ourselves that is making the choice for us. This is a fallacy.

But the distinction he makes is misleading at best. He says nothing forces the agent to do anything against its will, but the absence of free will implies very clearly that God itself (the entirety of laws of nature) force the will do whatever it does.

Let me illustrate my point clearly with this example. I have numerous software in my computer. They are all programmed to follow a very clear set of instructions. Let's consider program #1 and program #2. We can both agree that neither program is free. A program is not free, it follows pre-established guidelines and can't do otherwise. It can't deviate from what it was programmed to do.

Lessans makes this affirmation:

Programs (individuals) are not free because they can't do otherwise but do what they were programmed to do. (so far so good)

But then Lessans says this:

Because program #2 (and all other programs) can't force program #1 to do anything, that means program #1 is fully responsible for what it does.

Of course, program #1 is responsible for what it does! But not morally responsible! And actually the true responsible is the programmer (God).Program #1 doesn't choose anything. It never does. It only does what it's programmed to do. And it can't break the rules of my computer's operating system (the universe... or God)

The notion of morality is indissociable from the notion of free will. We invented morality because most of us consider ourselves free. Being morally responsible for actions implies that we ARE free. To negate free will is to negate moral responsibility and this is where I feel Lessans takes a wrong turn. He starts out by negating free will and the rest of his theory deals with ethics, moral and conscience and that is a mistake.

There is a huge difference between doing something because it can predict what you are going to do from step a to step z, and doing something because it gives greater satisfaction to do that over something else. One does not involve the agent at all; the other does. It is true that looking back we could never have done differently, and therefore we cannot have two possible universes. But the classical determinism is lacking in that it's very definition removes the will, which is incomplete.

Lessans' version of determinism contains the will. But it amounts to nothing. The word ''will'' in this context is simply misleading because it was already established that it's not free, that it's simply one more bolt in the huge machine... There's no ghost in the machine. You might as well call the ''will'' the ''program''. There is no difference in this context.

 

[Bcool]

I'm really not angry, just taken aback by your vitriol. It's very obvious that you are projecting your own issues onto me. Therefore, it is YOU that needs professional medical :help:.

"Sticks and stones...." Janis? Not the persona you have been attempting to portray here. And indeed you are angry, you are angry with every person who will not unquestioningly accept Lessans "New World Order" - ominous phrase that, it has occured many times in history always with the same horrendous results. Ever read about Oliver Cromwell and his "New World Order", Janis? Took slaughtering and exterminating a lot of men, women and children, a lot, to get them to accept his version. And he was but one of untold hundreds since humans learnt how to make sharp, pointy sticks, throw rocks and the perks of being 'the leader'.

Janis Rafael, June 5, 2007: " . . [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false."[/FONT]
" . . [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] It is not too often that a real genuine discovery is posted. In fact, this may be the first using the internet as a vehicle for bringing new knowledge to light. . . "[/FONT] Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado - New Discovery

And the recipe for this "real genuine discovery", this "new knowledge":
​

You take a cup of this:
Libertarian Christianity: "Following the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, they believe that "God from all eternity did ... freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." By believing in predestination, libertarian Christians believe in determinism to the extent that determinism is congruent with their view of predestination. Since metaphysical libertarianism patently rejects the precept that God has "from all eternity ... ordain[ed] whatsoever comes to pass," libertarian Christians patently reject metaphysical libertarianism. . . ." Libertarian Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

add a large measure of:

Parmenides and the Question of Being in Greek Thought Parmenides and the Question of Being

toss in sective pieces of:

Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking by William James - The lectures follow were delivered at the Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December, 1906, and in January, 1907, at Columbia University, in New York:

* 1 Preface
* 2 Lecture I: The Present Dilemma in Philosophy
* 3 Lecture II: What Pragmatism Means
* 4 Lecture III: Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered
* 5 Lecture IV: The One and the Many
* 6 Lecture V: Pragmatism and Common Sense
* 7 Lecture VI: Pragmatism's Conception of Truth
* 8 Lecture VII: Pragmatism and Humanism
* 9 Lecture VIII: Pragmatism and Religion

" . . The history of philosophy is to a great extent that of a certain clash of human temperaments. Undignified as such a treatment may seem to some of my colleagues, I shall have to take account of this clash and explain a good many of the divergencies of philosophers by it. Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries when philosophizing to sink the fact of his temperament. Temperament is no conventionally recognized reason, so he urges impersonal reasons only for his conclusions. Yet his temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more strictly objective premises. It loads the evidence for him one way or the other, making for a more sentimental or a more hard-hearted view of the universe, just as this fact or that principle would. He trusts his temperament. Wanting a universe that suits it, he believes in any representation of the universe that does suit it. He feels men of opposite temper to be out of key with the world's character, and in his heart considers them incompetent and 'not in it,' in the philosophic business, even tho they may far excel him in dialectical ability."
Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking - Wikisource

Stir & Serve. Voila! A plagiarized "but new" recipe!
​

And your thought for the day: "Happiness in this world, when it comes, comes incidentally. Make it the object of pursuit, and it leads us a wild-goose chase, and is never attained. Follow some other object, and very possibly we may find that we have caught happiness without dreaming of it." Nathaniel Hawthorne

Be well soon.
________________________________


​

 

[peacegirl]

Regarding the bold... You throw that insult out at everyone, like we're all below being able to comprehend basic English. Stop it, it's rude. Now, moving on as if it weren't there....

I'm not sure how it turned bold. I didn't do this purposely.

The problem becomes that for the whole world to exist in this blameless state would require a blindness of sorts. We would have to try to make sure that no one ever caught on to the fact that they could abuse it, use it to their advantage. But, because people are always striving to be better, to have more, to compete (that is a scientifically proven function of our evolutionary hold overs), there would always be some incentive to throw the new world order to the wind and seek personal reward. The only way to create this world would be to create criminals out of ambitious people.

What you are saying doesn't apply because no one would would have to make sure that someone didn't abuse this knowledge to their advantage. They couldn't abuse this knowledge if they wanted to, number one. Number two, there will be nothing to throw over because there be no more government (no authority and control) and number three, personal reward will continue to be a big motivator. There will be more competition in sports and business than ever before. I already mentioned that. The only difference is that people would not be able gain at someone else's expense. But they could if they wanted to, because no one is going to be looking over their shoulder. I think you're reading too much into this new world, as if it's going to be restrictive in some way, which is not true.

You don't have to ageee with another's opinion, or tell them they don't understand, there are more
intelligent methods of replying.
By respecting others opinions, and realizing that we all will not agree with you, that is not realistic,
as we have different approaches to situations, and different results.

And, because that is the case, it 'does not' mean we don't understand, we just don't agree.

Can you imagine if 'all of us' replied to you with that conclusion, wouldn't we all sound like
a group, who can only send information 'out' but can't seem to allow it 'in', whether we aggree or not.

No, it would mean I was able to convey this discovery in a way that could be grasped. It's probably my inability to explain it clearly, so I'm trying to figure out what else I can say that will help in this effort. Of course, in a general conversation it is great to hear everyone's opinions and thoughts. It's just that I came for a specific purpose, but it is the wrong venue. I realize that.

 

[talloola]

I'm not sure how it turned bold. I didn't do this purposely.


No, it would mean I was able to convey this discovery in a way that could be grasped. It's probably my inability to explain it clearly, so I'm trying to figure out what else I can say that will help in this effort. Of course, in a general conversation it is great to hear everyone's opinions and thoughts. It's just that I came for a specific purpose, but it is the wrong venue. I realize that.

And what do you think would be the right venue, from what I have read earlier, many different venues
have disagreed with this concept, will you keep searching till you find a place where 'all' will
agree? I wonder where that will happen.

 

[peacegirl]

I did! Thanks...

Actually it's more simple than that. I'm not mixing up definitions. Despite what he thinks, Lessans fails to escape hard determinism in his own version and that is why I can't accept it. I think Lessans' definition of determinism contains a basic flaw, which is to imply that our will can make an authentic decision of its own choosing (because nothing can force it to do anything). But it obviously can't if the will is just another bolt in the machinery of life!

He never said that our will can make an authentic decision, or an independent decision of its own choosing. You are confusing the second part of this equation. Will is not free, period. But it is also true that man cannot be made to do anything against his will. Both of these are true. The only thing this second part does is prevent someone from saying that something made him do it. How can say he is not responsible (in order to shift the blame), when the world is not blaming him? This would force his hand (so to speak), for how could he not hold himself responsible when there is no way to lie to himself or shift his responsibility? I have imagined this many times, and it works. It's just as mathematical as two plus two is four.

In other words, if someone were to steal something from you because they wanted it, the only thing this second part does is to prevent them from using the excuse that something caused them to do this even when they didn't want to (or against their will), because nothing in this world can 'cause' anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Once an act is done, obviously the person who did it was not responsible because his will is not free. Therefore if he does something to hurt another, he will be forced to assume this responsibility because he can't shift it away from himself when no one is blaming him. In other words, how can he come up with an excuse, when he is already excused. Since the world already knows he couldn't help himself; that this act was a compulsion beyond his control, he has no choice but to assume that which is his responsibility. But here is the key. Knowing in advance that he will not be blamed for hurting someone with a first blow, and knowing that he cannot shift his responsibility to something else to try to get off the hook, he is prevented from choosing this hurt as a preferable alternative because he doesn't want to feel this responsibility. He wouldn't be able to justify it and therefore his conscience would not permit it. This is all about prevention; it's not about causing the crime and having to turn the other cheek.

Again, a robot programmed to turn left at every intersection does not ''choose'' to turn left because the other option is not even considered. It MUST turn left. Similarly, if we follow Lessans' point that the will necessarily takes the path of greater satisfaction, the path of least satisfaction is not even considered therefore there is no choice. All there is is an intersection of possibilities, and unless you open up the to the idea that the will might authentically be free, then it's erroneous to say the will is choosing anything at all. The will is no more free than a bug or a rock. The will takes the path of most satisfaction in the same way a rock falls to the ground when you let it go. And because there is no choice, the notion of moral responsibility becomes irrelevant.

How can the will be free if every movement is in one direction? Free will implies many directions. That's only an illusion. That still does not negate this ability that we all have to contemplate. We are always weighing the pros and cons of different options that are available to us, but even this desire to weigh options is in the direction of greater satisfaction. Our will is never free. But when the conditions change in our environment, the will will be faced with a new set of options, which is what causes the change in man's behavior. Mankind is going to veer in a different direction for greater satisfaction when the basic principle becomes a new condition of the environment.

Simply put, I think Lessans fails to resolve the dichotomy because after negating free will, he tries to bring it back in the picture through the back door.

It's not the back door, it's the front door but with a different key that fits just as well because we can still do things of our 'own free will' (of our own desire), but this in no way means our will is free. Read this again, maybe it will help.

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?

Read my comment above. There are no decisions ''of our own choosing'' if the will is not free. Our will is part of the programming and does not ''choose'' anything at all. Think of the left turning robot again and tell me how humans are different from robots if we have no free will.

Because we can choose to go left or to go right. But this is not a free choice either because the desire to weigh the alternatives is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. Once we make a choice, we could not have chosen otherwise but this does not turn us into robots since the will to do what one wants or doesn't want is still intact. You are equating will with freedom. But we can have a will and it still not be a free will.

But the distinction he makes is misleading at best. He says nothing forces the agent to do anything against its will, but the absence of free will implies very clearly that God itself (the entirety of laws of nature) force the will do whatever it does.

He said that God does not cause. God (the laws of our nature) is. Please read this over again:

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.

Let me illustrate my point clearly with this example. I have numerous software in my computer. They are all programmed to follow a very clear set of instructions. Let's consider program #1 and program #2. We can both agree that neither program is free. A program is not free, it follows pre-established guidelines and can't do otherwise. It can't deviate from what it was programmed to do.

Lessans makes this affirmation:

Programs (individuals) are not free because they can't do otherwise but do what they were programmed to do. (so far so good)

He didn't say we were programmed to do. He doesn't use that term because that implies something other than us is causing us to do what we do, and the proof that this is not true is that nothing can make us do anything against our will. So many people use this as an excuse: "Well he made me do it" or "I couldn't help myself, something just came over me", as if something outside of himself made him to do it.

But then Lessans says this:

Because program #2 (and all other programs) can't force program #1 to do anything, that means program #1 is fully responsible for what it does.

Of course, program #1 is responsible for what it does! But not morally responsible!

He isn't morally responsible, but he would feel guilty if the responsibility ended up in his lap, which causes his conscience to bother him IN ADVANCE. He knows that if he does anything to hurt another, the responsibility for this act will remain with him. He will have no way to shift it away from himself when no one is blaming him, and this would bother his conscience. He doesn't want to be left with this responsibility, so he is forced to prevent getting himself into these situations, where before he could easily take advantage of others without it bothering his conscience at all. He could give a million and one excuses, or in the worst case, go to jail. He's willing to take the risk. But in the new world, there is no price he can pay when the world has already forgiven him.

And actually the true responsible is the programmer (God).Program #1 doesn't choose anything. It never does. It only does what it's programmed to do. And it can't break the rules of my computer's operating system (the universe... or God)

You are, once again, getting confused with the word 'cause'. I realize how difficult this is, but God does not cause anything. God (the laws of our nature) is. There is no past causing the present. Four is not caused by two plus two. It is that already.

The notion of morality is indissociable from the notion of free will. We invented morality because most of us consider ourselves free. Being morally responsible for actions implies that we ARE free. To negate free will is to negate moral responsibility and this is where I feel Lessans takes a wrong turn. He starts out by negating free will and the rest of his theory deals with ethics, moral and conscience and that is a mistake.

No S_lone. That is not true. This is the reason man has been unable to prevent the wars and crimes throughout history. But everything had to be. Now that we have an understanding as to why man's will is not free, we can prevent the very thing all of the punishment could never do. Conscience becomes a 10 instead of a 6, where it is now. You really need to read the book in its entirety and then again. I promise you it will become clearer the second time around.

Lessans' version of determinism contains the will. But it amounts to nothing. The word ''will'' in this context is simply misleading because it was already established that it's not free, that it's simply one more bolt in the huge machine... There's no ghost in the machine. You might as well call the ''will'' the ''program''. There is no difference in this context.

It is the program, the only difference is that we can't predict ahead of time what each individual will do in the direction of greater satisfaction. We can only prevent him from desiring to hurt others because it will always be the worst possible choice.

And what do you think would be the right venue, from what I have read earlier, many different venues
have disagreed with this concept, will you keep searching till you find a place where 'all' will
agree? I wonder where that will happen.

It's a misconception that people have thoroughly studied this book. A lot of people disagree with the premise that all people have a conscience, and they won't read any further. But people are born with a conscience and it works in a very predictable way. Some people say he didn't prove that man's will is not free. But his will is not free, whether they understand the reasoning or not. In the meantime, I will search out celebrities who might be interested like Wayne Dyer or Deepak Choprah. If they see anything of value in it, maybe they will be instrumental in helping to bring this knowledge to light. I also will reach out to anyone who is trying to solve the many problems we face on this earth. I might even start a book club. I'm not sure, but I will keep on trying. If I die tomorrow, my kids will have to take over. Actually, I have a CD of the author reading his book. I'm so glad I have it. One day, it will be worth a lot of money.

 

[karrie]

I'm not sure how it turned bold. I didn't do this purposely.

I put it in bold so you would know what I was discussing. I notice you ignored everything else about what I had to say though.

 

[s_lone]

He never said that our will can make an authentic decision, or an independent decision of its own choosing. You are confusing the second part of this equation. Will is not free, period. But it is also true that man cannot be made to do anything against his will. Both of these are true. The only thing this second part does is prevent someone from saying that something made him do it. How can say he is not responsible (in order to shift the blame), when the world is not blaming him? This would force his hand (so to speak), for how could he not hold himself responsible when there is no way to lie to himself or shift his responsibility? I have imagined this many times, and it works. It's just as mathematical as two plus two is four.

It's not math, and if you insist on calling it that way, well the ''math'' doesn't work.

You ask this question: How can say he is not responsible (in order to shift the blame), when the world is not blaming him?

He can say he's not responsible for the exact same reason why nobody is blaming him. To blame someone IS to hold someone responsible. To not blame someone is to say he is NOT responsible. If nobody can hold me responsible, why should it be different for my very own self? The others know my will isn't free and for that reason, they don't blame me. Similarly, I know with certainty that I am not free (in Lessans' world) and therefore I can't blame myself. If I can't blame myself, I can't hold myself responsible.

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that moral responsibility can only come with the concept of free will. One can only feel guilty if one feels he could have done otherwise. This thought that he could have done otherwise means that he does believe his will is free. If one is 100% sure that his will is not free, than it follows that one cannot blame oneself and hold oneself morally responsible for an action for the exact same reasons that others cannot blame me (they know my will is not free so they are not holding me responsible).

I just demonstrated conclusively (using a Lessans technique here) that it's mathematically impossible for one to hold oneself responsible for anything at all if one does not consider oneself free. Therefore the statement that ''nobody can force me to do anything against my will'' is absolutely irrelevant. It does not make me responsible for anything because we already established that the will isn't free.

quoting Peacegirl:

''In other words, if someone were to steal something from you because they wanted it, the only thing this second part does is to prevent them from using the excuse that something caused them to do this even when they didn't want to (or against their will), because nothing in this world can 'cause' anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Once an act is done, obviously the person who did it was not responsible because his will is not free. Therefore if he does something to hurt another, he will be forced to assume this responsibility because he can't shift it away from himself when no one is blaming him. In other words, how can he come up with an excuse, when he is already excused. Since the world already knows he couldn't help himself; that this act was a compulsion beyond his control, he has no choice but to assume that which is his responsibility. But here is the key. Knowing in advance that he will not be blamed for hurting someone with a first blow, and knowing that he cannot shift his responsibility to something else to try to get off the hook, he is prevented from choosing this hurt as a preferable alternative because he doesn't want to feel this responsibility. He wouldn't be able to justify it and therefore his conscience would not permit it. This is all about prevention; it's not about causing the crime and having to turn the other cheek. ''

end of quote


I highlighted in red your statement about one NOT being responsible. In the next phrase, you speak of how one is forced to assume responsibility. You just stated the person is NOT responsible and then you contradict your own statement in the following phrase.

If that's not an inconsistency I wonder what it is!

How can the will be free if every movement is in one direction? Free will implies many directions. That's only an illusion. That still does not negate this ability that we all have to contemplate. We are always weighing the pros and cons of different options that are available to us, but even this desire to weigh options is in the direction of greater satisfaction. Our will is never free. But when the conditions change in our environment, the will will be faced with a new set of options, which is what causes the change in man's behavior. Mankind is going to veer in a different direction for greater satisfaction when the basic principle becomes a new condition of the environment.

Our ability to contemplate does not make our will free. You will agree with that. So this ability to contemplate does not make us any different from robots.

A robot playing chess does contemplate many options when faced with a choice. Actually it contemplates more options than you probably could ever hope to do. That does not change the fact that the computer has no freedom whatsoever. The same applies to humans in Lessans' world. If the will is not free, nothing distinguishes humans from apes, cows, spiders, amoebas and rocks except varying levels of structural complexity.

It's not the back door, it's the front door but with a different key that fits just as well because we can still do things of our 'own free will' (of our own desire), but this in no way means our will is free. Read this again, maybe it will help.

Who cares if we do things ''of our own desire''? Our will isn't free. We can't control our desire. Again, that just makes us very elaborate robots.

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.

All this is only words that describe a deceptive theory. He's not fooling anyone in saying what happened in the past does not have an impact on what happens in present.

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?

He's trying to escape the fact that in a world without free will, there are outside causes to what we end up doing. I do something ''of my own desire''. But this ''desire'' is not independent of the rest of the world! It doesn't float in a causeless void! Quite the contrary, our desire is very well explained by our biological instincts, which can in turn very easily be explained by our brain structure and chemistry and so on... If the will is not free, it is causally linked to an infinite chain of causes.

Because we can choose to go left or to go right. But this is not a free choice either because the desire to weigh the alternatives is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. Once we make a choice, we could not have chosen otherwise but this does not turn us into robots since the will to do what one wants or doesn't want is still intact. You are equating will with freedom. But we can have a will and it still not be a free will.

No we can't choose to go right or left. We can't choose what brings us less satisfaction. What's the difference between your will and the will of a chess playing robot? The robot wants to win. You want satisfaction. No difference.

He said that God does not cause. God (the laws of our nature) is. Please read this over again:

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.

''Two + Two'' does not cause ''four'' to be. I agree. But he's using abstract concepts (numbers) to wiggle his way out of causality. My body is made of atoms right? I'm sure you can agree with that. Can we say that the atoms of my body cause my existence? You could in the sense that if these atoms suddenly disappeared, so would I. But you could also say that the atoms don't cause my existence, they simply are, with the result that I (s_lone) simply am.

But all this is just word play.

What causes a man to compose music is the creative drive. What causes a man to go to war is the aggressive instinct. What causes man to build cities is the need to gather in large social groups, the need for large scale organization.

Saying that man simply ''is'' does not make man escape causality. If you go down the Lessans road of saying the will is not free, then this will is just one more link in an infinite chain of causality.

He didn't say we were programmed to do. He doesn't use that term because that implies something other than us is causing us to do what we do, and the proof that this is not true is that nothing can make us do anything against our will.

That's not a proof. It's the equivalent of saying my word processing software can't make my sound recording software do anything against its ''will'' (its program code or instructions). When my word processing software opens, it does because I made it open. I caused it to open. The fact that my sound recording software can't make my word processing software open is totally irrelevant.

If the will is not free, than calling it a program IS appropriate. And a program fits perfectly in a causal chain reaction. The non-free will does not escape causality.

So many people use this as an excuse: "Well he made me do it" or "I couldn't help myself, something just came over me", as if something outside of himself made him to do it.

It's all irrelevant. We have no control over anything which renders the concept of responsibility meaningless.

He isn't morally responsible, but he would feel guilty if the responsibility ended up in his lap, which causes his conscience to bother him IN ADVANCE. He knows that if he does anything to hurt another, the responsibility for this act will remain with him. He will have no way to shift it away from himself when no one is blaming him, and this would bother his conscience. He doesn't want to be left with this responsibility, so he is forced to prevent getting himself into these situations, where before he could easily take advantage of others without it bothering his conscience at all. He could give a million and one excuses, or in the worst case, go to jail. He's willing to take the risk. But in the new world, there is no price he can pay when the world has already forgiven him.

You can't have guilt without moral responsibility. One feels guilty only if one feels morally responsible. But moral responsibility doesn't exist in a world without free will.

You are, once again, getting confused with the word 'cause'. I realize how difficult this is, but God does not cause anything. God (the laws of our nature) is. There is no past causing the present. Four is not caused by two plus two. It is that already.

What else but a past action can cause guilt? By implying that the conscience will prevent people from hurting each other because nobody would want to feel the full weight of guilt, Lessans is saying that an action can cause guilt in the future. If my present action can cause guilt in the future, then it follows that the past did cause the present. If present can cause the future, it's mathematically undeniable that past caused the present.

Again, Lessans is just juggling with words to try to escape the implications of causality, but a little analysis of his claims quickly shows why he fails.

No S_lone. That is not true. This is the reason man has been unable to prevent the wars and crimes throughout history. But everything had to be. Now that we have an understanding as to why man's will is not free, we can prevent the very thing all of the punishment could never do. Conscience becomes a 10 instead of a 6, where it is now. You really need to read the book in its entirety and then again. I promise you it will become clearer the second time around.

No thank you. I have better books to read.

It's a misconception that people have thoroughly studied this book. A lot of people disagree with the premise that all people have a conscience, and they won't read any further. But people are born with a conscience and it works in a very predictable way. Some people say he didn't prove that man's will is not free. But his will is not free, whether they understand the reasoning or not. In the meantime, I will search out celebrities who might be interested like Wayne Dyer or Deepak Choprah. If they see anything of value in it, maybe they will be instrumental in helping to bring this knowledge to light. I also will reach out to anyone who is trying to solve the many problems we face on this earth. I might even start a book club. I'm not sure, but I will keep on trying. If I die tomorrow, my kids will have to take over. Actually, I have a CD of the author reading his book. I'm so glad I have it. One day, it will be worth a lot of money.

Good luck.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... I will search out celebrities who might be interested like Wayne Dyer or Deepak Choprah. If they see anything of value in it, maybe they will be instrumental in helping to bring this knowledge to light.

Good luck with that. The support of those guys, and people like them (might as well go for Sylvia Browne and John Edward too), will do nothing to establish the credibility with the scientific community you need to validate Lessans' claims. If you can't perceive that they're quacks, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you can't perceive Lessans is too.

If I die tomorrow, my kids will have to take over. Actually, I have a CD of the author reading his book. I'm so glad I have it. One day, it will be worth a lot of money.

Your kids will HAVE to take over? What if they don't want to? If you really believe people are born with a conscience, I'd have to assume you weren't paying much attention to your kids when they were small. A newborn is the most selfish, conscienceless creature on the planet, everything is about them and what they want, but I suppose you believe the innate conscience is another of Lessans' sweeping claims that must be true just because he said so. Conscience is learned, not innate, and some people learn it better than others, which is one of the fundamental reasons why Lessans' version of utopia is never going to happen. You might some day be able to sell copies of that CD the way Dyer and Choprah sell their crap, but in terms of real value it'll never be worth any more than it is right now.

 

[peacegirl]

I put it in bold so you would know what I was discussing. I notice you ignored everything else about what I had to say though.

What did I ignore? I thought I responded to everything else you had to say.

It's not math, and if you insist on calling it that way, well the ''math'' doesn't work.

You ask this question: How can say he is not responsible (in order to shift the blame), when the world is not blaming him?

He can say he's not responsible for the exact same reason why nobody is blaming him. To blame someone IS to hold someone responsible. To not blame someone is to say he is NOT responsible. If nobody can hold me responsible, why should it be different for my very own self? The others know my will isn't free and for that reason, they don't blame me. Similarly, I know with certainty that I am not free (in Lessans' world) and therefore I can't blame myself. If I can't blame myself, I can't hold myself responsible.

That's why there are two sides to this. You are seeing only one side. Yes, you can't blame yourself because your will is not free, but you would hold yourself responsible for doing something your conscience couldn't handle, which prevents the action. You still don't get it, but you are adamant that you do.

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that moral responsibility can only come with the concept of free will. One can only feel guilty if one feels he could have done otherwise. This thought that he could have done otherwise means that he does believe his will is free. If one is 100% sure that his will is not free, than it follows that one cannot blame oneself and hold oneself morally responsible for an action for the exact same reasons that others cannot blame me (they know my will is not free so they are not holding me responsible).

That's only when he can offer an excuse for his actions, which only can come when he IS being blamed.

I just demonstrated conclusively (using a Lessans technique here) that it's mathematically impossible for one to hold oneself responsible for anything at all if one does not consider oneself free. Therefore the statement that ''nobody can force me to do anything against my will'' is absolutely irrelevant. It does not make me responsible for anything because we already established that the will isn't free.

I give up. The very fact that you are not responsible would make you feel responsible for doing something you have the ability to prevent if you want to. It's the prevention of something you don't want that is key here. Once you do it, of course you couldn't change anything, but it's the knowledge beforehand that you will not be blamed no matter what you do, that removes the justification to do it.

quoting Peacegirl:

''In other words, if someone were to steal something from you because they wanted it, the only thing this second part does is to prevent them from using the excuse that something caused them to do this even when they didn't want to (or against their will), because nothing in this world can 'cause' anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Once an act is done, obviously the person who did it was not responsible because his will is not free. Therefore if he does something to hurt another, he will be forced to assume this responsibility because he can't shift it away from himself when no one is blaming him. In other words, how can he come up with an excuse, when he is already excused. Since the world already knows he couldn't help himself; that this act was a compulsion beyond his control, he has no choice but to assume that which is his responsibility. But here is the key. Knowing in advance that he will not be blamed for hurting someone with a first blow, and knowing that he cannot shift his responsibility to something else to try to get off the hook, he is prevented from choosing this hurt as a preferable alternative because he doesn't want to feel this responsibility. He wouldn't be able to justify it and therefore his conscience would not permit it. This is all about prevention; it's not about causing the crime and having to turn the other cheek. ''

end of quote


I highlighted in red your statement about one NOT being responsible. In the next phrase, you speak of how one is forced to assume responsibility. You just stated the person is NOT responsible and then you contradict your own statement in the following phrase.

Yes, you are mixing up words. When I say you would be forced to assume responsibility, this only means that you wouldn't be able to wiggle out of what is your responsibility in causing this hurt to another. It doesn't mean you're to blame, but what prevents your action is that your conscience would never allow you to use the excuse that your will is not free. To use any excuse someone must be holding you responsible. When no one questions your conduct, you can't lie to yourself, or use the excuse that your will is not free. Try it. It doesn't work. You can test this on yourself.

If that's not an inconsistency I wonder what it is!

Justification for hurting another has to come from a world of judgment. Otherwise, you cannot justify what you are doing, even to yourself. You can try, but you can't. Imagine that everything is open, nothing is locked, and you know you can steal to your heart's content and no one will say a word because you know the world must excuse you since your will is not free. If you want to take what doesn't belong to you, you will have every opportunity to do so. You could just walk out of a store without paying and no one is going to come after you, and you know this in advance. Believe me, your conscience would be bothered tremendously. You wouldn't be able to do it.

Our ability to contemplate does not make our will free. You will agree with that. So this ability to contemplate does not make us any different from robots.

A robot playing chess does contemplate many options when faced with a choice. Actually it contemplates more options than you probably could ever hope to do. That does not change the fact that the computer has no freedom whatsoever. The same applies to humans in Lessans' world. If the will is not free, nothing distinguishes humans from apes, cows, spiders, amoebas and rocks except varying levels of structural complexity.

Like I said, if you want to steal when you know that no one is going to blame you no matter what you do, then do it. Why do you need any excuse at all? Who are you trying to convince? The only time you need a justification is if someone is questioning you. So go ahead, steal from others when you know people will be compelled to turn the other cheek, even though you have hurt someone. See if you can do it. If you can, do it. All the intellectual debate is over because the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Who cares if we do things ''of our own desire''? Our will isn't free. We can't control our desire. Again, that just makes us very elaborate robots.

As I said, you will have every opportunity to take whatever you want from others, because all locks will be removed. No authority will be telling you not to steal. There will be no more lawyers prosecuting you. No police coming after you. And yet, if you need help from others because you cannot support yourself, they will be there to help you. But if you still want to take, it will be easy if your conscience will let you.

All this is only words that describe a deceptive theory. He's not fooling anyone in saying what happened in the past does not have an impact on what happens in present.

He didn't say that s_lone. He said nothing can make someone do something against his will. People use this as an excuse all the time; they say even though I didn't want to do it, I did it because I was being forced by my captives. Nothing can force anybody to do anything if they don't want to. That is true. What they meant to say is that the alternative was worse; I didn't want to be tortured, so I gave in and told my captives what they wanted to hear, but they didn't force me against my will to offer this information. If I knew that by speaking my family would be killed, I would accept my fate and never divulge anything because nothing can make me talk unless I want to, for over this I have absolute control.

He's trying to escape the fact that in a world without free will, there are outside causes to what we end up doing. I do something ''of my own desire''. But this ''desire'' is not independent of the rest of the world! It doesn't float in a causeless void! Quite the contrary, our desire is very well explained by our biological instincts, which can in turn very easily be explained by our brain structure and chemistry and so on... If the will is not free, it is causally linked to an infinite chain of causes.

There are all kinds of hereditary and environmental conditions that 'compel' someone to choose a certain action over another. He isn't arguing with that.

No we can't choose to go right or left. We can't choose what brings us less satisfaction. What's the difference between your will and the will of a chess playing robot? The robot wants to win. You want satisfaction. No difference.

If the robot had a conscience, then yes, his desire to win would be tempered by his desire not to hurt someone. Therefore, the robot's satisfaction would not be gained from winning at all cost.

''Two + Two'' does not cause ''four'' to be. I agree. But he's using abstract concepts (numbers) to wiggle his way out of causality. My body is made of atoms right? I'm sure you can agree with that. Can we say that the atoms of my body cause my existence? You could in the sense that if these atoms suddenly disappeared, so would I. But you could also say that the atoms don't cause my existence, they simply are, with the result that I (s_lone) simply am.

Yes, your atoms cause your existence indirectly. A pool stick causes the ball to go into the hole. If I push you, you fall down. If I get in a car and steer the wheel into oncoming traffic, that will cause me to get hurt. There are direct causes and effects. But nothing can cause you to hurt another, if you don't want to. The desire not to hurt someone under the changed conditions, gives you no free choice.

But all this is just word play.

What causes a man to compose music is the creative drive. What causes a man to go to war is the aggressive instinct. What causes man to build cities is the need to gather in large social groups, the need for large scale organization.

Saying that man simply ''is'' does not make man escape causality. If you go down the Lessans road of saying the will is not free, then this will is just one more link in an infinite chain of causality.

Creative drive is not altered by this knowledge in any way. The desire to build and use one's intellect, to be challenged by solutions yet to be invented is not altered. The instinct to gather in social groups is not altered by this knowledge. The only thing that is altered is the fact that you won't have justification to hurt another with a first blow when the basic principle becomes a permanent condition of the environment.

That's not a proof. It's the equivalent of saying my word processing software can't make my sound recording software do anything against its ''will'' (its program code or instructions). When my word processing software opens, it does because I made it open. I caused it to open. The fact that my sound recording software can't make my word processing software open is totally irrelevant.

But there is a difference. Unless your computer is programmed to have a conscience, the choice that your computer will make will be devoid of this human element. You can't really compare a computer to a human for that reason.

If the will is not free, than calling it a program IS appropriate. And a program fits perfectly in a causal chain reaction. The non-free will does not escape causality.

Just keep conscience as part of the equation, okay?

It's all irrelevant. We have no control over anything which renders the concept of responsibility meaningless.

Then, as I said, if you think it's irrelevant, then in the new world when you know that no one will ever blame you for anything, you'll have a great time because you will be free to take whever you want since nothing will be locked. You'll have more than you ever thought possible because you will be able to take from everyone and no one will blame you, even though you have hurt them. You will be able to walk into any store and not only take a piece of clothing, you can take their entire inventory if you want to. See if you can do it. See how easy it is to hurt others when the world must excuse what you can no longer justify.

You can't have guilt without moral responsibility.

One feels guilty only if one feels morally responsible. But moral responsibility doesn't exist in a world without free will.

Moral responsibility is lessened with threats of blame and punishment. If moral responsibility worked in a free will environment, why is the world in such a mess?

What else but a past action can cause guilt? By implying that the conscience will prevent people from hurting each other because nobody would want to feel the full weight of guilt, Lessans is saying that an action can cause guilt in the future. If my present action can cause guilt in the future, then it follows that the past did cause the present. If present can cause the future, it's mathematically undeniable that past caused the present.

Yes, a future action could cause someone to feel remorse, and more so under the conditions described. I will repeat: The word 'cause' is only misleading if someone uses it to imply that something other than himself made him do it.

Again, Lessans is just juggling with words to try to escape the implications of causality, but a little analysis of his claims quickly shows why he fails

If he is just juggling with words, the bottom line is if it works. This is not a word game.

No thank you. I have better books to read.

Good luck.

Seeing how difficult this concept is to get across, I'll need all the luck I can get, and then some.

Good luck with that. The support of those guys, and people like them (might as well go for Sylvia Browne and John Edward too), will do nothing to establish the credibility with the scientific community you need to validate Lessans' claims. If you can't perceive that they're quacks, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you can't perceive Lessans is too.

No, I don't perceive Wayne Dyer to be a quack. But Sylvia Brown? I don't think she has a scientific bone in her body. The point I am making is that if any of the more well known authors have an interest in this book, it could give this knowledge a chance of being recognized. No one even knows about this book except for the few who happened to come across it on one of these philosophical websites.

Your kids will HAVE to take over? What if they don't want to?

If they don't want to, I would never insist. That is totally against what the book stands for. The only thing I would ask is for them to preserve the knowledge and keep it on the internet for people to access. I would never in a million years make them feel guilty for not wanting to be actively involved. They have their own lives, and I respect that.

If you really believe people are born with a conscience, I'd have to assume you weren't paying much attention to your kids when they were small. A newborn is the most selfish, conscienceless creature on the planet, everything is about them and what they want, but I suppose you believe the innate conscience is another of Lessans' sweeping claims that must be true just because he said so.

He never espoused that people should agree with him just because he said so, and you know that as well as I. What is your motive? To save face because you don't have a leg to stand on? Isn't this against the very thing you believe in? We are all selfish to a degree (which is not a bad thing) but that does not negate the fact that children sense when something is not right in a moral sense. There was a t.v. show that caught my attention when they were showing a 2 year old who was observing someone slapping a baby. The two year old was showing signs of distress. This is only one example, but I believe that this example could easily be duplicated.

Conscience is learned, not innate, and some people learn it better than others, which is one of the fundamental reasons why Lessans' version of utopia is never going to happen. You might some day be able to sell copies of that CD the way Dyer and Choprah sell their crap, but in terms of real value it'll never be worth any more than it is right now.

Your opinion doesn't hold much weight dexter. This book does hold weight because it is much more than an opinion. It really does work.

 

[s_lone]

That's why there are two sides to this. You are seeing only one side. Yes, you can't blame yourself because your will is not free, but you would hold yourself responsible for doing something your conscience couldn't handle, which prevents the action. You still don't get it, but you are adamant that you do.

No Peacegirl, you simply don't understand. I suggest you read my last post a few times carefully and you will see that what I say is mathematically undeniable.

(How do you like the taste of your own medicine? )

I can very well see the two sides. But it's the two sides of a contradiction! What's the contradiction? The fact that I supposedly would feel the full guilt of my actions after it was conclusively demonstrated that I can't blame myself and hold myself responsible because my will isn't free. Others can't blame me. But neither can I. Therefore the fact that nobody can make me do anything against my will has no impact at all. i can't blame myself! I can't feel responsible!

That's only when he can offer an excuse for his actions, which only can come when he IS being blamed.

Wrong. That's not a fact, just an assumption. Suppose I live in the new world. There's this new iPod that's really cool and it would make me very happy to have one. But I can't afford it. I'm one of those who can only afford to pay for the minimum requirements of life plus the occasional luxury, but not an iPod. So I decide to go in an apple store and take one. What's my excuse? Apple has A LOT of money. One free iPod can't hurt them.

And there you go... an excuse in a blameless environment! That wasn't so hard was it?

I give up. The very fact that you are not responsible would make you feel responsible for doing something you have the ability to prevent if you want to.

Perhaps you should give up. Do you realize how crazy this last sentence sounds? I should feel responsible because I am not?

It's the prevention of something you don't want that is key here. Once you do it, of course you couldn't change anything, but it's the knowledge beforehand that you will not be blamed no matter what you do, that removes the justification to do it.

But if we have the capacity to prevent things from happening, this means we have free will! You're being inconsistent again. You can't prevent anything if you are not free. Whatever will happen will happen. But if we can change the future from what it could have been, then that makes us at least partly free.

Yes, you are mixing up words. When I say you would be forced to assume responsibility, this only means that you wouldn't be able to wiggle out of what is your responsibility in causing this hurt to another. It doesn't mean you're to blame, but what prevents your action is that your conscience would never allow you to use the excuse that your will is not free.

You are the ones mixing words. You use the word responsibility only when it suits you, contradicting yourself in the process. I can't be forced to assume responsibility if I'm not responsible in the first place! We already established that Peacegirl. The will is not free and therefore it is NOT responsible. Remember this is the reason nobody is blaming you in the first place. The fact that they aren't doesn't magically change the laws of logic to suddenly make you responsible. That's a contradiction. You can either be responsible or you can't be and in this case, you are not, because the will is not free.

To use any excuse someone must be holding you responsible. When no one questions your conduct, you can't lie to yourself, or use the excuse that your will is not free. Try it. It doesn't work. You can test this on yourself.

I already showed that you don't need anybody holding you responsible for having an excuse. Apple makes a lot more money. I don't. I want that iPod. Taking that iPod for free doesn't hurt them. There's my excuse. I'm not even saying I did it because I'm not free. I'm saying I did it because I want that iPod and from my point of view, I'm not hurting anyone. And here is one of the keys to this whole affair, the fact that moral conscience is not an absolute. It shifts and varies from one individual to the next.

Justification for hurting another has to come from a world of judgment. Otherwise, you cannot justify what you are doing, even to yourself. You can try, but you can't. Imagine that everything is open, nothing is locked, and you know you can steal to your heart's content and no one will say a word because you know the world must excuse you since your will is not free. If you want to take what doesn't belong to you, you will have every opportunity to do so. You could just walk out of a store without paying and no one is going to come after you, and you know this in advance. Believe me, your conscience would be bothered tremendously. You wouldn't be able to do it.

I'm not buying any of it. You wrote this part after I revealed a major contradiction and you're doing your best to avoid it. As I said, you either are responsible or you are not. If the will is not free, then you are not responsible, and that is why nobody is blaming you in the first place. But that means you can't blame yourself either. And if you don't blame yourself, the fact nobody can force me to do anything against my will changes nothing to the fact that I can't feel guilt because I know with 100% certainty that I am not responsible!

Like I said, if you want to steal when you know that no one is going to blame you no matter what you do, then do it. Why do you need any excuse at all? Who are you trying to convince? The only time you need a justification is if someone is questioning you. So go ahead, steal from others when you know people will be compelled to turn the other cheek, even though you have hurt someone. See if you can do it. If you can, do it. All the intellectual debate is over because the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

All intellectual debate is not over because Lessans world has never come to be. It doesn't exist. All we can do is theorize about it. Nothing has been proven about it except that it's contradictory.

As I said, you will have every opportunity to take whatever you want from others, because all locks will be removed. No authority will be telling you not to steal. There will be no more lawyers prosecuting you. No police coming after you. And yet, if you need help from others because you cannot support yourself, they will be there to help you. But if you still want to take, it will be easy if your conscience will let you.

Yes it will. Especially if my conscience establishes that I'm not hurting anyone, such as in the case where I'm stealing from someone who is very rich.

He didn't say that s_lone.

Yes he did say that the past can't cause the present!

''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.''

He said nothing can make someone do something against his will. People use this as an excuse all the time; they say even though I didn't want to do it, I did it because I was being forced by my captives. Nothing can force anybody to do anything if they don't want to. That is true. What they meant to say is that the alternative was worse; I didn't want to be tortured, so I gave in and told my captives what they wanted to hear, but they didn't force me against my will to offer this information. If I knew that by speaking my family would be killed, I would accept my fate and never divulge anything because nothing can make me talk unless I want to, for over this I have absolute control.

Absolute control means free will Peacegirl. If you don't have free will you don't have absolute control. It's as simple as that.

There are all kinds of hereditary and environmental conditions that 'compel' someone to choose a certain action over another. He isn't arguing with that.

You're afraid to use the word 'cause' because you know what that means.

If the robot had a conscience, then yes, his desire to win would be tempered by his desire not to hurt someone. Therefore, the robot's satisfaction would not be gained from winning at all cost.

If a robot was programmed not to hurt someone, then it would indeed start to behave a bit like humans. That means the robot would be filled with contradicting desires (selfishness vs. altruism). But that still doesn't make us any different from robots if our will isn't free. In that case, our conscience is just an elaborate program.

''Cooperate with those who are close to you... especially those that are genetically related to you'' This is a widespread principle throughout nature and we are part of it. Altruism in nature tends to appear in situations where one has an advantage to help someone that is genetically close, because that enhances the chances of propagating one's genetic stuff.

''Don't cooperate with someone who isn't genetically close to you'' This is the principle of competition and of the selfish gene. Genetic competition. Nature is ruthlessly competitive and we humans are not immune to that.

The complexity of human behaviour can largely be explained by this dilemma between the drive to cooperate and the aggressive drive to compete with others. As humanity evolves, we gather into larger and larger groups, meaning we tend to cooperate with more and more people, but that doesn't suppress our aggressive drive.

The point of this is that our conscience can be understood in terms of selective natural ''programming''. With no free will, we are just very elaborate robots, our conscience just being one more non-free layer of complexity.

Yes, your atoms cause your existence indirectly. A pool stick causes the ball to go into the hole. If I push you, you fall down. If I get in a car and steer the wheel into oncoming traffic, that will cause me to get hurt. There are direct causes and effects. But nothing can cause you to hurt another, if you don't want to. The desire not to hurt someone under the changed conditions, gives you no free choice.

This desire of ours is subject to causal determinism as much as anything else. If I have no control over what I desire (I don't if I'm not free), something can cause me to want to hurt another.

Creative drive is not altered by this knowledge in any way. The desire to build and use one's intellect, to be challenged by solutions yet to be invented is not altered. The instinct to gather in social groups is not altered by this knowledge. The only thing that is altered is the fact that you won't have justification to hurt another with a first blow when the basic principle becomes a permanent condition of the environment.

I already showed how that doesn't work.

But there is a difference. Unless your computer is programmed to have a conscience, the choice that your computer will make will be devoid of this human element. You can't really compare a computer to a human for that reason.

There is no difference. A conscience is just a highly elaborate set of principles concerned with social interaction. A very elaborate program.

Just keep conscience as part of the equation, okay?

That's exactly what I'm doing. NOTHING escapes causality if we're not free. Not your conscience, not your desires, not your will... NOTHING.

Then, as I said, if you think it's irrelevant, then in the new world when you know that no one will ever blame you for anything, you'll have a great time because you will be free to take whever you want since nothing will be locked. You'll have more than you ever thought possible because you will be able to take from everyone and no one will blame you, even though you have hurt them. You will be able to walk into any store and not only take a piece of clothing, you can take their entire inventory if you want to. See if you can do it. See how easy it is to hurt others when the world must excuse what you can no longer justify.

I won't live in that world. The only reason why I couldn't hurt someone is because I hold myself morally responsible of my actions. And in order for me to hold myself morally responsible, I need to consider myself free. No freedom, no moral responsibility.

Moral responsibility is lessened with threats of blame and punishment. If moral responsibility worked in a free will environment, why is the world in such a mess?

You're just wrong. Blame and punishment exist BECAUSE of the concept of moral responsibility. They go together. Yes, some parts of the world are a mess, but not all of it!

Your observation that the world is a rough place will lead you nowhere. We DID evolve. I live in a country where I have access to free health care, drinkable water and if I'm willing to work, I can pay for food and shelter. Heck, even I don't work, the social safety net can help me pay for that. The risk of me being attacked by an enemy in the streets when I go out is very poor. That's not that bad is it?

Our standards of living have drastically improved. That doesn't mean there are no challenges. Many countries are still struggling. There is still too much poverty. Too many people don't have their basic needs fulfilled. But to be realist, pessimism must be balanced with optimism.

Yeah some things are horribly wrong in this world. But you're dishonest if you think nothing is right.

Yes, a future action could cause someone to feel remorse, and more so under the conditions described. I will repeat: The word 'cause' is only misleading if someone uses it to imply that something other than himself made him do it.

Ultimately, I am the direct cause of my actions. But my self is connected to the causal deterministic chain. My genetic history does cause me to have certain desires and needs. In the end my actions are caused by a multitude of factors beyond myself.

If he is just juggling with words, the bottom line is if it works. This is not a word game.

The bottom line is that Lessans' world has not come to be. It hasn't been tested and thus it has not been proven. It's a hypothetical construct... filled with contradictions.

Seeing how difficult this concept is to get across, I'll need all the luck I can get, and then some.

What you need is to learn how gurus do their work. You need to be able to brainwash people because unless you develop that capacity to sweet talk people into believing that you have the truth, you won't be able to convince anyone who can actually think.

 

[mentalfloss]

That's why there are two sides to this. You are seeing only one side. Yes, you can't blame yourself because your will is not free, but you would hold yourself responsible for doing something your conscience couldn't handle, which prevents the action. You still don't get it, but you are adamant that you do.

What your saying here is essentially, "it's all my fault but it's not my fault at all." Which makes no sense.

The only real examples of something along those lines would be exemplified in animal behaviour, survival instincts, or some human addictions like alcoholism and drug abuse. But even then, the moment that being becomes aware of their behaviour - regardless of how difficult it is to overcome that behaviour - it is not a form of determinism.

By simply being aware of the fact that you have done something wrong, is already an acknowledgement of your free will. Once you are aware that you are responsible for any previous and upcoming acts - even if you are helpless to stop yourself from doing those things, determinism is already lost. There is no duality of free will and determinism in that respect.

What you are really describing is the self-deprecating attitude that is championed by many different religions - primarily Christianity. It is the moral equivalent of a constant sacrifice, regardless of consequence, because there is no alternative. While that sort of attitude has inadvertently propelled some individuals to actually strive for magnificence in defiance (Joan of Arc for instance), it has come with the oppression of many others who have been manipulated by religious leaders. It's unfortunate, but that sort of ethical brainwashing is still happening today.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

What is your motive? To save face because you don't have a leg to stand on?

You really don't understand much of what's going on here, but you're pretty good at transference. My motive comes from the fact that you're obsessively peddling BS and it needs to be challenged. If you can't see that Wayne Dyer is full of New Age woo woo and mystic nonsense there's something wrong with your judgment. Doesn't it strike you as significant that in 50 years of trying Lessans and you have convinced nobody and everywhere you go you get the same response? Everybody but you and Lessans must be just too dumb or arrogant or hidebound or frightened to understand.