Free will versus determinism

[peacegirl]

Actually Peacegirl, I don't think I proved free will at all. I know I haven't. In this thread's very first posts you can see my position in regards to free will. I clearly stated that I can't think of any way to show that free will is actually true. (How could I think I proved free will when I clearly admit I don't know how to prove it?)

Despite this, I consider myself free and I choose to have faith in this. It's pretty much the only thing towards which I do have solid faith. I choose to consider my will free. That is how I can assume responsibility for my actions.

I take decisions.

Oh my goddd, no one said you didn't take decisions. I am so shocked by your lack of understanding because I thought you got it, but you are so removed from true understanding, it makes me sad, but I cannot take more time.

I'm responsible for them.

It's as simple as that really.

I didn't achieve anything here beyond showing you what I think doesn't work in Lessans' theory. I didn't win or lose. And that is why I can so freely decide that I've had enough. It was a stimulating exchange but it's clear we reached a dead end as to what we can agree with.

So please be careful in your statements about me.

I did not prove free will and never thought I could do it.

You lost s_lone. I'm sorry, if you want to crucify me, go ahead. You are out and out wrong. And if you think you are right, then you should be able to leave this forum right now as part of your free will. And don't come back here. Show me how free you are. Prove to me that you can choose A just as easily as B.

 

[s_lone]

Oh my goddd, no one said you didn't take decisions. I am so shocked by your lack of understanding because I thought you got it, but you are so removed from true understanding, it makes me sad, but I cannot take more time.



You lost s_lone. I'm sorry, if you want to crucify me, go ahead. You are out and out wrong. And if you think you are right, then you should be able to leave this forum right now as part of your free will. And don't come back here. Show me how free you are. Prove to me that you can choose A just as easily as B.

I'm a patient man but I do have my limits Peacegirl. I already said I can't prove free will and you're asking me to prove it. Whatever I choose (post again or leave) you'll use it to condescend me and franky, I don't give a damn. I don't care what you have to say about me. You're no longer worthy of my consideration and the others in this forum are smart enough not to listen to what you have to say about me. I thought we could end this in a mature way by agreeing to disagree but I guess I was wrong. Too bad.

Good bye.

 

[peacegirl]

It also implies that all decisions are simple choices, that don't come out even in cost-benefit analysis. When you choose between two things you want equally, what does his notion say then about your freedom to decide?

S_lone, all you are doing is talking academically which has no real truth in reality. If your will is so free, you should have been able to resist answering me just as easily as not answering me. Free states very explicitly that a person can choose one thing just as easily as another, and obviously this is not the case because you obviously are under a compulsion to respond to my post, especially when this would be proof that your will is free. You did just the opposite, which is just another proof that your will is not free. You failed the test.

 

[mentalfloss]

S_lone, all you are doing is talking academically which has no real truth in reality. If your will is so free, you should have been able to resist answering me just as easily as not answering me. Free states very explicitly that a person can choose one thing just as easily as another, and obviously this is not the case because you obviously are under a compulsion to respond to my post, especially when this would be proof that your will is free. You did just the opposite, which is just another proof that your will is not free. You failed the test.

That s_lone chose to respond to your post does not disprove free will. Of the options given, he still made a choice. If the deciding factor for exhibiting free will is based on avoiding compulsion, then according to your own definition of what would constitute free will, s_lone would have 'proven' free will exists by not responding. That is equally ridiculous.

That would be like saying, alcoholics can only affirm free will if they can give up their addictions. Or that chimps would be affirming free will if they stopped screwing. If anyone is forced to make one choice over another - in your case A over B due to some compulsion or based on the revolt of some compulsion - there is no free choice there.

Similarly, if s_lone decided not to respond, he would either have done so by some deterministic principle OR free will. The compulsion toward one direction and the avoidance of that compulsion in the other direction does not preclude the first direction as deterministic and the second direction as free. It is either deterministic in both directions or free in both directions.

Again, you can't mix determinism with free will in these cases. It's one or the other.

 

[talloola]

If your concept were to come about, most of the money spent on institutions would be for those who
are locked up, because they cannot fit in, the world would be full of them, and in order to stay
out of one of those institutions, one would have to pretend he does fit in, a choice many would make.

Just another name for jails, or mental hospitals. All who can not fit in, would be
considered sick, and an appropriate institution would be found for him/her.

 

[peacegirl]

That s_lone chose to respond to your post does not disprove free will. Of the options given, he still made a choice. If the deciding factor for exhibiting free will is based on avoiding compulsion, then according to your own definition of what would constitute free will, s_lone would have 'proven' free will exists by not responding. That is equally ridiculous.

No, it would not have proven free will exists if he avoided the compulsion to respond. It just shows that his choices were not equal because he was compelled, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to respond to me. In other words, he had no choice at that moment but to respond. He was compelled to move in this direction, which contradicts free will.

That would be like saying, alcoholics can only affirm free will if they can give up their addictions. Or that chimps would be affirming free will if they stopped screwing. If anyone is forced to make one choice over another - in your case A over B due to some compulsion or based on the revolt of some compulsion - there is no free choice there.

Similarly, if s_lone decided not to respond, he would either have done so by some deterministic principle OR free will. The compulsion toward one direction and the avoidance of that compulsion in the other direction does not preclude the first direction as deterministic and the second direction as free. It is either deterministic in both directions or free in both directions.

I never said that one direction is a compulsion and the other free. We are compelled to do what we do. But there is always one choice that is more compelling, rendering any other choice, at that moment, an impossibility.

]Again, you can't mix determinism with free will in these cases. It's one or the other.

I never said it is both. WE DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL! WE NEVER HAD FREE WILL! AND WE WILL NEVER HAVE FREE WILL! I've said that all along.

I'm a patient man but I do have my limits Peacegirl. I already said I can't prove free will and you're asking me to prove it. Whatever I choose (post again or leave) you'll use it to condescend me and franky, I don't give a damn. I don't care what you have to say about me. You're no longer worthy of my consideration and the others in this forum are smart enough not to listen to what you have to say about me. I thought we could end this in a mature way by agreeing to disagree but I guess I was wrong. Too bad.

Good bye.

What I said wasn't meant to be condescending. I'm sorry if you took it that way. There was nothing I said that would make anyone think badly of you. I was trying to show how difficult it is not to choose what is the preferable choice. This is the compulsion that pushes us in one direction, the direction of greater satisfaction. In other words, it gave you greater satisfaction to respond to me, which means the choice not respond was an impossibility at that moment. If it was impossible not to respond to me, how could the choice to respond be a free one? I think you are angry at me right now, and this time it might give you greater satisfaction not to respond to me, which is okay. It's probably better for both of us. I just want to say once again that I did not mean to put you down in any way. I have thoroughly enjoyed our conversation and I wish you the very best!

 

[Omicron]

Speaking of free-will, last night I went time-traveling.

First I landed in the Triassic and consoled a sad Edaphosaurus broken hearted from a jilted relationship.

Then I fast-forwarded to the stone age and picked up a couple of sculptures at a flee market...

I expressed artistic appreciation to the vendor, who offered to introduce me to the model, which I joked would not be possible in my time, so a shaman witch overhearing cast a spell on me and I woke up with this loveliness...

So... was it free-will or determinism?

 

[Bcool]

Are you kidding? There IS no independent source. That's why we can't have a conversation, because if I disagree with the people in here, there is a gang mentality that goes along with the big wheels. How in the world can this author win in a forum such as this that is already biased toward free will, and refuses to really hear the proof?

You see this forum as a conspiracy against you?

You see yourself as the only person capable of proving what is true?

Having identified yourself as the author, are you yourself the actual author of this work or postulated theory you claim to have been written by someone called Seymour Lessans?

I know, s_lone thinks he proved free will; he did nothing of the sort. But I still wish the best for him and everyone in here, but if I cannot have an objective conversation, unfortunately, the conversation is over.

You see yourself as the sole authority as to when this discussion, "conversation", ends and when it is permitted to continue?

You lost s_lone. I'm sorry, if you want to crucify me, go ahead. You are out and out wrong. And if you think you are right, then you should be able to leave this forum right now as part of your free will. And don't come back here. Show me how free you are. Prove to me that you can choose A just as easily as B.

You see s_lone as being capable of "crucifying" you for your beliefs?

You feel you have the authority to tell him not to return to this thread?

Please move on to another thread. You have offered nothing at all that this author was not aware of. If you can't even take the time to understand this knowledge, you are a PHONEY in your desire to understand the author's proof.

You feel you have the authority to tell mentalfloss to leave this thread?

You believe that you have the legitimate right and are fully justified in insulting members of this forum?

You have no clue what I contributed in this forum. It's time for you to move on. I cannot even begin to argue with you because you are so adamant and determined to prove determinism wrong. I bid you farewell, . . .

You believe you have the authority and intellectual supremacy to tell any member of this forum to leave it?

You believe you have the authority and intellectual supremacy to ignore any request by any member for you to discontinue this thread?

You feel you have the authority and intellectual supremacy to ignore any request by any member for you to leave this thread?

You feel you are incapable of being contradictory in saying "goodbye" while not leaving this thread and continuing to post to it?

I would request a simple "Yes" or "No" reponse to each question but know that you are incapable of limiting yourself to such simple one word responses.

So I am using your own words in the above quotes to answer them.

My questions have no relation to your OP resolution or statement of advocacy of this thread, they are about you as you exhibit your personal behaviours and attitudes to be in your posts.

If you cannot see the lack of recognition of normal social interaction and discussion exhibited in just this very small sampling of your numerous posts, you are not seeing fact, I and others here can.

I cannot ask you to leave this thread nor that you cease posting to it, I do not have that authority nor the lack of respect for a forum for debate that meets the standards of social norms to do so.

I do, however, sincerely request that you cease to do so as you are IMHO harming yourself by continuing this thread.

-- Not all ideas that germinate and grow have harmless intent...

_________________________

 

[mentalfloss]

We are compelled to do what we do. But there is always one choice that is more compelling, rendering any other choice, at that moment, an impossibility.

I disagree.

Even if one choice is more compelling, it does not render another choice an impossibility. It makes that choice increasingly difficult, but not an impossibility.

 

[s_lone]

I think you are angry at me right now, and this time it might give you greater satisfaction not to respond to me, which is okay. It's probably better for both of us. I just want to say once again that I did not mean to put you down in any way. I have thoroughly enjoyed our conversation and I wish you the very best!

I'm not angry Peacegirl. I'm simply no longer interested in investing a lot of time in this thread. That doesn't mean I'm going to shut up if you say something false about me, which you did. I never tried to prove free will. All I did in this thread is discuss and criticize Lessans' theory. You are the one that tried to prove something, not me.

 

[peacegirl]

I disagree.

Even if one choice is more compelling, it does not render another choice an impossibility. It makes that choice increasingly difficult, but not an impossibility.

It's not an impossibility when it's in the contemplation stage, but once a choice is made, it had to be that choice because it gave greater satisfaction. We cannot choose that which offers less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. I don't know why people seem to have such a problem with this.

I'm not angry Peacegirl. I'm simply no longer interested in investing a lot of time in this thread. That doesn't mean I'm going to shut up if you say something false about me, which you did. I never tried to prove free will. All I did in this thread is discuss and criticize Lessans' theory. You are the one that tried to prove something, not me.

Then I apologize. I thought you were trying to prove free will true. Regardless, you have the perfect to do so.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It's not an impossibility when it's in the contemplation stage, but once a choice is made, it had to be that choice because it gave greater satisfaction. We cannot choose that which offers less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. I don't know why people seem to have such a problem with this.

All you're saying is that there are reasons why people make the choices they make, and making a choice closes off other options. People have a problem with it because it's trivially obvious, not a great insight that'll change the world.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Too late to edit it, but I decided to add this: not only is it not a profound, world changing insight, it doesn't logically lead to the "no fault, no blame" conclusion you're trying to sell.

 

[s_lone]

Peacegirl, one thing I certainly have no control over is when I wake up in the middle of the night with a thought in my head and it stops me from falling back asleep.

I want to write down this thought but let me first insist that it's only a reflection, not an attempt at proving free will! The fact that I said I no longer wanted to spend a lot of time in this thread is irrelevant because I want to write this.

---

I want you to consider the art of musical composition, to think about it deeply. Take Beethoven's 9th symphony as an example because it is famous. He completed it in 1824 but started to work on it in 1818. The ''Ode to Joy'', one of the most famously and universally recognized melody ever written in the history of western music is based on a poem by Schiller. As soon as 1793, Beethoven had started thinking about how he wanted to put this poem to music. That means this famous little melody took no less than 19 years to reach the state of perfection it acquired in his sense. 19 long years of trying to figure out which note came after which.

Now you could argue that I'm projecting the words ''beauty'' and ''perfection'' onto his work and that subjective notions such as these have no basis in reality, that all this melody is in the end is an arbitrary and relatively random succession of tones, but that would go against every little bit of common sense. There is a reason why this melody is so easily memorized, it's because it's a marvel of sonic architecture. Similarly, the great medieval cathedrals still stand today because they were well built.

But consider this... This simple melody we all know so well existed before Beethoven actually wrote it. This melody has always existed as a matter of fact. It existed as a possibility in the same way that the Big Bang was pregnant with humanity. Life on earth wouldn't have appeared if it wasn't a possibility from the start. It could also have not appeared, had things unfolded differently, but the fact that it did appear at least proves that human life as we know it always existed as a possibility.

What I mean, simply, is that this melody could very well have been composed before by someone else because from a purely mathematical point of view, the melody is nothing else but an arbitrary succession of notes. The Fibonacci series existed before Fibonacci discovered it as a meaningful succession of numbers. One could argue that composers ''discover'' their melodies. I am not taking credit away from their creative skills because I know how hard it is, I practise the art of creating music myself and that is what I'm specialized in.

(You can watch this short low budget movie for which I composed the soundtrack if you need proof of my competence. You'll spot my name in the end credits.)

YouTube - L'Appât / The Bait.mov

Back to the subject at hand. Melodies exist before they are ''found'' by musicians. They exist as possibility until a musician is able to actualize it once and for all. The possibility becomes fulfilled.

Now, from my point of view, Beethoven's Ode to Joy is a pretty eloquent demonstration of human will power and freedom, considering the man is known to have gone totally deaf by 1817, just as he was getting ready to start work on his 9th symphony. Of course, you can argue that he didn't abandon music because it gave him more satisfaction to persevere and compose despite his growing deafness. I have no problem with that. When we make a choice, we necessarily end up choosing what brings us most satisfaction.

But I do have a problem if one tries to take away freedom of will from the equation. Beethoven could have abandoned and he did have suicidal thoughts when it was obvious his deafness problem wasn't getting any better. Most human beings would have abandoned music in this situation, but he didn't.

Let's say we go along the Lessans road of saying humans have no free will whatsoever. We are compelled to do what we do because of our nature. We make our choices a certain way because of nature and ultimately, because of God. I'm using the term ''God'' as meaning the laws of nature. It seems to me that to say that ultimately, God is the cause of every aspect of human life is the only reasonable thing to say if you take away free will. Every aspect of life, from the most obvious (planets in orbits) to the subtly human (the joy of seeing an old friend once more) can all ultimately be linked causally to God.

But is God free? Does God have a will? Lessans seems to think so. He says this:

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will — Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must come about for his benefit.

It's pretty clear that despite the fact that Lessans' God is understood as being the laws of nature as a whole, he does attribute intelligence to God. The notion that God has a plan pretty much requires the notion of a conscious and thinking God. The question is... Is God free? Can God choose anything else but what brings him most satisfaction? Does God have an authentic free will that we do not?

If God is not free, what causes God to be the way he is? Why are the laws of nature as they are? What determines them? What determines God?

If God is free, then this is very interesting because it means there is some free will in this world after all. Free will must exist if God has it. And because we are all manifestations of God, we are all manifestations of this Freedom. If God is understood as being the laws of nature as a whole, then we are living manifestations of this God. We are a part of God. We do have free will when we understand ourselves as being part of the whole. And that makes us co-creators of this world.

God ''composed'' the Ode to Joy as a possibility, but Beethoven actualized it after 19 years of hard work. And being a fan of ''double sided equations'', I have a hard time seeing why you couldn't extend God's freedom to Beethoven, as he is a living manifestation of God. And while we are nothing without God, God is nothing without its parts. Take away atoms and you destroy every aspect of humanity. Take away nature and you destroy every aspect of God. We're all in this together. We are all co-creators of this world.

If freedom exists, it does through everyone of us. And the way I see it, you either use your freedom, or someone else will use it for you. I have a hard time seeing how taking away the concept of free will from us can lead to anywhere but fatalism. And no Lessans hasn't convinced me at all that his world can come to be by taking away freedom from people. Freedom is the stuff of human dignity. Lessans thinks the concept of free will makes us flee our responsibility, but I don't agree at all. When one has the courage to say that he is fully free, he understands that he is fully responsible for his actions.

Now unlike Lessans, I don't think there is anything mathematically undeniable about what I just said. This is just my view of the world and I understand that others have a different understanding of things. But the important thing here is that the concept of freedom is what makes me take responsibility for my actions and I'm not interested in getting rid of it.

My free will is an essential ingredient of my human dignity.

 

[mentalfloss]

It's not an impossibility when it's in the contemplation stage, but once a choice is made, it had to be that choice because it gave greater satisfaction. We cannot choose that which offers less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. I don't know why people seem to have such a problem with this.

Well for one thing, the choice we make may not actually give us the greater satisfaction that was intended. We could imagine it would beforehand, but that doesn't mean it will. I could be driving my '83 pinto and avoid running over a dead animal, but instead crash into another car, possibly injuring or even killing the person in that car.

Also, one could deliberately make choices they know would not bring greater satisfaction. And even worse, if one is proposed with a choice from two options which would appear to bring equal satisfaction.

I could be driving along on a rural, one-way street and two identical twins dart onto the street after their dog, Fenton. If I swerve left, I hit one and right I hit the other. I have no real time to deliberate in this case, who would be harmed less or who is worth less harm. With the little time I have, I have to make a choice from what appears to be two, equally disappointing options. It seems - again, at least on the face of it - there could be no real sense of determinism that could explain how or why one person would make one choice over another.

There could be some molecular or biological explanation for determinism, but I'll admit, I haven't glossed over that stuff yet.

 

[JLM]

Of course you are right, mental floss, I've often chosen short term pain for long term gain, when it would have been much more pleasureable to do the opposite.

 

[peacegirl]

All you're saying is that there are reasons why people make the choices they make, and making a choice closes off other options. People have a problem with it because it's trivially obvious, not a great insight that'll change the world.

First of all, Lessans said over and over that proving man does not have free will is not the discovery. It is the gateway that leads to the discovery. Secondly, it must be recognized that closing off all other options when making a choice, proves that we can only go in one direction. If we can only go in one direction, how can will be free? Free will states that we could have just as easily chosen the other option, which is false. There is such a resistance to the mere idea of determinism, that looking straight at the proof people can't believe it's true, so they fight against it. I need to keep posting excerpts to clarify certain things. And if I have to repeat some points because it fits into the context of our discussion, it can only help. I have the advantage because I've read this many times, and it took a long time for me to understand, so please give yourselves time. Not only is it a new concept, but it different from the conventional way in which determinism is defined. If there is something you disagree with in the following post, please let me know because we will never be able to move forward if there isn't some agreement with this basic principle.

"When any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another."
"His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do something against my will does not mean my will is free because my desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, "I did it of my own free will, nobody made me do it," mean that I actually did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.
"He does understand."
"Does this mean you are also in complete agreement so I can proceed?"
"Yes it does."
Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality. The truth is that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction."

 

[mentalfloss]

.. and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil.

Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice..

The meat of that argument, once again, is the 'compulsion' one has to act in a certain manner. He jumps from this compulsion to the certainty that one would choose the option that is more compulsive. In fact there are many times where I can say that I had a greater compulsion to make one choice, but instead chose another.

It's also a fallacy after making the less compulsive decision, to go back and say, 'oh in actuality it was the more compulsive decision'.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, one thing I certainly have no control over is when I wake up in the middle of the night with a thought in my head and it stops me from falling back asleep.

I want to write down this thought but let me first insist that it's only a reflection, not an attempt at proving free will! The fact that I said I no longer wanted to spend a lot of time in this thread is irrelevant because I want to write this.

---

I want you to consider the art of musical composition, to think about it deeply. Take Beethoven's 9th symphony as an example because it is famous. He completed it in 1824 but started to work on it in 1818. The ''Ode to Joy'', one of the most famously and universally recognized melody ever written in the history of western music is based on a poem by Schiller. As soon as 1793, Beethoven had started thinking about how he wanted to put this poem to music. That means this famous little melody took no less than 19 years to reach the state of perfection it acquired in his sense. 19 long years of trying to figure out which note came after which.

Now you could argue that I'm projecting the words ''beauty'' and ''perfection'' onto his work and that subjective notions such as these have no basis in reality, that all this melody is in the end is an arbitrary and relatively random succession of tones, but that would go against every little bit of common sense. There is a reason why this melody is so easily memorized, it's because it's a marvel of sonic architecture. Similarly, the great medieval cathedrals still stand today because they were well built.

No, you are talking about sound and sound is a sense, therefore the sound waves are striking the ear drum. The eyes do not work in the same way.

But consider this... This simple melody we all know so well existed before Beethoven actually wrote it. This melody has always existed as a matter of fact. It existed as a possibility in the same way that the Big Bang was pregnant with humanity. Life on earth wouldn't have appeared if it wasn't a possibility from the start. It could also have not appeared, had things unfolded differently, but the fact that it did appear at least proves that human life as we know it always existed as a possibility.

I don't disagree with this.

What I mean, simply, is that this melody could very well have been composed before by someone else because from a purely mathematical point of view, the melody is nothing else but an arbitrary succession of notes. The Fibonacci series existed before Fibonacci discovered it as a meaningful succession of numbers. One could argue that composers ''discover'' their melodies. I am not taking credit away from their creative skills because I know how hard it is, I practise the art of creating music myself and that is what I'm specialized in.

The notes are definitely not arbitrary. They make harmony which is a pleasant sound to the human ear. The difficulty of the harmony can be appreciated by those who understand that complexity. There is no conflict here. Having no free will does not take away from someone's creative skills or accomplishments.

(You can watch this short low budget movie for which I composed the soundtrack if you need proof of my competence. You'll spot my name in the end credits.)

YouTube - L'Appât / The Bait.mov

Back to the subject at hand. Melodies exist before they are ''found'' by musicians. They exist as possibility until a musician is able to actualize it once and for all. The possibility becomes fulfilled.

Now, from my point of view, Beethoven's Ode to Joy is a pretty eloquent demonstration of human will power and freedom, considering the man is known to have gone totally deaf by 1817, just as he was getting ready to start work on his 9th symphony. Of course, you can argue that he didn't abandon music because it gave him more satisfaction to persevere and compose despite his growing deafness. I have no problem with that. When we make a choice, we necessarily end up choosing what brings us most satisfaction.

It absolutely shows the fortitude that he had to succeed in spite of the unfair hand he was dealt. It is a true testament to the strength of the human will to overcome even the worst misfortune.

But I do have a problem if one tries to take away freedom of will from the equation. Beethoven could have abandoned and he did have suicidal thoughts when it was obvious his deafness problem wasn't getting any better. Most human beings would have abandoned music in this situation, but he didn't.

Beethoven could have abondoned his musical career, but he was able to draw 'divine' strength to overcome his handicap. He could not have done otherwise once he put his mind to persevering. His strength came from such a desire to continue on that he was able to reject any negative thoughts that would have put an end to his career. But this was not of his own free will. His desire to overcome was still in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Let's say we go along the Lessans road of saying humans have no free will whatsoever. We are compelled to do what we do because of our nature. We make our choices a certain way because of nature and ultimately, because of God. I'm using the term ''God'' as meaning the laws of nature. It seems to me that to say that ultimately, God is the cause of every aspect of human life is the only reasonable thing to say if you take away free will. Every aspect of life, from the most obvious (planets in orbits) to the subtly human (the joy of seeing an old friend once more) can all ultimately be linked causally to God.

Everything is linked to God because we are these laws. It is true that God (the originator of these laws) is ultimately the cause of everything. But please don't get confused with the word 'cause' since we have also been given a will (although not a free will) to choose that which gives us greater satisfaction based on our individual circumstances.

But is God free? Does God have a will? Lessans seems to think so. He says this:

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will — Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must come about for his benefit.

It's pretty clear that despite the fact that Lessans' God is understood as being the laws of nature as a whole, he does attribute intelligence to God. The notion that God has a plan pretty much requires the notion of a conscious and thinking God. The question is... Is God free? Can God choose anything else but what brings him most satisfaction? Does God have an authentic free will that we do not?

In the context of this book, God is only a symbol for the laws of our nature that control every movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. There is an intelligence governing our universe. Lessans personalized God after he explained what the word 'God' symbolizes. Therefore, he did not really think of God as some entity that has a will and is pulling mankind's strings.

If God is not free, what causes God to be the way he is? Why are the laws of nature as they are? What determines them? What determines God?

Once again, God only means the laws of our nature. He never talked about what determines God. That is another topic that really isn't necessary for the purposes of this discussion. The most important point to this thread is to recognize the laws of our nature do exist. It's an amazing realization that humanity is controlled by laws over which we have no control; that there is a way to predict and control man's behavior, otherwise the disharmony that exists would continue on because we could choose to hurt others under any condition, which thank goodness is not true.

If God is free, then this is very interesting because it means there is some free will in this world after all. Free will must exist if God has it. And because we are all manifestations of God, we are all manifestations of this Freedom. If God is understood as being the laws of nature as a whole, then we are living manifestations of this God. We are a part of God. We do have free will when we understand ourselves as being part of the whole. And that makes us co-creators of this world.

I still think of us as co-creators of the world even though man's will is not free. We are an extension of these laws, but without us (mankind) we could not manifest the intention of God, or this unfathonable intelligence that we cannot even begin to comprehend. In other words, we are here for a reason.

God ''composed'' the Ode to Joy as a possibility, but Beethoven actualized it after 19 years of hard work. And being a fan of ''double sided equations'', I have a hard time seeing why you couldn't extend God's freedom to Beethoven, as he is a living manifestation of God. And while we are nothing without God, God is nothing without its parts. Take away atoms and you destroy every aspect of humanity. Take away nature and you destroy every aspect of God. We're all in this together. We are all co-creators of this world.

I am in agreement with you. That's why I hope you don't feel threatened by this definition of determinism. Nothing is being taken away except our pride. We are all part of this magnificent universe, and we all have important contributions to make, no matter what we are called to do. I hope you read Chapter Eleven.

If freedom exists, it does through everyone of us. And the way I see it, you either use your freedom, or someone else will use it for you. I have a hard time seeing how taking away the concept of free will from us can lead to anywhere but fatalism. And no Lessans hasn't convinced me at all that his world can come to be by taking away freedom from people. Freedom is the stuff of human dignity. Lessans thinks the concept of free will makes us flee our responsibility, but I don't agree at all. When one has the courage to say that he is fully free, he understands that he is fully responsible for his actions.

Our freedom is not being taken away by this knowledge. In fact, this is the only way that we will be given the ultimate freedom to do the things we want to do in life; to pursue the gifts that we were meant to manifest through our unique creative expression.

Now unlike Lessans, I don't think there is anything mathematically undeniable about what I just said. This is just my view of the world and I understand that others have a different understanding of things. But the important thing here is that the concept of freedom is what makes me take responsibility for my actions and I'm not interested in getting rid of it.

My free will is an essential ingredient of my human dignity.

No one is taking responsibility away. This knowledge increases the responsibility to do what we know in our hearts is right, without a moral code to tell us what we ought to do. Why? Because there is a God given standard of right and wrong that is built into us, but this built in standard cannot work until we stop the judgment, the blame, and the punishment. It feels so paradoxical at first. But this the way out of the disharmony that is growing worse on the international stage and threatening our very existence.

 

[mentalfloss]

It's not an impossibility when it's in the contemplation stage, but once a choice is made, it had to be that choice because it gave greater satisfaction. We cannot choose that which offers less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. I don't know why people seem to have such a problem with this.

And contemplation is not a choice in and of itself? And what of contemplation over contemplation? What if it is that being who contemplates moreso than they do not contemplate? They may not be making more pragmatic choices, but they are still making a choice are they not? The act of contemplation?

Of course it would appear to you that determinism is true.. but it would to anyone if you believe there is this situational set up of only two options per choice. One good, one evil; one right, and one wrong. But that's not the case at all. The situational context only makes it appear as such.

We only really need to show that there is something 'else' that we can do, regardless if doing this thing is not a preferable alternative or is less compulsive -- or if it is even contextually relevant.

It's pretty simple.. I can do 'x'. I want to do 'x'. I really can do something other than 'x'

So, in an example. I am posting in this forum. I really want to post in this forum - in fact I am compelled by it and really want to continue posting in this forum. Despite that fact, I really can stop posting in this forum. Even if I choose to continue posting, the fact that I still have the ability to not post in this forum -- regardless of how difficult that choice would be -- already invalidates determinism (which includes your definition of it) due simply to the fact that that choice is a possibility.