Free will versus determinism

[Dexter Sinister]

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.

Once again, you miss the point, which is that Lessans has NOT proven we don't have free will, his logic doesn't work, so everything that follows from it is mere speculation. I don't know whether we have free will or not, I've never seen a convincing argument either way, nor have I been able to think of one myself, and Lessans' argument is one of the lamer ones I've encountered. Just because I make a choice, it does not logically follow that I couldn't have made any other one, nor does it logically and necessarily lead to the "no fault, no blame" thing. The issue of free will versus determinism is far more complex and subtle than either you or Lessans understand.

You say you've read the book many times and it took you a long time to understand it, yet you freely berate people here and ask them to leave for reading only the first two chapters, as you originally asked us to do, and not getting it immediately. You need to rethink your approach and your attitude.

 

[peacegirl]

I just wanted to add that I truly enjoyed your music. It actually made the entire movie, if you want my opinion.

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.

Obviously, there is always collateral damage when doing something that was not intended, but was still risky.

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.

There is no such thing as choosing between two alternatives and choosing what brings less satisfaction in comparison to the alternative that brings more satisfaction. I really hope you get this because it is the basis of this entire discovery. Let me repeat for the purpose of clarificartion: If two options were so similar that they were almost identical, then it wouldn't even be a choice because it would be like choosing A or A.

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 IS no way to make sense of one person living and another dying. I know one thing for sure, based on this knowledge. God is not partial to the one who lives. We are dealing with physics, so the only way we can prevent this type of situation from occuring is to prevent the possibility of our car driving into one twin and not the other.

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

That's not what I'm bringing to the table. Of course, biology has everything to do with whether we are determined or not, but this discovery proves, without having to dissect the brain, that we, in fact, have NO FREE WILL.

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?

Not contemplating is also a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. You cannot beat this law of our nature, no matter how hard you try. I have tried, believe me, and it doesn't work. Do you think I have come to this forum without any knowledge of what I'm talking about? I would have never done that because I hate criticism. I am so afraid of people not liking me. The worst thing to me is people not understanding and trying to make a fool out of me. So to come here in spite of this, I am taking a b ig risk, and the only reason I am doing this is because I know there is proof, otherwise I could never speak out in this way.

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.

Lessans always said a choice between one OR MORE options. It doesn't matter how many options are available in a particular situation. It does not change the fact that only one choice can be made, and that is the choice that give you every possible indication that it is the best choice possible. That does not mean that an onlooker judges this person's decision wrong, but we are talking about the individual's reasons for choosing one thing over another. This is a very big deal because people are always saying, "How could he have done that? You could see as clear as the light of day that he made the wrong choice."

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.

Mentalfloss, with all due respect, you did not read the first two chapters because there was an example that answered your argument very clearly. I will cut and paste specifically for you because I know you are truly interested.

My friend, still believing he could prove that man can move in the direction of dissatisfaction, offered the following example.
"Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently my taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple — I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction."
"Do you honestly think this proves freedom of the will? Isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment of time gave you greater satisfaction otherwise you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow? The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove a point, therefore it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice at that moment, you were not free to choose A." Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an invariable law. From moment to moment, all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and that his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction, otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch; as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment; and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

 

[mentalfloss]

There is no such thing as choosing between two alternatives and choosing what brings less satisfaction in comparison to the alternative that brings more satisfaction. I really hope you get this because it is the basis of this entire discovery. Let me repeat for the purpose of clarificartion: If two options were so similar that they were almost identical, then it wouldn't even be a choice because it would be like choosing A or A.

The only exact similarity is the compulsion and nothing else. So, no, it wouldn't be like choosing A or A. It would be like choosing A or B, but you are equally compelled to choose either A or B.

There IS no way to make sense of one person living and another dying. I know one thing for sure, based on this knowledge. God is not partial to the one who lives. We are dealing with physics, so the only way we can prevent this type of situation from occuring is to prevent the possibility of our car driving into one twin and not the other.

Right. I'm pretty sure there are situations where one could choose one person to live over another. Whatever your bias is. Some people prefer to save kids, others prefer to save women, and I'm pretty sure if it were Lessans or a little girl, you'd probably go for the little girl due to your compulsion for satisfaction.

That's not what I'm bringing to the table. Of course, biology has everything to do with whether we are determined or not, but this discovery proves, without having to dissect the brain, that we, in fact, have NO FREE WILL.

Well if you would like to actually prove your case, here's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle..
Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you or he can tackle that, be my guest.

Not contemplating is also a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction.

So "contemplating" is not a choice. But "not contemplating" is a choice. Maybe I'm missing something here, but your logic seems inconsistent.

Isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment of time gave you greater satisfaction otherwise you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow?

No, that isn't obvious at all, unless you can definitively prove that one was clearly more satisfied to prove a point than to eat an apple one wasn't allergic to. Unless Lessans can prove that definitively, this is his own subjective assertion. That assertion cannot count as an objective measurement of satisfaction; it's a faulty assumption. And that assumption is what he bases the rest of his spiel upon. Unfortunately, that's not good enough to make the case or any case for that matter unless he can quantitatively measure satisfaction.

 

[s_lone]

I just wanted to add that I truly enjoyed your music. It actually made the entire movie, if you want my opinion.

Thank you!

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.

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.

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.

You say the topic of what determines God isn't really important for the purposes of this discussion. But somehow I think it is extremely important.

Lessans speaks of ''God'' as being only a symbol for the laws of nature. But then he also speaks of God's plan, his intention, his divine intelligence. This is pretty ambiguous right? And it is important to know if God is free or not. If he isn't, nothing is free. But that goes against the notion that God has intentions and plans. To plan and shape the future, don't you need some form of free will?

To put it simply...

Is God free?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Lessans speaks of ''God'' as being only a symbol for the laws of nature. But then he also speaks of God's plan, his intention, his divine intelligence. This is pretty ambiguous right?

I don't find it ambiguous at all, really, just inconsistent. It's perfectly clear, especially in his last chapter, that he thinks of god quite traditionally, as a purposeful discorporate personality that has some interest in us, regardless of whatever pantheistic disclaimers about the laws of nature he throws in. Otherwise he couldn't talk about god's plans, intentions, or intelligence, those are not characteristics the laws of nature can have, but he lacks the intellectual discipline to perceive the inconsistency. If I may be pardoned for mangling an old saying, if it ducks like a quack, talks like a quack, walks like a quack, it's a quack.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't find it ambiguous at all, really, just inconsistent. It's perfectly clear, especially in his last chapter, that he thinks of god quite traditionally, as a purposeful discorporate personality that has some interest in us, regardless of whatever pantheistic disclaimers about the laws of nature he throws in. Otherwise he couldn't talk about god's plans, intentions, or intelligence, those are not characteristics the laws of nature can have, but he lacks the intellectual discipline to perceive the inconsistency. If I may be pardoned for mangling an old saying, if it ducks like a quack, talks like a quack, walks like a quack, it's a quack.

He stated very clearly in Chapter Two that the word 'God' symbolizes the laws of our nature. Yes, he personalizes the word throughout the book, but only after qualifying what God means in the context of this writing. There is no inconsistency. When he personalizes God, he assumed the reader would be able to translate the word God to the laws of our nature. For example, when he says God has a secret plan, he only means that the laws of our nature are compelling us to move in a particular direction, which is away from that which brings them absolutely no satisfaction. Can't you see this?

Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule which God has given us as a guide. By now I hope you understand that the word ‘God’ is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun; regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that He is a reality. You may ask, "But isn’there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is a part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God, therefore we must assume because of certain things that God is a reality, correct?"

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free, and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation for nothing in this universe when seen in total perspective is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

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. This new world is coming into existence not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did? To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well as the solar system, just follow this: Here is versatile man — writer, composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief, etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the entire world, which perception was utterly impossible without the development...and absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

The only exact similarity is the compulsion and nothing else. So, no, it wouldn't be like choosing A or A. It would be like choosing A or B, but you are equally compelled to choose either A or B.[

No, that's not true. No matter how you look at it, when there are comparable differences, there is an absolute compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative. This is not just an assertion. If one is choosing between differences that don't make a difference, then it wouldn't matter and we could throw a dice to determine our choice.

Right. I'm pretty sure there are situations where one could choose one person to live over another. Whatever your bias is. Some people prefer to save kids, others prefer to save women, and I'm pretty sure if it were Lessans or a little girl, you'd probably go for the little girl due to your compulsion for satisfaction.

Each individual has his own unique reasons for why he makes certain choices. They are neither wrong nor right, just what they desire as a motion in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Well if you would like to actually prove your case, here's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle..
Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you or he can tackle that, be my guest.

Unless you can show me where it contradicts this knowledge, I am going to forgo reading this, as I don't want to go off onto another tangent.

So "contemplating" is not a choice. But "not contemplating" is a choice. Maybe I'm missing something here, but your logic seems inconsistent.

It isn't at all. My desire not to contemplate instead of contemplate over something that is not worth contemplating over, is my choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. You have to understand that every single moment of our lives, we are moving in this direction whether it is obvious, or not so obvious.

No, that isn't obvious at all, unless you can definitively prove that one was clearly more satisfied to prove a point than to eat an apple one wasn't allergic to. Unless Lessans can prove that definitively, this is his own subjective assertion. That assertion cannot count as an objective measurement of satisfaction; it's a faulty assumption. And that assumption is what he bases the rest of his spiel upon. Unfortunately, that's not good enough to make the case or any case for that matter unless he can quantitatively measure satisfaction.

But it is objective. If you understand the law of greater satisfaction, you can easily see this. If you just bear in mind that our nature compells us to choose not what we believe is worse for ourselves, but what gives us every indication of being the best possible choice under our particular circumstances, you will be able to at least consider that Lessans is right. In other words, this is an a priori justification which you need to accept if you are to move forward. If not, then you will say that he hasn't proven his case, and you'll lose interest. Please reread this excerpt; maybe it will help.

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false." So without any further adieu, let us begin.


The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note.

Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.
In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever.

We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here and you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hairs breadth by committing suicide.
"I prefer..." Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies, otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here is determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction, otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. During every moment of man’s progress he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could sway you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled by their very nature to prefer A; and how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction.

 

[s_lone]

Peacegirl,

is God free?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Can't you see this?

Yes, I can see it. I can also see that it's trivial and doesn't lead to the conclusions he claims it does.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

JLM, it is quite clear that you were choosing the lesser of two evils, which is just as much a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction as when you are choosing between a good over an evil, or the greater of two goods.

Peacegirl,

is God free?

Your question doesn't make sense because God is not a thing. That is not how the word God is being used in this book so there is no way I can answer you. It would be similar to asking, "Can you see this sound?"

Yes, I can see it. I can also see that it's trivial and doesn't lead to the conclusions he claims it does.

You state a lot of opinions Dexter, but you don't back them up with anything. So to me this is just another statement of yours meant to create doubt because you don't like the idea that someone could actually prove that man's will is 100% not free.

 

[mentalfloss]

But it is objective. If you understand the law of greater satisfaction, you can easily see this.

Right. Well, this 'law' does not act as a proof in any shape or manner regarding an objective metric of satisfaction or compulsion. You also haven't been able to prove that it is that satisfaction or compulsion which directly causes every intentional act. It's a post-hoc problem that you'll need to resolve before you can give the argument any credence as causality has not been shown.

 

[peacegirl]

Right. Well, this 'law' does not act as a proof in any shape or manner regarding an objective assessment of satisfaction or compulsion. You also haven't been able to prove that it is that satisfaction or compulsion which directly causes every intentional act. It's a post-hoc problem that you'll need to resolve before you can give the argument any credence as causality has not been shown.

It has been shown mentalfloss. You might not have seen the proof, but it's there in this writing. So if this puts an end to the discussion, that's fine with me.

 

[s_lone]

Your question doesn't make sense because God is not a thing. That is not how the word God is being used in this book so there is no way I can answer you. It would be similar to asking, "Can you see this sound?"

My question does make sense. Lessans speaks of God as a living entity.

Quoting Lessans:

This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality.

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will

Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule which God has given us as a guide.

end of quote


God has a plan, God has a will, God has intentions. This is how Lessans characterized God.

If God has a will, is it free or not?

 

[mentalfloss]

God has a will, eh? Lucky guy.

 

[JLM]

JLM, it is quite clear that you were choosing the lesser of two evils, which is just as much a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction as when you are choosing between a good over an evil, or the greater of two goods.

From the information I gave, (nothing) how could you possibly make that statement? It's just that kind of remark why people don't find you credible. :smile:

 

[peacegirl]

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 contemplation is a choice in and of itself. Who said it wasn't?

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.

No, there is not always two options per choice. What you gave you that idea?

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'

All that you are saying is that these options are possibilities. You want to do x, but you get greater satisfaction doing y, for whatever reason. The possibility of doing x existed before you chose option y. Therefore, you did not desire choosing x as much as your desire to choose y, at that moment in time.

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.

Of course you can stop posting in this forum. This is a possibility before you choose something. We are always contemplating before making a choice. But once we make a choice, it could not have been otherwise AT THAT MOMENT. For example, you might be tired of going round and round with this debate, or you may believe Lessans was wrong and you are tired of trying to convince me. Or you may want to prove a point that you don't have to post if you don't want to (which Lessans never denied), similar to the example with the apple. So yes, the option not to post is always there until you decide to post. That does not mean in the very next moment you might consider the option of not posting. The decision not to post might be difficult, but it might be the lesser of two evils. Maybe your spouse is angry at you because you are spending too much time on the computer, and as much as you want to debate this issue, it isn't worth it if your wife is threatening that she will leave. Therefore, it becomes the lesser of two evils not to post. Just because we have many options available to us before making a choice does not invalidate determinism.

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.

Maybe I didn't explain this well, so I'll answer you in this way. Most of us at one point in our lives have chosen short term pain for long term gain. We don't always go for instant gratification depending on how beneficial the long term gain will be. For example, it may give us greater satisfaction to work out everyday even though it's boring and even painful, in order to gain the benefits of good health and a strong physique later on. Where does this conflict with anything I've been saying?

 

[mentalfloss]

Of course you can stop posting in this forum. This is a possibility before you choose something. We are always contemplating before making a choice. But once we make a choice, it could not have been otherwise AT THAT MOMENT.

Yes, but I am not arguing that we can't make a choice here. I am talking about will, which is that desire or determination. Will, whether it is free or not, comes before that choice. Who would argue that at the exact moment a choice is made, it's made? The reason the choice is 'made' is because we made that choice - we 'created' it. Otherwise, if it wasn't really a choice, we would have to stop calling it a choice and we couldn't say it was 'made'.

Will, however, isn't controlled by some external factor. It's entirely intrinsic, regardless if Lessan's can zoom in to my head and correctly or incorrectly deduce the reason for that choice.

For example, you might be tired of going round and round with this debate, or you may believe Lessans was wrong and you are tired of trying to convince me. Or you may want to prove a point that you don't have to post if you don't want to (which Lessans never denied), similar to the example with the apple. So yes, the option not to post is always there until you decide to post. That does not mean in the very next moment you might consider the option of not posting. The decision not to post might be difficult, but it might be the lesser of two evils.

Subjective assertion. Even if it is the lesser of two 'evils', I am the one deciding what is evil. The decision stems from me - which is just fine because I exist before the decision does, so it is possible that I create that decision. More importantly, before I can make that decision I need to know who I think I am before I can think to begin to make that decision.

Therefore, it becomes the lesser of two evils not to post. Just because we have many options available to us before making a choice does not invalidate determinism.

Well maybe having options 'available' is not the right way of looking at it. We are the ones creating the options before making a choice. What is evil and what is good is simply fabrication of my own mind. It's not an objective value or anything.

The destruction of the entire human race for instance, is not in and of itself, an evil thing. That it is evil is a subjective assertion by those of us who choose to avoid that peril. Whether our desire not to all commit hari kari at the exact same time is fueled by our awareness of the immense pain and suffering stemming from the act, doesn't mean our will to choose either is controlled. I'm sure if we gave everyone a shot of morphine, it would make that decision a lot easier! If it ever comes to that point, I would hope to have the morphine shot before we all take the plunge.

I just don't think it's fair to say that I do everything I do, simply because I would do it for an objectively good reason. If that was the case, then I wouldn't be able to reflect after making a poor decision and truthfully say to myself - that was a poor decision. I may have thought at the time that what I did was for my own good, but upon later reflection the truth of the matter was that it wasn't for my own good.

And that that choice both existed as a choice that was both good and bad means that there is no objective good and bad. Further, it also means that there is no objective 'me' as the 'me' in the past thought it was good, but the 'me' in the future thinks it is bad. And so how can determinism be if it cannot even be decided upon what truly compels a person or what is truly good or bad or evil or whatever?

If there is any claim for determinism, I think it could be consciousness. Consciousness is essentially 'nothing', and our decisions could possibly stem from whatever we can think of to fill that void of nothingness. But even with that causal relationship, nothingness is endless and infinite.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You state a lot of opinions Dexter, but you don't back them up with anything.

Doesn't matter whether I do or not, you still say the same silly things. Making a choice does not logically imply I could not have made any other choice, it means only that I didn't. Lessans' key claim, the gateway as you called it, is that it does. That's a false claim, and everything else rests on it.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes, but I am not arguing that we can't make a choice here. I am talking about will, which is that desire or determination. Will, whether it is free or not, comes before that choice. Who would argue that at the exact moment a choice is made, it's made? The reason the choice is 'made' is because we made that choice - we 'created' it. Otherwise, if it wasn't really a choice, we would have to stop calling it a choice and we couldn't say it was 'made'.

Will, however, isn't controlled by some external factor. It's entirely intrinsic, regardless if Lessan's can zoom in to my head and correctly or incorrectly deduce the reason for that choice.

Our will is influenced by hereditary and environmental conditions that are unique to each individual.

Subjective assertion. Even if it is the lesser of two 'evils', I am the one deciding what is evil. The decision stems from me - which is just fine because I exist before the decision does, so it is possible that I create that decision. More importantly, before I can make that decision I need to know who I think I am before I can think to begin to make that decision.

So what if you're the one deciding. That does not in and of itself make your will free. The decision stems from you, and you exist before the decision does, and it is not only possible, but a fact that you are creating the decision. I'm not sure what you mean by your last comment.

Well maybe having options 'available' is not the right way of looking at it. We are the ones creating the options before making a choice. What is evil and what is good is simply fabrication of my own mind. It's not an objective value or anything.

He stated that good and bad are relative in terms of oneself. Dog food is good to someone who is starving, but bad to someone who has the option of having steak.

The destruction of the entire human race for instance, is not in and of itself, an evil thing. That it is evil is a subjective assertion by those of us who choose to avoid that peril. Whether our desire not to all commit hari kari at the exact same time is fueled by our awareness of the immense pain and suffering stemming from the act, doesn't mean our will to choose either is controlled. I'm sure if we gave everyone a shot of morphine, it would make that decision a lot easier! If it ever comes to that point, I would hope to have the morphine shot before we all take the plunge.

You don't think you would be compelled to take the easier way out if it was offered? Why take morphine if your choice is so equal? You should be able to make either decision just as equally as the other.

I just don't think it's fair to say that I do everything I do, simply because I would do it for an objectively good reason. If that was the case, then I wouldn't be able to reflect after making a poor decision and truthfully say to myself - that was a poor decision. I may have thought at the time that what I did was for my own good, but upon later reflection the truth of the matter was that it wasn't for my own good.

Who said this had anything to do with always being objective in one's choices. A lot of our choices are emotionally driven, and completely unobjective. We always look back in hindsight in order evaluate whether our decision was a good one, and if it was not, the next time a similar situation presents itself, we will not make the same mistake again. I'm not sure what you are refuting.

And that that choice both existed as a choice that was both good and bad means that there is no objective good and bad. Further, it also means that there is no objective 'me' as the 'me' in the past thought it was good, but the 'me' in the future thinks it is bad. And so how can determinism be if it cannot even be decided upon what truly compels a person or what is truly good or bad or evil or whatever?

There is definitely an objective YOU. We are all here in the present, so the words past and future form a deceptive relation that has no bearing on our present moment to moment choices. The only objective standard in human behavior is this hurt to others. A good or bad choice is certainly relative. For those who have read this already, you'll have to skip over it, or read it again for clarification.

"Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth is that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying. For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing than another.

Dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.

If there is any claim for determinism, I think it could be consciousness. Consciousness is essentially 'nothing', and our decisions could possibly stem from whatever we can think of to fill that void of nothingness. But even with that causal relationship, nothingness is endless and infinite.

Our decisions stem from a myriad of factors, but that does not change the direction we are compelled to go from the day we are born to the day we die. We might be the type of person that feels this sense of void and we may try to fill it with something meaningful (whatever we perceive that to be), so we will pick the option that comes closer to filling that void. Where does this contradict the idea of greater satisfaction?

Doesn't matter whether I do or not, you still say the same silly things. Making a choice does not logically imply I could not have made any other choice, it means only that I didn't. Lessans' key claim, the gateway as you called it, is that it does. That's a false claim, and everything else rests on it.

It actually does. You didn't make that choice, therefore you couldn't have made that choice at that exact moment of time because we can't choose that which is less satisfying when a more satisfying choice is available, and obviously the other choices were less satisfying in comparison. It is true that before a choice is made, all the options that are available to you have the potential of being chosen. It is not a false claim, therefore what rests on it is as solid as a rock.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Saying the same things over and over again doesn't make them true. In one sentence you tell me I didn't make that choice, then you tell me all the options available could potentially have been chosen, presumably by me. You can't have it both ways; if I didn't make that choice then all the options were not available to me. You're not thinking clearly and don't understand the implications of what you say.

 

[peacegirl]

Saying the same things over and over again doesn't make them true. In one sentence you tell me I didn't make that choice, then you tell me all the options available could potentially have been chosen, presumably by me. You can't have it both ways; if I didn't make that choice then all the options were not available to me. You're not thinking clearly and don't understand the implications of what you say.

I repeat the same things over and over not because it makes them more true, but because some people have not read these excerpts. I have introduced a very different way of looking at determinism, and it will take time to process. BTW, when did I say you didn't make that choice? All along I've been saying you are the one that makes the choice. I don't expect to have it both ways.