Free will versus determinism
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
- Status
Whether you mean me or Lessans, it's still not accurate. You are insinuating indirectly that he was wrong, and you have absolutely no idea what this book is about, but you do have a lot of back up in here. That's why I think this discussion is coming to an end. I have used a lot of energy and I don't think the interest is that strong. I am tired of trying to explain something when the attitude is so dismissive and smug that even someone with a proven idea, would not have success.
I know. You started your argument (ie, the book), with the stance that you would take any argument against the book as a proof of its validity. So we all knew from the outset that you would dismiss any counter argument. I was unsurprised when the extent of your arguments were 'you're being mean', or 'you don't understand'. It saddens me to know that our disagreement with you over a book will cement such notions in your head, rather than open you to the fact taht we ARE discussing, we have read what you asked, and have asked a few times for YOU instead of Lessans to come out and discuss. You seem like a bright, wonderful person. I wish we could have learned more about you than just your obsession with selling this horribly flawed book.
Take care peacegirl.
Take care peacegirl.
No, it's not flawed. One day it will be proven true. The most brilliant were also the ones who were most penalized for their strange ideas. Karrie, you said you weren't going to come back here. Why do you feel so compelled to discredit this man? What is it that you are so sure about? You have said nothing. Your responses are empty. What bothers you that you feel compelled to psychoanalyze me? Are you insecure in some way that I might actually have something to offer, and it's not about my ego? S_Lone who is trying to understand the book, does not, because it's not easy reading. For some psychological reason, you must prove me wrong or tell me that I have an obsession. You can't stand that this man might actually have a discovery because somehow it would discredit you. I feel sorry for you karrie because you can't let it go. You are the one obsessed, not me.
Tell yourself what you need to peacegirl. As for what compells me to come and discuss this with my friends, I have always had an interest in psychology, and the assorted foibles which make up the human experience. It is an open forum, and I see no reason not to discuss my views on it with s_lone. You`re the one who asked me to talk directly to you. I've found the whole read, the whole thread, the whole experience highly interesting.
As for what compells me to come and discuss this with my friends, I have always had an interest in psychology, and the assorted foibles which make up the human experience. It is an open forum, and I see no reason not to discuss my views on it with s_lone. You`re the one who asked me to talk directly to you. I've found the whole read, the whole thread, the whole experience highly interesting.
She just wants to argue, Karrie. :smile:
As for what compells me to come and discuss this with my friends, I have always had an interest in psychology, and the assorted foibles which make up the human experience. It is an open forum, and I see no reason not to discuss my views on it with s_lone. You`re the one who asked me to talk directly to you. I've found the whole read, the whole thread, the whole experience highly interesting.
There is much to be said for open discussion. But your comments were not meant for this. You know that as well as I. I'm glad you found the whole thread interesting. I hope not at my expense. Maybe one day, if the book is still online, you'll actually take the time to study it.
Accurate observation of what? The world Lessans proposes is a hypothetical world. He can't observe it! except in his own imagination.
NO. I don't agree with that because in that context choice is just a very elaborate illusion.
Here's a good example to explain the problem I have with what you're saying.
It's as if a robot car was traveling down a road and programmed to always turn left every time there's an intersection. The fact that there are intersections along the road does not mean there is a choice because the car is programmed to always turn left. The car doesn't choose anything. It's trajectory is already settled.
The same applies to our will if you go along the statement that it's part of the deterministic process and that it's ''programmed'' by natural selection to always take the path of greater satisfaction.
If no one can blame the car for always turning left, then it follows that the car can't blame itself also. And if you go down that road (pardon the pun!) the whole notion of responsibility is flushed down the drain.
If God is responsible than it is possible for the conscience to find an excuse for the action. The rapist can very well say his sexual instincts (nature) is responsible for what he did even though nobody is blaming him for what he did. Lessans takes for granted that a blameless environment leads people not to hurt people but he's not basing this on ''accurate observation'' because a blameless world has never come to be. It's a huge assumption which fails to convince anybody but you and Lessans. There's nothing mathematical or undeniable about it. An assumption is not a statement about reality.
As I already said, it's more than easy to shift responsibility when God is your accomplice!
Yes you can use God. If you feel guilty about what you did, you can use God. And if you don't well there is no problem. Nobody blames you... not even yourself! Everybody is happy in that case.
BLA BLA freakin' BLA!!! It's the same old repetitive thing all over again. You either don't feel guilty for what you did, which solves the issue. Or you do feel guilty and you can justify your action in the comforting thought that you could not have done otherwise, that God compelled you to do it because your will is not free, that it's part of the deterministic process and that it's programmed to do whatever it does according to what brings most satisfaction. The fact that nobody blames you for anything amounts to nothing if you have no power over what does bring you satisfaction.
The problem with this part is that some people do take responsibility for their actions in the world we live in. Not everybody tries to find excuses for their wrongs.
Do you really think that when a guy is contemplating the option of raping a woman, he is asking himself how he could justify the action if he chooses to do it? No he's too busy wondering if he can get away with it.
So why not blame the conditions of our life, which are beyond our power for the actions we do... Even if we are in blameless environment?
The only thing he's observing is his own hypothetical construct.
I won't keep reading for the reasons I already mentioned. The further I went in the book, the sillier it got.
I am a practical kid, not interested in the philosophical definition of determinism. I see life as a journey on a train. Free will enables me to various activities in the confines of the coach while it speeds along its journey in its tracks. To me this also describes free will v. determinism.
There is no point in taking the time to study it. It makes zero sense. And no, that's not because I'm dense and don't understand him, it's because it's contradictory, repetitive, and flat out wrong in its assertions. If a theory can be proven wrong within the first two chapters, why bother studying it?
That's a brilliant explanation Kathie. It follows the thought that determinism applies only in a physical sense, not in a psychological one. The universe may push you down a path, but, whether you choose to shake hands with, or spit on, a stranger you meet along that path, is a psychological function of your free will.
Who in their right mind would read a book "on line"? If the book was worth reading I would think most sane people would check it out of the library. I get a stiff neck and blurred vision after reading a page on line.
Good call! It's nice to have some fresh input in the thread Kathie.
You can't decide if it's gonna rain or not, but you can decide if you're gonna stay home or put on a rain coat and go outside.
In the end it's all a question of choice. Personally, despite the fact that I can't figure out a way to explain exactly how free will could be possible in a world of atoms and brain chemistry, I choose to consider myself free. And I don't give a hoot if someone tells me this choice to embrace free will is determined.
My life makes sense when I know that I can take full responsibility for the actions I take because I am the one who ultimately took the final decision. I don't need a blameless environment for that.
I'd say the onus is on the author to prove his theory correct in the first two paragraphs if he expects the reader to continue with the book. :smile:
That's what a life of morals is like, plain and simple.
Lessans' utopian view might work if all people possessed empathy, a conscience, and the entirety of humanity was perfrectly healthy. In other words, it might work in theory. Reality is completely different.
I had one friend who went into a complete funk after a series of prophetic dreams he'd had since childhood came true. He was furious, and felt cheated, because he'd done everything he could to avoid what his dreams were telling him would happen, and still he ended up at the time and place where he always dreamt he would nearly die. And it all played out the way he'd always dreamt. Now... the validity of what he experienced aside, the impact was HUGE, because to his mind, that meant that nothing he chose in his life made a difference. He was destroyed, furious. If we can't change our path, or at least our experience upon that path, then what point was there to living? He was never the same. He was defeated.
The self is not free of causal relations. There is always a reason why a person chooses one thing over another. I hope keep trying to understand the two-sided equation. I don't know how else to get this concept across.
Don't mean to derail the thread, but I just wanted to respond to this. I read something recently on Sartre's version of freedom (he's against determinism) and it ironically goes something like this.. 'we are condemned to be free'.
Now regarding this two-sided equation, at least from what I understand, the condemnation part is responsibility. So, while we have utmost freedom to make a decision for ourselves, we must bear the responsibility of that decision. That idea has probably been reiterated a bunch of times already in this thread, all apologies, I just stepped in - but I thought I'd post my interpretation of this two-sided accountance of free will.
Of course, there are physical or environmental constraints that may hinder freedom to some extent. But there is always a decision to be made with the time given. And as long as one is conscious, that decision is made of your free will even in the most controlling environments.
A prof I had came up with this really weird example.. He said if you are on the battlefield and there are bombs being dropped all around you, you can choose to hide in a divet in the ground or stay and run around. That is pragmatic enough, but free will would also extend to even worse constraints. If you slipped into a divet and broke your leg, you can crawl away. But let's say you can't move. Well if you can't move, you can't move.. but you can still lay there and pray, or dream, or just think of something else. To that extent, I think he was trying to show that despite how stringently deterministic your situation seems, free will still exists.
Last edited:
I'm sorry that he felt defeated, but that is not what this discovery is saying. He is not referring to fatalism, as if nothing we do matters. It's the exact opposite. The only difference is that we cannot say we did something of our own free will, but that does not mean we can't feel tremendous satisfaction from our accomplishments. No one is taking anything away from anyone. Ughhhhh!!!! :confused3:
You have no way to envision how this principle will play out in real life. So much of the hurt done to us will be eliminated that you can't even begin begin to contemplate the changes about to unfold.
Last edited:
The problem is, that does not work for everyone. Plenty of people WILL turn fatalistic in the absence of free will. Utopian ideals are funny like that, they tend to fall apart when faced with the variety that exists within the human condition.
You have no understanding as to why this can't fall apart. The funny thing is regardless of what you feel about this knowledge doesn't change anything. If it's true it will come about regardless, sooner or later. I would like to see the beginnings of this change, but if it's not meant to be in my lifetime, I will accept that. This will come about in God's time, not mine.
- Status