A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you are confusing the different meanings of this term. Self-determination in reference to free will means that we can make decisions that are free from any previous condition or circumstance that may have an influence on our present actions. How could this be possible unless we were self-caused? We are all products of our heredity and environment which we cannot extricate ourselves from.

Self-determination in the sense of being strong-willed and independent in thought and action, is another definition of this term. I am not arguing that this kind of self-determination doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, I am not confusing the two at all. I do not believe I have ever mentioned it. You are saying that in order to have free will, as you say it, you need to be free of "any previous condition".

Thus, what you are talking about is jovian free will: the ability to determine everything about everything and also, come to think of it, everywhen.

I am not talking about jovian free will, or the ability to determine everything about everything, and also every when. Where in the world did you get that idea from my posts? I am talking about contra-causal or libertarian free will which does not involve foreknowledge about everything.

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

http://www.theopedia.com/Libertarian_free_will

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But what prove do you have that there cannot be limited self-determination, such as I described previously? A person may be inclined to be extremely afraid of heights, for instance. This is determined - but he can then decide to train himself to reduce this tendency. We can then say that the decision to train himself is also determined, but we can then counter by saying that he had the same limited amount of control over his options there: he could condition himself to not be afraid of challenges and to have a desire to overcome them.

Where does this ability to de-condition himself negate determinism? This discovery does not preclude someone from trying to make his life better as he moves from point A to point B. We are limited by the options that are available to us, but this limitation does not change the direction we are compelled to move.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As you can see, while this leads to an infinite regression, we have not pinned down a point where we have proven beyond doubt that there is no room for a limited amount of self-determination. Perhaps not the godlike-kind that you and Harris seem to feel is required, and which no-one really thinks about when they think about free will.

The kind of self-determination you are talking about does not conflict with the fact that all of our actions are determined by previous circumstances, events, experiences in combination with our genetics. In an effort to change a behavior that takes a certain amount of self-determination or grit to break, we are not making a determination that is outside of this causal chain or fabric of a deterministic universe.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What they think about is the ability to make limited choices, which themselves may be determined, but which nevertheless allow a certain amount of flexibility in how we express our determined heritage.

How do you prove that this limited self-determination does not exist?

Just like Harris and Ortega said, there is no way to prove empirically that man's will is not free, but that does not mean that observing how the brain works in a lab (neuro-science), goes by the wayside. All of these tests further confirm that Lessans was right all along. This discovery is coming into its own because we're in a day and age that can confirm his findings. It's amazing how the universe works in support of new thought when the time is right. And only God (or the intelligence that governs this Earth) is the overseer of that timing. The ability to assert oneself through perseverence and extreme effort (or what you call self-determination) does exist, but this in no way proves that this ability equates with freedom of the will, for one's self-determination does not mean we are self-caused; it just means our choice to change and improve our lives pushes us in the direction of overcoming our weaknesses.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not talking about jovian free will, or the ability to determine everything about everything, and also every when. Where in the world did you get that idea from my posts? I am talking about contra-causal or libertarian free will which does not involve foreknowledge about everything.

Actually, you are. Your version of free will ceases to exist once there is anything we cannot self-determine and that influences us.

Where does this ability to de-condition himself negate determinism? This discovery does not preclude someone from trying to make his life better as he moves from point A to point B. We are limited by the options that are available to us, but this limitation does not change the direction we are compelled to move.

That has nothing to do with what I am trying to tell you.

The kind of self-determination you are talking about does not conflict with the fact that all of our actions are determined by previous circumstances, events, experiences in combination with our genetics. In an effort to change a behavior that takes a certain amount of self-determination or grit to break, we are not making a determination that is outside of this causal chain or fabric of a deterministic universe.

You are confusing two uses of the word "determination". I am not talking about grit: I am talking about determining what your psychological make-up is going to be (in a limited sense).

This is clearly possible. Your response is "Ah, but that decision is determined too!"

But my objection to that is "But we have the same (limited) ability to change THAT as well" - we can, for instance, condition ourselves to be intolerant of psychological limitations like the arachnophobia we mentioned in the example. We could come up with examples for every regresive step of that all the way down tot he point where we become conscious.

We have not shown that we are unable to have a limited amount of choice all the way down the causal line to the point where we begin to be conscious.

Just like Harris and Ortega said, there is no way to prove empirically that man's will is not free,

In this case I am not referring to, requesting, nor even suggesting the applicability of empirical evidence.

but that does not mean that observing how the brain works in a lab (neuro-science), goes by the wayside.

Nor am I saying anything of the kind. This is a propos of nothing.

All of these tests further confirm that Lessans was right all along.

Ermmm... no. They really do not.

This discovery is coming into its own because we're in a day and age that can confirm his findings.

Ermmm.. I fear you are slipping into wishful; thinking here.

It's amazing how the universe works in support of new thought when the time is right. And only God (or the intelligence that governs this Earth) is the overseer of that timing.

And from there into a complete fantasy land...

The ability to assert oneself through perseverence and extreme effort (or what you call self-determination) does exist, but this in no way proves that this ability equates with freedom of the will, for one's self-determination does not mean we are self-caused; it just means our choice to change and improve our lives pushes us in the direction of overcoming our weaknesses.

...into incoherence.

I was not using "determination" in that sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not talking about jovian free will, or the ability to determine everything about everything, and also every when. Where in the world did you get that idea from my posts? I am talking about contra-causal or libertarian free will which does not involve foreknowledge about everything.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, you are. Your version of free will ceases to exist once there is anything we cannot self-determine and that influences us.

Not at all. We can still choose and have the feeling of control as a result, but this does not mean we actually have free will. You are confusing free agency (or the ability to choose "freely"without constraint) with freedom of the will.

Where does this ability to de-condition himself negate the fact that he is doing this not of his own free will? This discovery does not preclude someone from trying to make his life better as he moves from point A to point B. We are limited by the options that are available to us, but this limitation does not change the direction we are compelled to move.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That has nothing to do with what I am trying to tell you.

So where does this conflict with determinism? Our psychological make-up is a mixture of environment and heredity, and as our perspective changes, so do our choices. Our psychological make-up is not fixed; it is constantly changing. It is true that we have a certain temperament when we are born, but this is also flexible and subject to change.

True. Everything is determined, even this argument over free agency.

That is also true, whatever choices were made, we can theoretically take those choices all the way back to when we first became conscious. Where does this change the fact that our choices are anything but free?

As Sam Harris states:

"I think it's safe to say that no one has ever argued for the existence of free will because it holds such promise as an abstract idea. The endurance of this problem in science and philosophy is the result of this feeling most of us have that we freely author our thoughts and actions and at the moment the only philosophical respectable way to defend free will is to adopt a view in academic philosophy that's called compatibilism and to argue that free will is compatible with the truth of determinism. My friend Dan Dennet who is a compatibilist essentially makes the claim that we have to just think of free will differently. If a murderer commits his crime based on his desire to kill and not based on some other thing that's hijacking him, but his actions are actually an expression of his real desires and intentions, well then that's all the free will you need. But from both a moral and scientific point of view this seems to miss the point. Where is the freedom doing what one wants when one's desires are the product of prior events that one is completely unaware of and had no hand in creating. So from my point of view compatibilism is a little like saying a puppet is free as long as it loves its strings."

He continues discussing compatibilism at 29:11

Again, who is arguing with this? Who is saying our choices are limited? Regardless of how many choices are at our disposal, only one choice is possible based on our life experiences and genetics.

Yes they do, and you're arguing with me doesn't change anything. The more science begins to recognize the truth of determinism, the quicker this discovery will be confirmed valid and we will finally be able to achieve the kind of world we all want.

I'm not slipping into anything of the sort. This knowledge is part of the real world and it is gradually coming into its own. If my father hadn't made this discovery, someone else would have. Nothing can stop this new world from coming into existence once this knowledge is understood and confirmed by the scientific world.

Not true. When you look at this world in total perspective, you have to catch your breath in utter amazement knowing that we are gravitating toward a world of peace and brotherhood for all.

...into incoherence.

I was not using "determination" in that sense.

You were using self-determination as having flexibility or limited freedom within the context of determinism. An analogy would be determinism is the hardware program (i.e., our determined heritage) and the "limited" choices within that program is the software. You still haven't grasped why having choices, limited or unlimited, and having flexibility to alter the trajectory of our lives, doesn't make will free in any way, shape, or form.

[Vivisectus]

Not at all. We can still choose and have the feeling of control as a result, but this does not mean we actually have free will. You are confusing free agency (or the ability to choose "freely"without constraint) with freedom of the will.

You are missing the point.

[quote][quote="Vivisectus"]That has nothing to do with what I am trying to tell you.

Am am not so sure about that: willing ignorance seems to be something you indulge in regularly.

Look at the example: we can call the act of training yourself to grow used to heights as an act of self-determination. You can then call that act determined in turn, and start an infinite regression right up to the point where we first become conscious - but the same limited ability to self-determine could apply to every step along the way. We could inculcate ourselves with a generalized desire to overcome obstacles, for instance. You can then call THAT determined, perhaps by your upbringing. But people can decide to follow upbringings or revolt against them... etc. etc. etc.

That would give us a *limited* amount of influence over the things we "will" - at least within the framework of what we can actually experience.

So where does this conflict with determinism? Our psychological make-up is a mixture of environment and heredity, and as our perspective changes, so do our choices. Our psychological make-up is not fixed; it is constantly changing. It is true that we have a certain temperament when we are born, but this is also flexible and subject to change.

Again, not the point.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is clearly possible. Your response is "Ah, but that decision is determined too!"

That is also true, whatever choices were made, we can theoretically take those choices all the way back to when we first became conscious. Where does this change the fact that our choices are anything but free?

You miss the point. There is a limited amount of flexibility there that we cannot say, for sure, is all determined.

As Sam Harris states:

"I think it's safe to say that no one has ever argued for the existence of free will because it holds such promise as an abstract idea. The endurance of this problem in science and philosophy is the result of this feeling most of us have that we freely author our thoughts and actions and at the moment the only philosophical respectable way to defend free will is to adopt a view in academic philosophy that's called compatibilism and to argue that free will is compatible with the truth of determinism. My friend Dan Dennet who is a compatibilist essentially makes the claim that we have to just think of free will differently. If a murderer commits his crime based on his desire to kill and not based on some other thing that's hijacking him, but his actions are actually an expression of his real desires and intentions, well then that's all the free will you need. But from both a moral and scientific point of view this seems to miss the point. Where is the freedom doing what one wants when one's desires are the product of prior events that one is completely unaware of and had no hand in creating. So from my point of view compatibilism is a little like saying a puppet is free as long as it loves its strings."

I am well aware of what Harris says, and I have pointed out the essential flaw in his thinking by making it bold. Harris oversimplifies, pretends all free will must be Jovian free will. Free Will, to him, means the ability to completely determine everything, and if we do not have that, then "one's desires are the product of prior events that one is completely unaware of and had no hand in creating". But as I have shown, we can clearly see examples from real life where this simply is not the case.

Again, who is arguing with this? Who is saying our choices are limited? Regardless of how many choices are at our disposal, only one choice is possible based on our life experiences and genetics.

You claim that, but have yet to prove it.

Again - Jovian free will. Will is only free if it allows us to be the cause of the entire chain of causation. But that is a gross oversimplification.

What if we can, in a limited way, be a cause in our own chain of causation?

You continue to miss the point because of a lingering confusion about language, it seems.

IO see you have happily appropriated neurology as well now, as yet another whole field of science you understand almost nothing about. Sam Harris does not the field of neurology make.

Ok you are back in the land of make-believe now. If only things were that simple.

Well, I hope at least you enjoy that delusion. I see no evidence of it in the real word. But let me know when you find some, or find a reason to believe why conscience works as the book says.

Yes, I have heard that sort of remark from many believers in many different systems. Too bad it generally involves putting some very selective filters in place to filter out any inconvenient facts.

...into incoherence.

I was not using "determination" in that sense.

You were using self-determination as having flexibility or limited freedom within the context of determinism. An analogy would be determinism is the hardware program (i.e., our determined heritage) and the "limited" choices within that program is the software. You still haven't grasped why having choices, limited or unlimited, and having flexibility to alter the trajectory of our lives, doesn't make will free in any way, shape, or form.

That is because your version of free will is Jovian. It ceases to exist if there is even a single factor in the chain of our own causation that we cannot determine ourselves. I fully agree that such a free will does not exist: for starters, it could not exist for more than 1 being at a time in any given reality.

[thedoc]

Lessans 'Golden Age' and Peacegirls understanding of it are black and white. Remove blame and no-one will be able to hurt another. His other claims are just as black and white, unfortunately the world is not black and white everything is on a gradual scale of grey. People are all individuals and not all will react the same way by removing blame, as Lessans and Peacegirl seem to believe. There is no single answer that will work for everyone, there may be answers and solutions that will work for most, but there will always be a few that will not react as expected, and those few will disrupt Lessans 'New World Order'.

[Angakuk]

I wonder. Just how many shades of gray are there?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I wonder. Just how many shades of gray are there?

All of them.

[peacegirl]

Not at all. We can still choose and have the feeling of control as a result, but this does not mean we actually have free will. You are confusing free agency (or the ability to choose "freely"without constraint) with freedom of the will.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are missing the point.

What point am I missing?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That has nothing to do with what I am trying to tell you.

Now you're just being snarky.

Determinism does not remove the influences that we use in making decisions, but that influence is not authored by us; these are thoughts that come to mind which are not in our direct control. Our decision to follow our upbringings or revolt against them is also determined by antecedent events and circumstances that lead us to making a choice, all within a causal chain. You cannot make a case for free will anywhere if you look closely enough. When you say "we could inculcate ourselves with a generalized desire to overcome obstacles", who is giving you the desire to do this inculcating? Even though you are making the decision, this is not self-authored. You are not the ultimate author of your desires without input from your environment and genetics. Your desires are formed out of your experiences, which in turn, compel you to choose certain behaviors. None of your choices are free.

So what is the point?

Flexibility only means that there is more than one way of doing something, but the choice, once made, is determined by causal factors that push aside one choice in favor of another. Your decision to overcome a phobia pushes aside the notion of choosing to give into it, which is a compulsion beyond your control.

All of our desires are traced back to a feeling of dissatisfaction with the present position. For example, I am in the mood for ice cream. This desire isn't coming out of nowhere. It is coming from the workings of my biology that is prompting this thought, desire, and possible action. That does not mean I have no choice to resist this desire, but it has entered my thoughts and I will either reject it because the desire is not that strong, or else I will get in the car to fulfill that desire. In either case I will be fulfilling a law of my nature from which I cannot extricate myself, not even for a nanosecond. Let me repeat this important point; the choice that is ultimately made is the choice that could have only been made based on all of the determinants that were in place at that moment.

I never heard of Jovian free will. I looked it up and can't find anything on it. Maybe you can point me in the right direction. Harris is right, our choices are fully caused. We are determined beings (in keeping with all of nature), although the agent is a part of the process when it comes to human beings. We are different than animals in this respect because we are able to contemplate before making a choice, but this in itself does not exempt us from being part of nature itself. Remember, the fact that we have options does not take away from the fact that we can only move in one direction, just like animals do. We don't think they have free will to choose other than what they choose, do we? The fact that we can contemplate has muddied the waters but the same principle applies. The irony is that this position is the most scientific. You're actually fighting against your own worldview that science is the most reliable way to find truth.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You can't prove determinism empirically which is what you are asking of me. But you can prove it through observation and empirical testing of the brain. We are not responsible for how our organs work to keep us alive. By the same token, we are not responsible for being born, nor are we responsible for our genetics or the environment we come from. All of this leads to our making certain choices that appear free because we can say we didn't have to choose that if we didn't want to. But based on our genetics and environment they are finally coming to understand that it is not the case that we could have chosen otherwise. This opens up the door for this discovery to be recognized for it's authenticity, possibly in our lifetime.

Free will implies that we as humans have a capability different from all other species, which does not fly. None of our choices are self-caused. From moment to moment we are being pushed in a particular direction, which we have absolutely no control over. The determinant can be as simple as being uncomfortable and desiring to change positions. We are not creating the desire to change positions; something is prompting us due to a feeling of discomfort or dissatisfaction.

But we can't. We can't even control what thoughts come to mind, so how can we be a cause of our own chain of causation? We are always making choices in reaction to some feeling or thought which we use to determine what our choice will be, but we can't say we are doing this of our own free will.

I am not confused. You are shifting the blame for your lack of understanding onto me.

But he's on the right track, as well as many others. Thank goodness neuro-scientists are beginning to open this field up to new possibilities, as the solution to all war and crime lies behind the door of determinism.

I don't consider 30 years of study and thought a simple solution. It is the most perplexing debate, which is why the solution has taken so long to discover.

It works exactly as Lessans described. But your skepticism is getting in the way, so you'll just have to wait and see...

I have listened to the free will and the compatibilist argument. I am not closing myself off to hearing other points of view.

...into incoherence.

I was not using "determination" in that sense.

You were using self-determination as having flexibility or limited freedom within the context of determinism. An analogy would be determinism is the hardware program (i.e., our determined heritage) and the "limited" choices within that program is the software. You still haven't grasped why having choices, limited or unlimited, and having flexibility to alter the trajectory of our lives, doesn't make will free in any way, shape, or form.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is because your version of free will is Jovian. It ceases to exist if there is even a single factor in the chain of our own causation that we cannot determine ourselves. I fully agree that such a free will does not exist: for starters, it could not exist for more than 1 being at a time in any given reality.

The truth is we cannot separate ourselves from the chain of events that we call our lives. It would be like a billiard ball suddenly causing itself to change direction when the trajectory toward the left pocket has already been set in motion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans 'Golden Age' and Peacegirls understanding of it are black and white. Remove blame and no-one will be able to hurt another. His other claims are just as black and white, unfortunately the world is not black and white everything is on a gradual scale of grey. People are all individuals and not all will react the same way by removing blame, as Lessans and Peacegirl seem to believe. There is no single answer that will work for everyone, there may be answers and solutions that will work for most, but there will always be a few that will not react as expected, and those few will disrupt Lessans 'New World Order'.

If someone is a crazed killer, he may need to be confined to an institution just like people are today, but when children grow up in the new world; a world without blame, condemnation, judgment, or punishment, this new world could never produce the kind of mental illness and social maladjustment that we see today. So you are wrong thedoc. You repeat the same thing over and over about the world not being black and white. But this universal law is black and white, and thank god we are all part of it, or we would never be able to achieve what is now possible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this universal law is black and white, and thank god we are all part of it, or we would never be able to achieve what is now possible.

And what has been achieved in the last 10+ years? If this law were truly universal and undeniable, it would be in effect right now, but it is not, because it is not universal. This claimed law needs to be accepted to work, therefore it is contrived by man and just as ineffective as all the other man made laws that are in existence. Your claim fails.

Gravity is a universal law of nature that cannot be denied or escaped, and it is now in effect. Your claimed law is not in effect, nothing has been achieved.

Conscience does not preform as claimed by you, people will continue to act as they choose.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone is a crazed killer, he may need to be confined to an institution just like people are today,

Is this what will happen to all those who do not choose to be part of your 'New World Order'?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but when children grow up in the new world; a world without blame, condemnation, judgment, or punishment, this new world could never produce the kind of mental illness and social maladjustment that we see today. So you are wrong thedoc.

There is no evidence for this, only your empty claim that it will be so, and your claims have been demonstrated to be unreliable and false.

[LadyShea]

Even though you are making the decision, this is not self-authored. You are not the ultimate author of your desires without input from your environment and genetics. Your desires are formed out of your experiences, which in turn, compel you to choose certain behaviors. None of your choices are free.

You act as if "we" are separate entities from our consciousness and our brains. Is that what you think?

Our environment and genetics are not the ultimate authors of our desires without input from our consciousness. Our will is an integral part of the causal chain. We can consciously influence and affect our desires.

[Vivisectus]

What point am I missing?

The point that we can self-cause some things in that chain. You can then say "Ah, but the decision to self-cause was caused!" And yet those decisions can in certain circumstances be self-caused too - in a limited way.

In that way, we have a limited control over what we will. It is not the kind of free will were we are seperate from causation, but as was already pointed out, that is hardly the issue here: only some sort fo supernatural being could ever have that kind of "free will".

But a limited amount of power over our will seems possible, or at least it is not disproven in your philosphy.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Am am not so sure about that: willing ignorance seems to be something you indulge in regularly.

Now you're just being snarky.[/QUOTE]

Am I really? We will see. If I am right you will soon revert to repetition, selective focus on details to divert attention, and generalizations. I will have to repeat my point over and over, not to explain certain aspects, but merely because you will refuse to even consider them because they do not sit well with your world-view.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look at the example: we can call the act of training yourself to grow used to heights as an act of self-determination. You can then call that act determined in turn

No, that is not what that means at all. I get the feeling you are sticking your head in the sand.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

, and start an infinite regression right up to the point where we first become conscious - but the same limited ability to self-determine could apply to every step along the way. We could inculcate ourselves with a generalized desire to overcome obstacles, for instance. You can then call THAT determined, perhaps by your upbringing. But people can decide to follow upbringings or revolt against them... etc. etc. etc.
That would give us a *limited* amount of influence over the things we "will" - at least within the framework of what we can actually experience.

Not at all.
Determinism does not remove the influences that we use in making decisions, but that influence is not authored by us; these are thoughts that come to mind which are not in our direct control. Our decision to follow our upbringings or revolt against them is also determined by antecedent events and circumstances that lead us to making a choice, all within a causal chain. You cannot make a case for free will anywhere if you look closely enough. When you say "we could inculcate ourselves with a generalized desire to overcome obstacles", who is giving you the desire to do this inculcating? Even though you are making the decision, this is not self-authored. You are not the ultimate author of your desires without input from your environment and genetics. Your desires are formed out of your experiences, which in turn, compel you to choose certain behaviors. None of your choices are free.

But I just gave you an example of someone authoring a decision. You are merely taking anothetr step in the regression without showing why we would not have similar limited control over that.

So what is the point?

See above.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is clearly possible. Your response is "Ah, but that decision is determined too!"

Flexibility only means that there is more than one way of doing something, but the choice, once made, is determined by causal factors that push aside one choice in favor of another. Your decision to overcome a phobia pushes aside the notion of choosing to give into it, which is a compulsion beyond your control.

Now you are drifting off into the mystical. A choice is caused only after it is made but not before?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am well aware of what Harris says, and I have pointed out the essential flaw in his thinking by making it bold. Harris oversimplifies, pretends all free will must be Jovian free will. Free Will, to him, means the ability to completely determine everything, and if we do not have that, then "one's desires are the product of prior events that one is completely unaware of and had no hand in creating". But as I have shown, we can clearly see examples from real life where this simply is not the case.

All of our desires are traced back to a feeling of dissatisfaction with the present position. For example, I am in the mood for ice cream. This desire isn't coming out of nowhere. It is coming from the workings of my biology that is prompting this thought, desire, and possible action. That does not mean I have no choice to resist this desire, but it has entered my thoughts and I will either reject it because the desire is not that strong, or else I will get in the car to fulfill that desire. In either case I will be fulfilling a law of my nature from which I cannot extricate myself, not even for a nanosecond. Let me repeat this important point; the choice that is ultimately made is the choice that could have only been made based on all of the determinants that were in place at that moment. [/QUOTE]

You miss the point again. Because at any moment I can choose not just to influence the outcome of a "this or that" kind of decision, but have much, MUCH more flexibility inclusing adjusting my desires for future stimuli this kind of simplistic point of view is not really relevant. It is arguing against a strawman.

I never heard of Jovian free will. I looked it up and can't find anything on it. Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

That is because it is a term I made up to describe the kind of all-powerful definition of free will that Harris argues against. It is essentially a strawman: such free will could only exist for 1 creature in any given universe.

Harris is right, our choices are fully caused.

Sure he is right. Just like I am right when I say "we don't breathe oxygen!"
The problem is that that is a rather silly thing to say. No-one ever claimed we just breate oxygen.

We are determined beings (in keeping with all of nature), although the agent is a part of the process when it comes to human beings. We are different than animals in this respect because we are able to contemplate before making a choice, but this in itself does not exempt us from being part of nature itself. Remember, the fact that we have options does not take away from the fact that we can only move in one direction, just like animals do. We don't think they have free will to choose other than what they choose, do we? The fact that we can contemplate has muddled the waters but the same principle applies. The irony is that this position is the most scientific. You're actually fighting against your own worldview that science is the most reliable way to find truth.

I don not really see much difference between us and animals in this respect, except that language makes it easy to detect the kind of behaviors we are talking about. But the limited ability to influence our will makes us, ourselves, part authors of our causative chain.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You can't prove determinism empirically which is what you are asking of me.

You use the word empircal as if you do not know what it means. i am not asking for empirical evidence. Logical evidence would do as well.

But you can prove it through observation and empirical testing of the brain.

Highly debatable. We are nowhere near close enought o being able to interpret what we measure when we look at brain tests. Harris is jumping the gun in a massive way with his claims on this front.

We are not responsible for how our organs work to keep us alive. By the same token, we are not responsible for being born, nor are we responsible for our genetics or the environment we come from. All of this leads to our making certain choices that appear free because we can say we didn't have to choose that if we didn't want to. But based on our genetics and environment they are finally coming to understand that it is not the case that we could have chosen otherwise. This opens up the door for this discovery to be recognized for it's authenticity, maybe even in our lifetime.

All beside the point I am afraid - see above.

[quote][quote="Vivisectus"]What they think about is the ability to make limited choices, which themselves may be determined, but which nevertheless allow a certain amount of flexibility in how we express our determined heritage.

Free will implies that we as humans have a capability different from all other species, which does not fly.

Strawman - free will implies no such thing.

None of our choices are self-caused.

Simply not true as we have seen above. You are doing what I predicted: simple repetition to avoid things you do not like.

From moment to moment we are being pushed in a particular direction, which we have absolutely no control over. The determinant can be as simple as being uncomfortable and desiring to change positions. We are not creating the desire to change positions; something is prompting us due to a feeling of discomfort.

And more repetition of the Rote learnings. It seems to comfort you in the present of difficult ideas you do not like.

But we can't. We can't even control what thoughts come to mind, so how can we be a cause of our own chain of causation? We are always making choices in reaction to some feeling or thought which we use to determine what our choice will be, but we can't say we are doing this of our own free will.

I have demonstrated how we could (and do) achieve just that, albeit in a limited way.

I am not confused. You are shifting the blame for your lack of understanding onto me.

I have never used the word "determination" in the same way as one could use "grit" in this entire conversation, and yet you keep mixing the two meanings.

But he's on the right track, as well as many others. Thank goodness neuro-scientists are beginning to open this field up to new possibilities, as the solution to all war and crime lies behind the door of determinism.

Neurology is going to be a very interesting field indeed, but for far more complex reasons that you seem to realize at the moment. Hopefully it will shed some light on the problem of consciousness.

As for the end of war and crime, I do not believe it will be found there. In order for that to happen you need to find a reason why we should believe conscience is homogenous, and that it works as the book described. So far that is conspicuous in it's absence.

I don't consider 30 years of study and thought a simple solution. It is the most perplexing debate, which is why the solution has taken so long to discover.

It is indeed amazing that after so much study, the only result is such a muddle.

It works exactly as Lessans described. But your skepticism is getting in the way, so you'll just have to wait and see...

Indeed. Just like I will be sorry when Jesus returns. I rather go with what I see a reason to believe for, in stead of trying to hedge my bets against every possibility, no matter how little reason there is to believe it.

I have listened to the free will and the compatibilist argument. I am not closing myself off to hearing other points of view.

You are already trying to drown out my arguments by repeating your dogma. This will continue, mixed with emotional pleas, pleas to beneficial consequences, willing ignorance... anything you can to retain your belief. You have always been very reliable like that.

The truth is we cannot separate ourselves from the chain of events that we call our lives. It would be like a billiard ball suddenly causing itself to change direction when the trajectory toward the left pocket has already been set in motion.

...and more repetition, without actually incorporating what I said.

Our billiard ball is not a solid ball. It has internal moving parts, that move according to a programming that we assume is deterministic in nature, since it's program runs on physical, programmable parts, but that we cannot determine.

It shifts weights internally, thus altering it's course and balance, according to a feedback loop in which it observes it's surroundings and compares outcomes of different movements. It can alter it's preferences. It has some goals we can infer from observing it: it seems to like food, and it seems to like shelter, and the company of other balls. But there are also myriads of unexplainable behaviors that it seems to initiate itself for reasons we do not understand and that we cannot tie down to chains of causation that we understand. We assume these are also deterministic in nature - but we cannot determine them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And what has been achieved in the last 10+ years? If this law were truly universal and undeniable, it would be in effect right now, but it is not,

Of course it is. You did not read this book, you couldn't have, or you were half asleep. Our will has never been free. We had to believe in free will in order to develop. Now that we are developed to the point of understanding that free will was a necessary illusion but now that we know the truth, we can veer in a different direction for the benefit of all mankind. That was explained in Chapter One,

Originally Posted by thedoc

because it is not universal. This claimed law needs to be accepted to work, therefore it is contrived by man and just as ineffective as all the other man made laws that are in existence. Your claim fails.

Absolutely false. A lot of proven facts have to be accepted and understood before we can apply them.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Gravity is a universal law of nature that cannot be denied or escaped, and it is now in effect. Your claimed law is not in effect, nothing has been achieved.

Gravity is a universal law, and so is determinism. The more we know about gravity, the more we can utilize it in novel ways.

So what do we know about gravity? We know that it causes any two objects in the universe to be drawn to one another. We know that gravity assisted in forming the universe, that it keeps the moon in orbit around the Earth, and that it can be harnessed for more mundane applications like gravity-powered motors or gravity-powered lamps.

HowStuffWorks "How does gravity work?"

Originally Posted by thedoc

Conscience does not preform as claimed by you, people will continue to act as they choose.

Says thedoc who understands nothing when it comes to this discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is no evidence for this, only your empty claim that it will be so, and your claims have been demonstrated to be unreliable and false.

They have not been demonstrated to be unreliable and false. That's just not true. All of the refutations given have no basis in fact whatsoever. The claim is extraordinary, therefore, people automatically put up their guard. Unfortunately this protective guard has never been removed. As a result, people have a huge block. They also have this idea that it can't be true. If it was, I wouldn't be the only one that knows about it. Do you see the false logic here? There is a palpable resistance that is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. It will be shown, however (whether now or in the distant future; I have no way of knowing the time frame), that this claim is not based on a fundamental flaw. The foundational principles are completely accurate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another lie here then?

So, just to confirm - the above was in fact a blatant lie, right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You act as if "we" are separate entities from our consciousness and our brains. Is that what you think?

Our environment and genetics are not the ultimate authors of our desires without input from our consciousness. Our will is an integral part of the causal chain. We can consciously influence and affect our desires.

Of course we can consciously influence and affect our desires by the use of reason and contemplation. We reason something, and this influences what we choose to do. Sometimes our behavior is due to unconscious factors, and other times we make choices based on a conscious decision, which is what you are referring to when you say we consciously influence and affect our desires. But this influence is all part of the causal chain that leads us in the direction of greater satisfaction, the only direction we can move. We cannot get away from it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So, just to confirm - the above was in fact a blatant lie, right?

You are not going to interrogate me Spacemonkey. I refuse to engage with you if this is all you have to say. Your posts have no value.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Is this what will happen to all those who do not choose to be part of your 'New World Order'?

People who are mentally ill need to be controlled, just like a mad dog needs to be controlled, but it will be done with compassion, not with retribution. This problem stems from this world order, not the new world. These will be the leftover remnants of a free will environment that will slowly disappear in time. Mental illness that produces sociopaths and psychopaths will eventually be wiped from the face of the earth. The fact that it may take a little time in no way negates the value of this knowledge along with its application.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not going to interrogate me Spacemonkey. I refuse to engage with you if this is all you have to say. Your posts have no value.

I could say more. If I reply in detail to your previous posts will you respond?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course we can consciously influence and affect our desires by the use of reason and contemplation. We reason something, and this influences what we choose to do. Sometimes our behavior is due to unconscious factors, and other times we make choices based on a conscious decision, which is what you are referring to when you say we consciously influence and affect our desires. But this influence is all part of the causal chain that leads us in the direction of greater satisfaction, the only direction we can move. We cannot get away from it.

Why do you keep arguing for hard determinism and duality by saying things like "we can't even control our own thoughts"...as if there is a part of our consciousness that is some kind of detached observer or passenger that things just happen to?

[LadyShea]

That can very much be considered free will in action. Those feelings and thoughts are us, our wills are us, "we" are our mental processes...why are you separating the "we" into a separate entity that is some kind of slave or puppet to causation rather than an actively causal participant?

[thedoc]

As stated up thread, much of what Lessans claims are based on absolutes, in that the world operates in black and white but this is not the case. In Lessans world we either have free will in all cases or we do not. It is much more likely that our will is partly determined and partly random and not all or nothing of either. His claim of greater satisfaction, while being somewhat empty, is also claimed to be absolute but this is not the case in the real world. For myself there are often times when an activity of lessor importance or satisfaction, will take precedence over one that would be much more satisfying. People often engage in activities that are habit, and not satisfying at all. I would find it much more satisfying to drive at a higher speed that allowed but stay reasonably close to the speed limit, not because it is satisfying to do so, I just don't like paying fines. Lessans even admits that satisfaction is not absolute but conditional, not black and white, so because greater satisfaction is grey and not absolute, it doesn't prove what he thought it did. These same ideas that the world operates in the grey can be applied to conscience in that not everyone will respond to a no blame environment the same way. Lessans world requires everyone to react the same way to a given situation and that is not the case in the real world. Individuals do not always react the same way in the same situation at different times.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I could say more. If I reply in detail to your previous posts will you respond?

Spacemonkey, you are compatibilist and you are defending this worldview with your life. Unless you listen to Sam Harris and others who show the flaws in this line of reasoining, I have nothing more to say to you. I'm sorry.