Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Open Forum
 The Agora
 New Discovery
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  5:21:56 PM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Now that I've given you something to chew on, I'll say more about that last quote.

quote:
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.


What does he mean by "preferred"? We irresitably choose the "preferred" alternative. Does that mean simply that we choose the one we choose? Is it the act of choosing it that makes it preferred?

Could we devise an experiment to see if people consistently choose preferred alternatives? Not if can't find another way to distinguish preferred from unpreferred. We could take a vote and see what most people choose. No, that won't do. The test subject might not agree with the majority. We need to find his preferred choice before he's even given the choice. Hmm. Without the experiment, where's the science?

More to follow.

David
Go to Top of Page

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  5:36:15 PM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
We see this argument often--that people choose what they choose in respose to the drives and desires that constitute their own natures or personalities. They are not free to do other than what it is their nature to do.

This fails, because the only evidence of someone's nature is his behavior.

People do what makes them happy, my Randian friend back in the Navy used to tell me. "Happy?" I wanted to get a very accurate idea what he meant by "happy." "Don't people often do things that make them unhappy?" "Not really. It may seem that way, but everyone really does what he wants to do." In other words, the only way I can know for sure what makes them happy--in fact the only our hypothetical people can know for sure what makes them happy--is to wait and see what they do.

So "what makes them happy" is just code for "what they do."

David
Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  5:44:59 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I did read it. Did you not notice that I quoted from it? As far as I can see, your assumption that I didn't read it is based on nothing but my disagreement with the usefulness of defining determinism as nothing but the absence of free will.

Janis: That's not why. It's because you haven't explained in your own words what this author's definition of determinism is.

Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  6:01:31 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Janis Rafael

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janis: There are many reasons for what motivates us to do what we do, but what makes our will free not free is what is under scrutiny. This is a psychological law of man's nature, and it is just as undeniable and scientific as the laws of physics, although it does not deal with the 'exact sciences' in the sense of numbers.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I challenge you once again. You, not I, claim to hold a philosophical position that is "undeniable." Present a proof of your own. Prove with your own argument that my will is not free.

Janis: Read chapter one. It is clearly demonstrated as to why man's will is not free. The proof is there, I took the time to paste it, now it's up to you to read it carefully.

Notice, I still haven't told you whether or not I believe in free will.

Janis: That's okay. I hope by the time you read this work, you will know that man's will is not free. But we are not robots or automatons, so don't worry that you are going to have less freedom; the very opposite is true. This knowledge can only help mankind, not hurt him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I see an argument against Durant. Lessans tells me that Durant argued that our experience of choosing is the most direct experience possible. If belief is proportional to evidence, the most direct evidence must be the most convincing. In other words, that the mental act of choosing takes place is backed up by the most compelling evidence possible.

Janis: He argued that Durant tried to prove free will true (which he couldn't by the way) because he couldn't accept the implications of determinism. He reasoned that if will is not free, we cannot blame anyone for what they do. He then concluded that free will must be true because our nature demands that we fight back an eye for an eye. Therefore, he believed that direct perception was better than reasoning in finding the truth. But he was using syllogistic reasoning that did not prove free will true at all. It just gave it the appearance of truth.

Lessans's reply is

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Durant started off with a false premise, his conclusion was equally false. He begins with the assumption that direct perception (which are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand) is superior to reasoning in understanding the truth which made a syllogistic equation necessary to prove the validity of an inaccurate perception. Thusly, he reasons in his minor premise: “Free will is not a matter of reasoning, like determinism, but is the result of direct perception, therefore”…and here is his fallacious conclusion, “since philosophies of free will employ direct perception which cannot be beaten down by the reasoning of determinism, the belief in free will must eternally recur.” He knew that free will was a theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to write – “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from the inability to accept the implications.
Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notice the phrase, "which are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand." Why can't Durand possibly understand?

Janis: Because he was wrong. His reasoning was inaccurate.

Durand's argument from direct experience stands unrefuted. I have no more direct evidence for anything than the direct evidence of my own free will. Less direct evidence, like the evidence of my senses, must be given less credence.

Janis: He meant by direct perception was more accurate in determining the truth than reasoning. He didn't prove anything. He just couldn't accept the implications and therefore reverted back to philosophies of freedom.

Later Lessans writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I and many others act "in the direction of dissatisfaction" often. Not only is it not obviously impossible to do so, it's obviously (judging from my own experience) common. Am I supposed to take Lessans's word that it's impossible, rather than believe the evidence of my own experience?

Janis: I clarified this over and over. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean you are always satisfied. There are many choices we make that are considered the lesser of two evils because the range of alternatives are limited. That does not mean we are moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. It cannot be done. You can give me as many examples as you want and I will show you that what you thought was a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction was actually the best possible choice (according to the individual making the choice not what someone else thought was the better choice) at that particular moment in time.
Go to Top of Page

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  6:16:24 PM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
I hope I've conviced you by now that I can read Lessans, but still find him less than convincing. Frankly though, I'll be disappointed if you don't counter-argue from Lessans yourself.

I'd be even happier if you'd present your own ideas. Or at least that you won't be afraid to put the great man's thoughts into your own words.

With that hope in mind, I'm going to write some more about free will, in general.

There is a way to argue that we don't know our own minds. We can argue that much of our thought is sub-conscious. We, the conscious mind, may not fully know and understand the other we that lies beneath and behind us. I'm pretty sure that some experiments have been designed to investigate the nature of the subconscious, though the sub-conscious is not something I've studied in anything but the survey courses that lead up to the ed. psych. courses I took at UNC.

Can we investigate whether or not the sub-conscious mind if free or an automoton? Maybe.

Certainly, I don't see any reason, based on experience, to think that the behavior of the sub-conscious is very predictable. Ultimately, the only evidence I have of the minds of others comes from their behavior that I observe.

My conclusion, after living among humans for more than 50 years, is that people are weird. I don't find them predictable--other than predictably weird. Their behavior doesn't usually seem random. It's often sterotypical. Nevertheless, it's upredictable enough that I've learned not to predict human behavior with any confidence.

It is conceivable that human brains are entirely predictable, in principle, but so intractably complex that they can never be modeled by any software (or math) less complex.

However, in fact, I believe that the human brain, and the universe in general, is to some degree inexpicable. This is in the nature of a working theory. I see lots of problems with it.

To make a long story short, by my definitions of determinism (all of them, actually), I think I live in an indeterministic universe. I also believe I have free will that meets my carefully circumscribed definition (stated earlier).

More to follow.

David
Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  6:20:49 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Now that I've given you something to chew on, I'll say more about that last quote.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What does he mean by "preferred"? We irresitably choose the "preferred" alternative. Does that mean simply that we choose the one we choose? Is it the act of choosing it that makes it preferred?

Janis: We are compelled to choose the alternative that is the most preferable when comparing alternatives. We can't choose the least preferable when a more satisfying alternative is available. We choose the one we choose because all other choices at that moment give less satisfaction under the circumstances.

Could we devise an experiment to see if people consistently choose preferred alternatives? Not if can't find another way to distinguish preferred from unpreferred. We could take a vote and see what most people choose. No, that won't do. The test subject might not agree with the majority. We need to find his preferred choice before he's even given the choice. Hmm. Without the experiment, where's the science?

Janis: All we have to do is show that when comparing A to B, the choice is always the greater of two goods, a good over an evil, or the lesser of two evils. I gave an example where someone tried to prove the author wrong by eating an apple that he was allergic to just to show that he could move toward dissatisfaction. He didin't take into considertion that he changed the conditions from which he normally picked the red apple, therefore he was still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction in order to prove a point. You must understand that from moment to moment, or from here to there, we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction or we would never move off of the spot called here.

The weighing of alternatives gives the illusion that we have a choice, but you must remember that only one choice give us the greatest satisfaction at each moment in time, rendering all other choices as impossible since they would be less satisfying under the circumstances. This does not mean that the choice considered the least preferable would not be chosen to something still worse. Each moment presents a different set of alternatives which might make a choice that was the least preferable a few minutes earlier, the most preferable at a later moment. I hope you keep giving me examples so that I can show you that each choice we make is the only choice that could have been made at that exact moment in time.

Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  6:36:10 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I hope I've conviced you by now that I can read Lessans, but still find him less than convincing. Frankly though, I'll be disappointed if you don't counter-argue from Lessans yourself.

Janis: I can't counter argue what I know to be true. That does not mean I haven't carefully studied this work in my own right. The only reason I am not refuting it is because I see its validity, and the only reason you don't (yet) is because you aren't convinced. Hopefully you will be after we finish chatting.

I'd be even happier if you'd present your own ideas. Or at least that you won't be afraid to put the great man's thoughts into your own words.

Janis: I am paraphrasing in my own words.

With that hope in mind, I'm going to write some more about free will, in general.

There is a way to argue that we don't know our own minds. We can argue that much of our thought is sub-conscious. We, the conscious mind, may not fully know and understand the other we that lies beneath and behind us. I'm pretty sure that some experiments have been designed to investigate the nature of the subconscious, though the sub-conscious is not something I've studied in anything but the survey courses that lead up to the ed. psych. courses I took at UNC.

Can we investigate whether or not the sub-conscious mind if free or an automoton? Maybe.

Janis: There are many subconscious reasons we do what we do, but still in the direction of greater satisfaction. This in itself does not negate the author's proof.

Certainly, I don't see any reason, based on experience, to think that the behavior of the sub-conscious is very predictable. Ultimately, the only evidence I have of the minds of others comes from their behavior that I observe.

Janis: Once again, predictability doesn't determine the proof or disproof of this author's definition. We don't need absolute predictability to know that every move we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction. All we need is proof that this is, in fact, the case.

My conclusion, after living among humans for more than 50 years, is that people are weird. I don't find them predictable--other than predictably weird. Their behavior doesn't usually seem random. It's often sterotypical. Nevertheless, it's upredictable enough that I've learned not to predict human behavior with any confidence.

Janis: Me neither. I am not a psychic, nor can I predict with any accuracy what someone will do from moment to moment because changes in their personal experiences alter the choices that ultimately give them greater satisfaction.

It is conceivable that human brains are entirely predictable, in principle, but so intractably complex that they can never be modeled by any software (or math) less complex.

Janis: I agree 100%, but this is not what this discovery is saying.

However, in fact, I believe that the human brain, and the universe in general, is to some degree inexpicable. This is in the nature of a working theory. I see lots of problems with it.

Janis: That's because you are assuming things about it that aren't there. Just keep asking questions before you come to the conclusion that this discovery is not genuine.
To make a long story short, by my definitions of determinism (all of them, actually), I think I live in an indeterministic universe. I also believe I have free will that meets my carefully circumscribed definition (stated earlier).

Janis: David, there really is no conflict. You have the control not to do what you don't want to do. You can't be forced to do anything against your will. That is the other half of the equation. So please be patient, ok?
Go to Top of Page

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  6:38:05 PM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Yes, master. I will do as teacher says. Please don't tell on me to my mom.
quote:
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.

Gee, teach. I think maybe he thought that determinism was the opposite of free will. You think?

Should I expect some attempt at compatibilism--no you already disavowed that.

No, I think you want to force me to use the word determinism the way your holy master says it must be used. You won't agree to disagree. If it turns out that you can't agree to disagree--if you insist that your Lord's words are so utterly convincing that no sane, intelligent person will ever dare to disagree, then it's hard to see how we can learn from each other.

David

quote:
Originally posted by Janis Rafael

I did read it. Did you not notice that I quoted from it? As far as I can see, your assumption that I didn't read it is based on nothing but my disagreement with the usefulness of defining determinism as nothing but the absence of free will.

Janis: That's not why. It's because you haven't explained in your own words what this author's definition of determinism is.



Go to Top of Page

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  7:05:14 PM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
I see an argument against Durant. Lessans tells me that Durant argued that our experience of choosing is the most direct experience possible. If belief is proportional to evidence, the most direct evidence must be the most convincing. In other words, that the mental act of choosing takes place is backed up by the most compelling evidence possible.

Janis: He argued that Durant tried to prove free will true (which he couldn't by the way) because he couldn't accept the implications of determinism. He reasoned that if will is not free, we cannot blame anyone for what they do. He then concluded that free will must be true because our nature demands that we fight back an eye for an eye. Therefore, he believed that direct perception was better than reasoning in finding the truth. But he was using syllogistic reasoning that did not prove free will true at all. It just gave it the appearance of truth.

Unless reasoning is applied to empirical evidence it can not prove anything other than math and logic theorems. The most direct empirical evidence we have is our own mental experience. It is our only direct experience. Sense perception must be considered less compelling. Lessans's argument didn't refute Durant, and neither have you.
quote:
Lessans's reply is

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Durant started off with a false premise, his conclusion was equally false. He begins with the assumption that direct perception (which are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand) is superior to reasoning in understanding the truth which made a syllogistic equation necessary to prove the validity of an inaccurate perception. Thusly, he reasons in his minor premise: “Free will is not a matter of reasoning, like determinism, but is the result of direct perception, therefore”…and here is his fallacious conclusion, “since philosophies of free will employ direct perception which cannot be beaten down by the reasoning of determinism, the belief in free will must eternally recur.” He knew that free will was a theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to write – “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from the inability to accept the implications.
Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notice the phrase, "which are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand." Why can't Durand possibly understand?

Janis: Because he was wrong. His reasoning was inaccurate.

Durant could understand "direct experience," so can I, and so can you. Durant stands unrefuted by both you and your Holy Master. Come on, Janis. I know your a philosopher at heart. Let's here from YOU!
quote:

Durand's argument from direct experience stands unrefuted. I have no more direct evidence for anything than the direct evidence of my own free will. Less direct evidence, like the evidence of my senses, must be given less credence.

Janis: He meant by direct perception was more accurate in determining the truth than reasoning. He didn't prove anything. He just couldn't accept the implications and therefore reverted back to philosophies of freedom.

Later Lessans writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I and many others act "in the direction of dissatisfaction" often. Not only is it not obviously impossible to do so, it's obviously (judging from my own experience) common. Am I supposed to take Lessans's word that it's impossible, rather than believe the evidence of my own experience?

Janis: I clarified this over and over. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean you are always satisfied. There are many choices we make that are considered the lesser of two evils because the range of alternatives are limited. That does not mean we are moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. It cannot be done. You can give me as many examples as you want and I will show you that what you thought was a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction was actually the best possible choice (according to the individual making the choice not what someone else thought was the better choice) at that particular moment in time.


"It cannot be done." says Janis. Therefore, if I think I've done it, or seen it done, I must be mistaken. She and the Master couldn't be.

Come on Janis; we can meet on common ground. We can discuss this without dogmatism. You can write, "it seems to me" and "I would think." I know, I've written both of those today (one of them twice). I didn't get sarcastic until you became patronizing and insulting.

I hereby apologize for my sarcasm. Do I hear an apology from someone else?

David
Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  7:10:59 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes, master. I will do as teacher says. Please don't tell on me to my mom.

Janis: I have no idea why you are upset.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gee, teach. I think maybe he thought that determinism was the opposite of free will. You think?

Should I expect some attempt at compatibilism--no you already disavowed that.

Janis: Don't you see that his definition gives you the freedom that compatibalism is trying to reconcile? But his definition is accurate because we don't have free will, yet you are also right that we have control to choose what we want to choose and not choose what we don't want to. To repeat: We are not the recipients of antecedent events where we have no say whatsoever. If you could only understand this, you wouldn't be so threatened by the truth of determinism.

No, I think you want to force me to use the word determinism the way your holy master says it must be used. You won't agree to disagree. If it turns out that you can't agree to disagree--if you insist that your Lord's words are so utterly convincing that no sane, intelligent person will ever dare to disagree, then it's hard to see how we can learn from each other.

Janis: I know how difficult it is for you to see a person who is so convinced of her position. Afterall, philosophy is a field of debate. It is not too often that a real genuine discovery is posted. In fact, this may be the first using the internet as a vehicle for bringing new knowledge to light. The author didn't have the internet and this was unfortunate. But even so, people are skeptical which is okay, but it's not okay to have a block against the proof because you don't like the idea that will is not free. At this moment you are getting greater satisfaction resorting to underhanded comments by calling this author 'my Lord' which is very hurtful. I hope knowing that this hurts me will give you the desire to talk to me in a kinder way, as that alternative which gives you greater satisfaction.
Go to Top of Page

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  7:16:32 PM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
We still can't do science unless we can eavesdrop on the thoughts of our experimental subject. Without an experiment, it's not science. Remember, science is reason applied to empirical evidence.

We have to know what the subject thinks is most "the most preferable when comparing alternatives" at the moment the choice is made. Otherwise we can't prove the hypothesis: "We are compelled to choose the alternative that is the most preferable when comparing alternatives."

Substituting "the greater of two goods" won't help either. It's still what the subject sees as the greater that matters. We still need access to his mind to do the experiment.

David

quote:
Originally posted by Janis Rafael
What does he mean by "preferred"? We irresitably choose the "preferred" alternative. Does that mean simply that we choose the one we choose? Is it the act of choosing it that makes it preferred?

Janis: We are compelled to choose the alternative that is the most preferable when comparing alternatives. We can't choose the least preferable when a more satisfying alternative is available. We choose the one we choose because all other choices at that moment give less satisfaction under the circumstances.

Could we devise an experiment to see if people consistently choose preferred alternatives? Not if can't find another way to distinguish preferred from unpreferred. We could take a vote and see what most people choose. No, that won't do. The test subject might not agree with the majority. We need to find his preferred choice before he's even given the choice. Hmm. Without the experiment, where's the science?

Janis: All we have to do is show that when comparing A to B, the choice is always the greater of two goods, a good over an evil, or the lesser of two evils. I gave an example where someone tried to prove the author wrong by eating an apple that he was allergic to just to show that he could move toward dissatisfaction. He didin't take into considertion that he changed the conditions from which he normally picked the red apple, therefore he was still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction in order to prove a point. You must understand that from moment to moment, or from here to there, we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction or we would never move off of the spot called here.

The weighing of alternatives gives the illusion that we have a choice, but you must remember that only one choice give us the greatest satisfaction at each moment in time, rendering all other choices as impossible since they would be less satisfying under the circumstances. This does not mean that the choice considered the least preferable would not be chosen to something still worse. Each moment presents a different set of alternatives which might make a choice that was the least preferable a few minutes earlier, the most preferable at a later moment. I hope you keep giving me examples so that I can show you that each choice we make is the only choice that could have been made at that exact moment in time.



Go to Top of Page

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  7:24:04 PM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
At this moment you are getting greater satisfaction resorting to underhanded comments by calling this author 'my Lord' which is very hurtful. I hope knowing that this hurts me will give you the desire to talk to me in a kinder way, as that alternative which gives you greater satisfaction.

You insulted me first, and then compounded it by refusing to apologize! You're unbelievable!
quote:
In fact, this may be the first using the internet as a vehicle for bringing new knowledge to light.

Do you have any idea how that sounds?
quote:
It is not too often that a real genuine discovery is posted.

Really? Is that so?

David
quote:
Originally posted by Janis Rafael

Yes, master. I will do as teacher says. Please don't tell on me to my mom.

Janis: I have no idea why you are upset.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gee, teach. I think maybe he thought that determinism was the opposite of free will. You think?

Should I expect some attempt at compatibilism--no you already disavowed that.

Janis: Don't you see that his definition gives you the freedom that compatibalism is trying to reconcile? But his definition is accurate because we don't have free will, yet you are also right that we have control to choose what we want to choose and not choose what we don't want to. To repeat: We are not the recipients of antecedent events where we have no say whatsoever. If you could only understand this, you wouldn't be so threatened by the truth of determinism.

No, I think you want to force me to use the word determinism the way your holy master says it must be used. You won't agree to disagree. If it turns out that you can't agree to disagree--if you insist that your Lord's words are so utterly convincing that no sane, intelligent person will ever dare to disagree, then it's hard to see how we can learn from each other.

Janis: I know how difficult it is for you to see a person who is so convinced of her position. Afterall, philosophy is a field of debate. It is not too often that a real genuine discovery is posted. In fact, this may be the first using the internet as a vehicle for bringing new knowledge to light. The author didn't have the internet and this was unfortunate. But even so, people are skeptical which is okay, but it's not okay to have a block against the proof because you don't like the idea that will is not free. At this moment you are getting greater satisfaction resorting to underhanded comments by calling this author 'my Lord' which is very hurtful. I hope knowing that this hurts me will give you the desire to talk to me in a kinder way, as that alternative which gives you greater satisfaction.

Go to Top of Page

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  7:25:45 PM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Good night, Janis. Have a nice life.

David
Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  7:39:33 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We still can't do science unless we can eavesdrop on the thoughts of our experimental subject. Without an experiment, it's not science. Remember, science is reason applied to empirical evidence.

Janis: What makes a law immutable is the fact that there is not one example that can disprove it. One plus one is always two no matter how many examples are given. The same holds true with this definition of determinism.

We have to know what the subject thinks is most "the most preferable when comparing alternatives" at the moment the choice is made. Otherwise we can't prove the hypothesis: "We are compelled to choose the alternative that is the most preferable when comparing alternatives."

Substituting "the greater of two goods" won't help either. It's still what the subject sees as the greater that matters. We still need access to his mind to do the experiment.

Janis: Not true. It is of no consequence how the subject reached his decision; what is of utmost importance is that his choice is in the direction of greater satisfaction over a lesser choice that would not give as much satisfaction. For example, the ice cream he chose over the cookie was the greater of the two goods [in his eyes]. The difference between the two may have been very slight as far as his preference is concerned, nevertheless, the final choice of ice cream gave him greater satisfaction over the cookie at that exact moment in time. Did you read the example of the woman choosing between two dresses?
Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  7:46:25 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this moment you are getting greater satisfaction resorting to underhanded comments by calling this author 'my Lord' which is very hurtful. I hope knowing that this hurts me will give you the desire to talk to me in a kinder way, as that alternative which gives you greater satisfaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You insulted me first, and then compounded it by refusing to apologize! You're unbelievable!

Janis: How did I insult you? I didn't intentionally insult you and therefore I had no reason to apologize. I didn't even say anything that was hurtful, so why should I tell you I'm sorry? :(

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, this may be the first using the internet as a vehicle for bringing new knowledge to light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you have any idea how that sounds?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not too often that a real genuine discovery is posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Really? Is that so?

Janis: David, I'm just guessing. The internet has not been here for very long, and there haven't been any major discoveries lately. That is why I said what I said, but of course you are taking it out of context to make it sound arrogant, which I did not intend.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Janis Rafael

Yes, master. I will do as teacher says. Please don't tell on me to my mom.

Janis: I have no idea why you are upset.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gee, teach. I think maybe he thought that determinism was the opposite of free will. You think?

Should I expect some attempt at compatibilism--no you already disavowed that.

Janis: Don't you see that his definition gives you the freedom that compatibalism is trying to reconcile? But his definition is accurate because we don't have free will, yet you are also right that we have control to choose what we want to choose and not choose what we don't want to. To repeat: We are not the recipients of antecedent events where we have no say whatsoever. If you could only understand this, you wouldn't be so threatened by the truth of determinism.

No, I think you want to force me to use the word determinism the way your holy master says it must be used. You won't agree to disagree. If it turns out that you can't agree to disagree--if you insist that your Lord's words are so utterly convincing that no sane, intelligent person will ever dare to disagree, then it's hard to see how we can learn from each other.

Janis: I know how difficult it is for you to see a person who is so convinced of her position. Afterall, philosophy is a field of debate. It is not too often that a real genuine discovery is posted. In fact, this may be the first using the internet as a vehicle for bringing new knowledge to light. The author didn't have the internet and this was unfortunate. But even so, people are skeptical which is okay, but it's not okay to have a block against the proof because you don't like the idea that will is not free. At this moment you are getting greater satisfaction resorting to underhanded comments by calling this author 'my Lord' which is very hurtful. I hope knowing that this hurts me will give you the desire to talk to me in a kinder way, as that alternative which gives you greater satisfaction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 06 2007 :  07:06:51 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It is very hard to be objective in a place where recycled thought is more valued than thought that is new and informative. It is programmed into the academic system that ideas that differ from the accepted academic debate are rejected and ridiculed. Kind of a good old boys club. In this circle, there are champions of thought that are paraded around as the chosen gatekeepers of essential knowledge and therefore closed to any idea that doesn't conform to the status quo. True open mindedness, the kind that doesn't shut down when threatened, is hard to come by. This practice stagnates education and causes a lack of ingenuity and authenticity. This author knew what he was talking about unlike so many others, and that is all it takes to get ignored by the academic community.
Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Jun 07 2007 :  06:44:10 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I want to say, once again, that I thank Tom for allowing me to post. I know now that the only way for me to proceed with this discovery (yes, it is a discovery despite David's objections), is to create a PDF file where I can provide a link. Believe it or not, this was secondary to my compiling the actual text. Getting the knkowledge out is another ballgame altogether, which I am trying to figure out. The reason I posted this way is because I have known about this knowledge for a long time and I wanted to share it in the hope that people would read without bias. But I see that this is virtually impossible, and it becomes a stumbling block. David did not understand what he believed he did, in order to argue that he was right and the author was wrong. He made sweeping statements and got frustrated because I was not allowing him to debate something that is undebatable, IF UNDERSTOOD. Can you debate that one plus one equals two? If you can, then there is no basis for communication because you are implying that there are no facts in existence. In all honesty, I cannot disagree with knowledge that I know, by understanding the mathematical reasoning behind it, is absolutely correct? Should I have to concede to David because he didn't fully comprehend what he read only because he was so invested in defending his belief in free will that he never allowed himself to understand what was very clearly demonstrated? He never gave this author a chance because he was too threatened.

He then used a way to make me look bad by telling me that this author is my Lord. This was his way of winning the argument when there was no argument to win. This was not a true discussion in any way, shape, or form. I do apologize for cutting and pasting long posts. If I could change it I would but it is locked. Even so, it is worthwhile reading but it must be read with the intention to understand before one decides to condemn. How many people condemned Edison before he had a chance for his demonstration to be taken seriously? Please think about this when you are reading this work. Often, a new idea receives opposition because there is a lot of junk out there and it is easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The only way not to do this is to READ THE WORK in its entirety before making a judgment that is not based on a thorough analysis. Instead of immediately trying to defend one's position (which is difficult if it is threatens one's worldview), take the time to understand a new perspective. If you challenge the fact that the author says this knowledge is undeniable, that's ok. Just don't prematurely cut him off before you truly understand what he has written. That's all I'm asking.
Go to Top of Page

Janis Rafael
Journeyman

72 Posts

Posted - Apr 08 2010 :  12:41:54 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here it is: the entire text in the form of a .pdf file. To access it, just click on the link below. Thank you.
  • Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times -- Temporarily Unavailable
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado © 2004 tkt Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.31 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000