New discovery

[peacegirl]

Any choice that is made is not a free one, even though it appears as if we can choose one thing as equally as another. In reality, only one choice at each moment of time can be made, rendering the alternative choice an impossibility because it gives less satisfaction under the conditions. We must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and even if it is your choice to pick nothing, that is still a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. Hey, I think you get it!

[bumab]

You've still not shown why we "need to move in a direction towards greater satisfaction," unless "greater satisfaction" is simply doing what you want, in which case somebody doing something not in a direction of greater satisfaction (for whatever reason) proves your point, completing a strange, circular logical pathway.

 

Do you think we can change what we want? Redefine what is "greater satisfaction?" If so, you believe in free will.

[Smokinjoe9]

Let me get this straight...What you are saying is the choices we make, make no difference because we make them?

Since we make the choice we make, it is the right choice all the time, but it doesn't matter because we would have made that choice anyway, even if we made a different choice it doesn't matter because that is the choice we made....Hence - No Freewill, hehe, what a paradox, hey I had this same problem with a program I wrote years ago, it just kept looping and looping, I could have left it, but I control broke it instead, but I now know that is what I would have done anyway ;)

[Smokinjoe9]

I understand the theory, but it is an obvious one. Do to the limited number of parameters we have to choose from when making a discission we are lead to believe this can be called a lack of freewill, because no matter the choice made it is one out of the only set of choices available, Which says no matter what you do freewill is not involved, do to the limited choices to pick from..In an abstract sort of way that could be construed as no freewill, and yes it would seem like no matter what we do we are headed down one track and the changes we make are designed into the end result, but that is the obvious part. No matter what happens there will always be an end result....Maybe I am way off track, but I gave it a shot ;)

[peacegirl]

Saying "man only does what he wants to do" is a self-fufilling prophecy, and as such is pretty useless in supporting the absence of free will. Free will means being able to change what you want to do, independent of causality (determinism).

 

I did not say as the explanation for determinism that man only does what he wants to do; sometimes man does what he doesn't want to do but he chooses it because the alternative is considered worse. This absolutely supports the absense of free will. I think you are confusing your definition with the one this author is proposing.

 

Our choices are independent of causality because nothing causes us to do what we do, nevertheless our will is not free because what we do is determined by the choice that offers us the greatest satisfaction at any given moment in time. If our will was free, we would be able to choose one alternative just as easily as another, but this is impossible. Therefore, if B is impossible because it gives us the least satisfaction when in comparison to A; A is not a free choice.

 

Another part of the confusion is that even though our choices are not free, nothing can make us do what we don't want to do. We can lead a horse to water but him can't make him drink, which is a very important part of this equation.

[peacegirl]

I understand the theory, but it is an obvious one. Do to the limited number of parameters we have to choose from when making a discission we are lead to believe this can be called a lack of freewill, because no matter the choice made it is one out of the only set of choices available, Which says no matter what you do freewill is not involved, do to the limited choices to pick from..In an abstract sort of way that could be construed as no freewill, and yes it would seem like no matter what we do we are headed down one track and the changes we make are designed into the end result, but that is the obvious part. No matter what happens there will always be an end result....Maybe I am way off track, but I gave it a shot ;)

 

First of all, I want to qualify that this is not a theory; if you dont understand something that is factual, your lack of understanding does not make it theoretical, it just means you need it clarified. If I don't understand that 1+1=2, that does not make it false; it only means I need more clarification.

 

The number of choices we have to pick from has no bearing on the fact that man's will is not free. Whether we have two choices or one hundred choices at any given moment, does not change the fact that whatever alternatives we are given, we must pick out of those alternatives, the one that we believe is the best choice under the circumstances.

 

We may believe one choice is better than another and then on hindsight we realize that this was a mistake, consequently, we change our choice the next time we are presented with a similar situation. Or we might not even realize that we have more choices available to us and pick from a limited array of alternatives. Regardless of how many choices we have at our disposal in order to determine which choice is the best one, we must still pick (by our very nature) the one that we believe is the best under the circumstances, which renders all other alternatives impossible at that moment in time.

 

Someone who has a lot of money, has many more options than someone who lives in a poor country, but this does not in any way change our nature.

[Smokinjoe9]

As I see it, the end result itself constitutes freewill..Like I stated there will always be an outcome no matter the choice, how it is spun does not change that fact. Simply put; If one chooses to do something, is that not freewill? Even if the reasoning behind the choice is based on the best of choices, to say no freewill, does not make the choice less obvious. Calculating your odds does not = no freewill..

[C1ay]

First of all, I want to qualify that this is not a theory;

So you can present predictable, testable, irrefutable proof of that?

[Smokinjoe9]

Trying to understand? Let me ask....If a blind person is standing in front of 3 different pathways and knows nothing of them then is told to pick one and follow it. What would make one choice of paths better than the other? Are you saying the persons choice is predetermined? Are you saying whatever choice he/she makes is the correct one, or just picking one(blindly)will lead him/her the right way?

[Smokinjoe9]

First of all, I want to qualify that this is not a theory; if you dont understand something that is factual, your lack of understanding does not make it theoretical,

 

A lack of proof does. Not partial proof which I see in a lot of science, not probability, not calculated probability, solid proof(no holes).......

 

I am not trying to say scientific theory, or any idea for that matter is wrong, I am just saying if there are any missing parts to a puzzle it is not complete and til it is, I will not agree on what it is and shouldn't for that matter.

I understand that sometimes it seems like the only answer is the one that is calculated out to the closest point, but that does not make it true! Religion, on the other hand is based on belief not proof, therefore, proof is not needed..

[peacegirl]

As I see it, the end result itself constitutes freewill..Like I stated there will always be an outcome no matter the choice, how it is spun does not change that fact. Simply put; If one chooses to do something, is that not freewill? Even if the reasoning behind the choice is based on the best of choices, to say no freewill, does not make the choice less obvious. Calculating your odds does not = no freewill..

 

You need to read and reread what is written. As simple as this proof appears, it is not that simple to grasp. Once you understand that only one choice can be made at any given moment because you are under a compulsion to pick the best possible alternative, you will realize that you are not free at all. If we could go back in time we would see that any other choice, at that moment, could not have been made, which is why our will is not free. Choice is an illusion. I know this is difficult especially when you have so many theories that you are trying to assimilate. But they are not consistent with this knowledge. There is no first cause. So that theory, by definition, has to fall by the wayside if this discovery is proven undeniable.

[peacegirl]

A lack of proof does. Not partial proof which I see in a lot of science, not probability, not calculated probability, solid proof(no holes).......I am not trying to say scientific theory, or any idea for that matter is wrong, I am just saying if there are any missing parts to a puzzle it is not complete and til it is, I will not agree on what it is and shouldn't for that matter.

 

I understand that sometimes it seems like the only answer is the one that is calculated out to the closest point, but that does not make it true! Religion, on the other hand is based on belief not proof, therefore, proof is not needed..

 

A lack of proof makes something theoretical until there is solid proof. I agree with you 100%. As far as this discovery goes, if you understand what is written you will see that there are no missing pieces to the puzzle. If you cannot see the proof, then you will think that this is a theory, a belief, or a hypothesis.

[Smokinjoe9]

Trying to understand? Let me ask....If a blind person is standing in front of 3 different pathways and knows nothing of them then is told to pick one and follow it. What would make one choice of paths better than the other?

 

An answer would help me out here....I know the meaning of freewill, or do I?

[peacegirl]

Trying to understand? Let me ask....If a blind person is standing in front of 3 different pathways and knows nothing of them then is told to pick one and follow it. What would make one choice of paths better than the other? Are you saying the persons choice is predetermined? Are you saying whatever choice he/she makes is the correct one, or just picking one(blindly)will lead him/her the right way?

 

No, I am not saying that a person's choice is predetermined, although the conditions in his life affect choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. A baseball player will pick different life choices than a swimmer. Each person is different to a degree and why one person's choice might be different from another person's given the same circumstances.

 

If he was blind and told to pick a path, he would be guessing as to which path is the best one. He would have no way of knowing other than guessing because the necessary information would not be available. I am not saying it would be the right choice if he was told to pick one without knowing what he was picking. Obviously, it could be the worst choice of the three, but this is not what I was referring to. I was only using examples where people were given more than one choice to pick from and showing why the choice they ultimately make is not free.

[Smokinjoe9]

You need to read and reread what is written. As simple as this proof appears, it is not that simple to grasp. Once you understand that only one choice can be made at any given moment because you are under a compulsion to pick the best possible alternative, you will realize that you are not free at all. If we could go back in time we would see that any other choice, at that moment, could not have been made, which is why our will is not free. Choice is an illusion. I know this is difficult especially when you have so many theories that you are trying to assimilate. But they are not consistent with this knowledge. There is no first cause. So that theory, by definition, has to fall by the wayside if this discovery is proven undeniable.

 

I understand the theory, and I like it, but it is circumstantial at best. As you said, we cannot go back in time to test the theory, although, we could go back in time and make an educated guess about what would have happened if Pearl Harbor would have not been attacked.

 

It is easy to see that when making a choice only one can be made, and mine right now is to continue to study this proposition...

[peacegirl]

So you can present predictable, testable, irrefutable proof of that?

 

Clay, no matter what example you give me, the principle holds true. He chose what he chose because any other alternative that he was offered at that moment, was the least preferable alternative. Therefore, there was only one possible choice open to him at that moment and that is the one that gave him the greatest satisfactiobn. This is why his will is not free.

[C1ay]

Once you understand that only one choice can be made at any given moment because you are under a compulsion to pick the best possible alternative, you will realize that you are not free at all.

OK, so the scenario is this. At the company christmas party all of the gifts people bring are numbered and placed under the tree. For each gift the number is written on a small square of paper and dropped in a basket. Later the basket is shaken and I am asked to reach in blindly and pick a square. I might decide to pick the first square I touch or I might wriggle my hand about and pick some other square. You are saying though that I am not making this choice freely, that I am picking the square that satisfies me the most and that I am determined to pick even though I could not know the outcome of my choice. Please point me to the post that proves this, I must have missed it.