New discovery

[peacegirl]

In a deterministic universe we do not have any ability to decide, choose, opt, or select, you just are and do. There is no option.

 

Fishteacher, when did you join in this thread? That is not my definition of determism which I stated throughout the discussion. I am not talking about something external, other than our own volition, causing us to do what we do, otherwise it would give us a perfect excuse to do whatever we choose with impunity, and then say we couldn't help ourselves because our will is not free.

[peacegirl]

Let me help parse this for you. I am not trying to be difficult. I am trying to help you communicate. This sentence says that choice in an illusion because choice in an illusion. You could have stopped with "choice in an illusion", and it would have been clearer.The second sentence in this excerpt is a non-sequitur with the first. If we have no choice, we cannot decide anything. If you meant that we can appear to decide, then these last two sentences are redundant with the first phrase in the first excerpt. In that case, this whole paragraph reduces to "Choice is an illusion". Does this make sense to you?

 

If i said choice is an illusion because choice is an illusion than I must be tired, that's all. Nothing more to it than that. :eek: I am saying in the second sentence that choice is an illusion because it appears as if we have more than one alternative, but in reality we don't. We are able to compare to decide which is preferable. This is not in keeping with the conventional definition. Nevertheless, having this ability to compare does not mean our choice, once it is made, is a free one.

 

Thanks for caring. You aren't stressing me out. I am glad you are asking me questions because it means you are interested.

[Biochemist]

Fishteacher, when did you join in this thread? That is not my definition of determism which I stated throughout the discussion. I am not talking about something external, other than our own volition, causing us to do what we do, otherwise it would give us a perfect excuse to do whatever we choose with impunity, and then say we couldn't help ourselves because our will is not free.

PG- I have read this entire thread, and have been involved in many other threads where determinism has surfaced as a topic.

 

I have tried to read your posts, and I can now freely admit that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about after 70+ of your posts. Fishteacher's definition of determinism is the generally accepted definition. Fish did not make it up. I cannot make any sense out of your post above.

 

1) volition is not external- what did you mean?

2) excuses don't apply in a deternimistic world

3) impunity is irrelevant: punishment is only an effect of some prior causative agent

 

Can you give us your single sentence definition of determinism without the serial dependent clauses referencing different topics? (like you last sentence above)

[Smokinjoe9]

Fishteacher, when did you join in this thread? That is not my definition of determism which I stated throughout the discussion. I am not talking about something external, other than our own volition, causing us to do what we do, otherwise it would give us a perfect excuse to do whatever we choose with impunity, and then say we couldn't help ourselves because our will is not free.

 

This statement seems in contradiction with your whole theory?? Why would determinism change anything, would not our choice still lead us to greater satisfaction? We do whatever we choose now, right? What about your last sentence, your theory says our will is not free already?

[Biochemist]

... I am saying... choice is an illusion because it appears as if we have more than one alternative, but in reality we don't.

Got it

We are able to compare to decide which is preferable. This is not in keeping with the conventional definition.

This is the non-sequitur again. We would not decide anything by the conventional definition. We just "do". The decision is an illusion as well. Is that what you are saying? PLEASE GIVE A SINGLE CLAUSE ANSWER.

[peacegirl]

Fishteacher, when did you join in this thread? That is not my definition of determism which I stated throughout the discussion. I am not talking about something external, other than our own volition, causing us to do what we do, otherwise it would give us a perfect excuse to do whatever we choose with impunity, and then say we couldn't help ourselves because our will is not free.

 

This is sound reasoning. Where is it circular? To say man is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not circular. It is an undeniable fact. I don't know whether anyone has any more questions or whether they understand what was written because there are so many conflicting definitions of determinism. No one seems to be curious about what follows from this knowledge. If this discovery has the ability to prevent war (once it is understood and applied), then it is worth listening to, that is, if you are truly interested in this topic.

[Smokinjoe9]

Ok we continue down the path to the greater satisfaction based on the last descission we made, followed by the next descission and so on...Bring on the next piece to the puzzle.....

[peacegirl]

PG- I have read this entire thread, and have been involved in many other threads where determinism has surfaced as a topic.

 

I have tried to read your posts, and I can now freely admit that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about after 70+ of your posts. Fishteacher's definition of determinism is the generally accepted definition. Fish did not make it up. I cannot make any sense out of your post above.

 

1) volition is not external- what did you mean?

2) excuses don't apply in a deternimistic world

3) impunity is irrelevant: punishment is only an effect of some prior causative agent

 

Can you give us your single sentence definition of determinism without the serial dependent clauses referencing different topics? (like you last sentence above)

 

l) I mean that there is nothing outside of ourselves that can make us to anything we choose not to do. The conventional definition implies that something causes us to act the way do, thereby releasing our responsibility in anything we do.

 

2) yes they do; if we kill someone but it was determined by external forces that we do this, then it was not our fault, we could use the excuse that we could not help ourselves because we were acting in accordance with forces that were beyond our control.

 

3) but why punish if the event was caused? If our will is truly not free, how can we punish someone when he has no control over his actions? that is the conventional definition and why so many people cannot subscribe to such a world. I am not defining determinism this way. That is not the definition I am giving, but regardless of definition, what I wrote is undeniable unless there is something you misunderstand.

[Biochemist]

... To say man is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not circular. It is an undeniable fact.

PG- This is not a fact, it is a supposition. Many folks on this very site do not agree with this.

I don't know whether anyone has any more questions or whether they understand what was written because there are so many conflicting definitions of determinism.

Perhaps, but I am certain that I do not understand your definition. I seem to understand everyone else's

No one seems to be curious about what follows from this knowledge.

This is not "knowledge", it is a position.

If this discovery has the ability to prevent war (once it is understood and applied), then it is worth listening to, that is, if you are truly interested in this topic.

PG- It is a little bit disingenuous to suggest that no one is listening when a half dozen folks have waited patiently through dozens of your posts. I am trying to help you make a clear argument, and it seems to me that you are evading assistance.

[peacegirl]

Biochemist, sorry if I confused you with the word volition. We all have volition but I should not have used it in reference to determinism until you thoroughly understand the definition I am using. It is not mutually exclusive. We all have volition. We have a will, but it is not a free one.

[Biochemist]

l) I mean that there is nothing outside of ourselves that can make us to anything we choose not to do. The conventional definition implies that something causes us to act the way do, thereby releasing our responsibility in anything we do.

Doesn't gravity make planes crash when we might prefer otherwise?

2) yes they do; if we kill someone but it was determined by external forces that we do this, then it was not our fault, we could use the excuse that we could not help ourselves because we were acting in accordance with forces that were beyond our control.

but the excuses themselves are predetermined events as well. Ergo, by definition, they are not really excuses. They are just effects of prior causes.

3) but why punish if the event was caused? If our will is truly not free, how can we punish someone when he has no control over his actions? that is the conventional definition and why so many people cannot subscribe to such a world.

We agree. This is pretty much what I said.

I am not defining determinism this way.

One more time: in ONE SENTENCE, how ARE you defining it?

That is not the definition I am giving, but regardless of definition, what I wrote is undeniable unless there is something you misunderstand.

It is certainly deniable. I am telling you that there are folks on this site that do not AGREE with you.

[peacegirl]

PG- This is not a fact, it is a supposition. Many folks on this very site do not agree with this. Perhaps, but I am certain that I do not understand your definition. I seem to understand everyone else'sThis is not "knowledge", it is a position.PG- It is a little bit disingenuous to suggest that no one is listening when a half dozen folks have waited patiently through dozens of your posts. I am trying to help you make a clear argument, and it seems to me that you are evading assistance.

 

You keep referring to dozens of my posts, I cannot make it simpler or more condensed. I am sorry if you don't like reading so many. I have no solution to the amount of posts that it takes to explain what I need to explain, unless you don't want me to post in here. You are incorrect in that I am evading assistance, but I think if you try to explain what you think you got out of these posts, I can try to help to see where you might be misunderstanding.

 

I don't want to haggle over the word scientific or supposition. You can believe what you want. If it makes you more comfortable thinking that this is not undeniable, it's okay. As I said before, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think someone wants me to explain more of this discovery, but that will involve more posts. I am afraid to post anymore information for fear people will think I am hogging this chatroom. :eek:

[Smokinjoe9]

I wonder what brought you to Seymour's idea's, and why find his work and just start studying it, then recompile and sell it????

I would like to know, if this theory is so compelling and groundbreaking, why sell it?

[Smokinjoe9]

I think someone wants me to explain more of this discovery, but that will involve more posts. I am afraid to post anymore information for fear people will think I am hogging this chatroom. :eek:

This is your thread, post away, that is what we are waiting for......

[peacegirl]

People have the right to disagree. For two thousand years people disagreed with the idea that the earth was a sphere. That did not change the facts. The only problem is that we needed this information to land men on the moon. The same holds here. Without the truth about our nature, we cannot prevent what we all do not want: war, crime, and hatred in human relations.

[Biochemist]

..We have a will, but it is not a free one.

Great. We are getting to a much tighter contradiction. Is there any definition of "will" in the absence of "free"? If it is not "free" it is a caused action. How can that be "will"?

[peacegirl]

I wonder what brought you to Seymour's idea's, and why find his work and just start studying it, then recompile and sell it????

I would like to know, if this theory is so compelling and groundbreaking, why sell it?

 

First of all, I knew about this discovery for many years and it hurts to see the world in such distress knowing it doesn't have to be this way. I found a POD publisher and it took me three years to put the books together. Why sell it? First of all, I have invested my own money and I continue to do so without complaint, although I am living off of a very small income at the moment. I would like to make some money off of this work after all the hours I have put into this at least until it goes into the public domain. I think I deserve it. We do live in a capalistic society. I wrote a children's book on safety. Just because it is for the public good, does that mean I should give that one away also? I am willing to give out review copies to people who I think are truly interested because I need people to spread the word. I don't have advertising money.