“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[DBT]

This is true wisdom from Socrates himself! Argue with him, not me!

Have you applied the Socratic method to your own assumptions of truth? Isn't that the first step?

This author didn’t assume anything, therefore the Socratic method is valuable for those who are too quick to judge before they know!

Wow, that explains a lot.

What does it explain? That I should be unsure when I know he would not have claimed something this important if he wasn’t sure?

Being sure is sufficient to establish the truth of an idea?

It all depends on what someone is bringing to the table. Saying "I'm sure" means very little without the proof to back it up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean ‘undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs.

However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other discoveries to be revealed if you can.

There's the rub, the author has no evidence or proof to support his contention of light at the eye/ instant vision. All the evidence, in fact, goes against his idea.

Then let it go. Try to understand his other discovery.

But there is no discovery. The claim of instant vision does not relate to how the world works, the function of the eyes or how the brain generates sight. Which is well enough understood to reject the authors claims.

 

[peacegirl]

This is true wisdom from Socrates himself! Argue with him, not me!

Have you applied the Socratic method to your own assumptions of truth? Isn't that the first step?

This author didn’t assume anything, therefore the Socratic method is valuable for those who are too quick to judge before they know!

Wow, that explains a lot.

What does it explain? That I should be unsure when I know he would not have claimed something this important if he wasn’t sure?

Being sure is sufficient to establish the truth of an idea?

It all depends on what someone is bringing to the table. Saying "I'm sure" means very little without the proof to back it up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean ‘undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs.

However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other discoveries to be revealed if you can.

There's the rub, the author has no evidence or proof to support his contention of light at the eye/ instant vision. All the evidence, in fact, goes against his idea.

Then let it go. Try to understand his other discovery.

But there is no discovery.

There are three discoveries. The discovery about the eyes isn't the one that prevents war and crime, but it does help us understand the hurt that exists due to words, which are not accurate symbols, and will eventually become obsolete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER FOUR: WORDS, NOT REALITY

p. 117 Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify its master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he were vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face, even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue, because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists. The answer will be given shortly; however, let me make one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far, although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses,’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify its master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me, when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relations), is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have caused the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.

One of the greatest forms of injustice still exists because we have never understood our true relationship with the external world, which is related to what we think we see with our eyes. What is this injustice? It is to be judged an inferior production of the human race because of physiognomic differences, and this judgment takes place the moment we call one person beautiful and another one ugly, handsome and homely, good-looking and bad-looking.

“But I have been taught that sticks and stones will break my bones, but names or words will never hurt me. Isn’t that a true statement?”

Actually, I’m not referring to those names. To be called the N-word, kike, dirty Jew, wop, pig, or any name used in an effort to make a person feel inferior is actually not a hurt if this does not lower us in our own eyes because we allow for the source. But when we believe we are inferior productions because of words that have told us so, the expression ‘Sticks and stones will break my bones…’ is completely erroneous, since we have been unconsciously hurt. This unconsciousness has its source in the failure to understand how the eyes function, which is revealed by the fact that they are included as one of the five senses. When someone is judged an inferior production of the human race by others, as well as himself, all because of words that have no relation to reality, although he sees this inferiority as if it is a definite part of the real world, then he is seriously hurt, and God is going to put a permanent end to the use of these words.

The claim of instant vision does not relate to how the world works, the function of the eyes or how the brain generates sight. Which is well enough understood to reject the authors claims.

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

I read through the descriptions of philosophical variations of determinism. Very clear, straightforward, and understandable. Concise summaries in one or two paragraphs..

I have yet to see you past a concise summaryof what Lessans' determinism means. I do not see it in the book.

Would you humor me and write a paragraph or two as to what you men by determinism?

Determinism means reality is a,b,c .... Determinism means our behavior is determined by ....

Example

Nomological

Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism and is generally synonymous with physical determinism.[citation needed] This is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws and that every occurrence inevitably results from prior events. Nomological determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Laplace posited that an omniscient observer, knowing with infinite precision all the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe, could predict the future entirely.[8] Ernest Nagel viewed determinism in terms of a physical state, declaring a theory to be deterministic if it predicts a state at other times uniquely from values at one given time.[9]

Predeterminism

Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.[11][12] The concept is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain.

Predeterminism can be categorized as a specific type of determinism when it is used to mean pre-established causal determinism.[11][13][better source needed] It can also be used interchangeably with causal determinism—in the context of its capacity to determine future events.[11][14] However, predeterminism is often considered as independent of causal determinism.[15][16]

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I read through the descriptions of philosophical variations of determinism. Very clear, straightforward, and understandable. Concise summaries in one or two paragraphs..

I have yet to see you past a concise summaryof what Lessans' determinism means. I do not see it in the book.

Would you humor me and write a paragraph or two as to what you men by determinism?

Determinism means reality is a,b,c .... Determinism means our behavior is determined by ....

Example

Nomological

Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism and is generally synonymous with physical determinism.[citation needed] This is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws and that every occurrence inevitably results from prior events. Nomological determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Laplace posited that an omniscient observer, knowing with infinite precision all the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe, could predict the future entirely.[8] Ernest Nagel viewed determinism in terms of a physical state, declaring a theory to be deterministic if it predicts a state at other times uniquely from values at one given time.[9]

Determinism in the way it's correctly described has NOTHING to do with prediction, nothing to do with QM, nothing to do with cause where one state forces another.

Predeterminism

Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.[11][12] The concept is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain.

Looking back, we can say that our choices were predetermined looking back all the way to the origin of the universe, but not before.

Predeterminism can be categorized as a specific type of determinism when it is used to mean pre-established causal determinism.[11][13][better source needed] It can also be used interchangeably with causal determinism—in the context of its capacity to determine future events.[11][14] However, predeterminism is often considered as independent of causal determinism.[15][16]

We cannot determine future events because there is no way we can predict what is going to happen with complete accuracy. How can I predict what YOU will eat for breakfast or what YOU are going to do today, and why does this even matter?

 

[steve_bank]

Another of Pg's patented non answers. She can't even describe a fundamental issue.

Fro what I saw in the book it looked like Lessans plagiarized causal determinism. His invocation of 'the laws of nature'.

Another thing lacing in the book is a set of references. Auteurs, books, concepts and so on. He seemed to infer he is entirely new which he was not.

 

[peacegirl]

Another of Pg's patented non answers. She can't even describe a fundamental issue.

What are you talking about, Steve? I answered your questions.

Fro what I saw in the book it looked like Lessans plagiarized causal determinism. His invocation of 'the laws of nature'.

The phrases "causal determinism" and "the laws of nature" can't be copyrighted, so how can they be plagiarized?

Causal determinism is the philosophical doctrine that every event, including human actions, is the inevitable result of preceding events in accordance with natural laws.

laws of nature (plural noun)

1. another term for natural law, natural law
2. informal
   a regularly occurring or apparently inevitable phenomenon observable in human society:

Another thing lacing in the book is a set of references. Auteurs, books, concepts and so on. He seemed to infer he is entirely new which he was not.

He gave credit to Will Durant. He also gave credit to anyone who may have played a part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and all the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this discovery. My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever lived. Through the process of reading and studying, I was privileged to acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is a gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in their motion towards greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God deserves the credit, not me. Before long, tears will be flowing in abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else. None of us is given a free choice.

 

[steve_bank]

Still have no idea precisely what you mean by determinism.

I read Durant's Story Of Philosophy. As I recall he said that which can be quantified is science, the rest is philosophy and religion.

That would make Lessans' theory of real time time vision and how the brain works is speculative philosophy not proven science.

Who are 'the others'? Is Korzybski in there somewhere?

Will Durant viewed science and philosophy not as competitors, but as distinct, necessary partners: science provides analytical, empirical knowledge of the parts, while philosophy offers synthetic interpretation and wisdom regarding the whole. He famously stated, "Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom"

I think Pood will like Durant's views ob science and philosophy.

The key word with science is empirical, based in data and experiment.

Determinism is primarily a branch of metaphysics, the study of the nature of reality, existence, and the universe. It is the philosophical view that all events—including human actions and decisions—are the inevitable result of preceding causes and physical laws, leaving only one possible future.

Pg, what do you mean by determinism in terms of how the universe works?

Causal determinism is not patented but if you base your reasoning on it ,it is appreciate to name that which you using. Lessans proclaims Laws Of Nature and determinism with 'sound and fury'.

A modern Moses.

My recurring point being there is nothing revolutionary or new in his book, except maybe his pseudoscience about vision.

 

[peacegirl]

Still have no idea precisely what you mean by determinism.

I read Durant's Story Of Philosophy. As I recall he said that which can be quantified is science, the rest is philosophy and religion.

That would make Lessans' theory of real time time vision and how the brain works is speculative philosophy not proven science.

Who are 'the others'? Is Korzybski in there somewhere?

He actually clarified why the eyes aren't a sense organ due to words that can distort reality. Korzybski would have probably given him a thumbs-up.

Will Durant viewed science and philosophy not as competitors, but as distinct, necessary partners: science provides analytical, empirical knowledge of the parts, while philosophy offers synthetic interpretation and wisdom regarding the whole. He famously stated, "Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom"

I think Pood will like Durant's views ob science and philosophy.

The key word with science is empirical, based in data and experiment.

The ultimate test is whether something works empirically. If his discovery, once applied, didn't work, then it would be shown to be false. But it isn't false.

Determinism is primarily a branch of metaphysics, the study of the nature of reality, existence, and the universe. It is the philosophical view that all events—including human actions and decisions—are the inevitable result of preceding causes and physical laws, leaving only one possible future.

Pg, what do you mean by determinism in terms of how the universe works?

Causal determinism is not patented but if you base your reasoning on it ,it is appreciate to name that which you using. Lessans proclaims Laws Of Nature and determinism with 'sound and fury'.

There was no sound and fury in his words. Only truth. Determinism is a law of nature because it cannot be broken. If a person has free will of any kind, then determinism would not be a law. He was referring to human decision-making on a macro level. QM has come up as an argument against determinism, but it does not give man free will. This guy expresses why quantum mechanics does not prove free will.

​ An argument against free will: freedom of choice, but not of will​ 12/30/2015​ 1 Comment​ ​ ​ A central issue in the free will debate is confusion and disagreement about how the term is defined. The topic is clarified considerably when we distinguish freedom of choice from freedom of will. I argue that while rational agents may have freedom of choice, they cannot have freedom of will. Furthermore, freedom of choice alone is insufficient for free will; freedom of will is also required. Thus, rational agents cannot have free will. I have noticed that some proponents of free will actually define it as what I term freedom of choice. Freedom of choice refers to the rational agent’s ability to choose between multiple courses of action in accordance with their will, independent of exterior factors. This is distinct from freedom of action and thus it is unimportant whether or not the agent is physically able to carry out the planned actions. It is clear that humans generally do have freedom of choice: we are free to make decisions based on our will. If this is what is meant by free will, then indeed humans have free will. However, freedom of choice alone is not consistent with our intuitive understanding of free will. For instance, a basic requirement of free will is that the agent’s decisions are not deterministic; they have the freedom to do otherwise. Despite this, freedom of choice is independent of whether or not the agent is deterministic. Thus, freedom of choice alone is insufficient for free will. For instance, suppose that the universe is deterministic and the psychological state of a human is strictly based on the biological state of their brain. In principle, we would always be able to predict their decision, were we able to simulate the universe in sufficient detail. Their will is deterministic and so the choice they will make ultimately must also be. Note that this does not affect the agent’s ability to base their decision on their current will. Hence, while they do not have free will they still have freedom of choice. Whether or not the universe is actually deterministic is irrelevant for this argument. The point is simply that freedom of choice alone is insufficient for free will: it does not fulfill the criteria that the agent could have done otherwise. Free will therefore requires freedom of will in addition to freedom of choice. This refers to the agent’s ability to determine their own will, fully free of any outside influences. There is no mechanism by which rational agents can have freedom of will. The will of each human is their own, but we ultimately do not determine them ourselves. Our biology and environment play important roles in shaping our minds. In turn, we make decisions which affect our biology and all aspects of our environment throughout our life. Hence, continuous complex interactions between our biology, environment, and mind determine who we are as a person at large, what preferences we have, and ultimately what decisions we will make. In essence, our will is shaped by factors outside of our control. Of course our mental state itself modulates the changes it undergoes over time, but freedom of choice cannot free our will. The complex interactions that shape our mind begin at birth. The initial conditions of our birth and development are fully independent of our will. In fact, the notion of an agent being the sole determinant of their mental state is contradictory: supposing that we have full control over the initial properties of our mind supposes that we already had a mind to have preferences with. Thus, the properties of minds must ultimately be determined by external factors. In summary, rational agents may have the ability to make decisions based on their will (freedom of choice), but cannot be the sole determinant of their own will (freedom of will). I will now refute two common mechanisms proposed by free will advocates to allow for free will. Firstly, the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics is often cited as a means by which the universe can be considered non-deterministic. This is true, at least for very small systems. However, it is actually unimportant whether or not quantum mechanical fluctuations result in any appreciable uncertainty in macroscopic systems. This is because the argument is based on the notion that a lack of determinism would prove the existence of free will. However, more accurately an agent being non-deterministic is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for free will. This mechanism merely introduces randomization into the decisions and will of the agent, this is not the same thing as freedom of will or choice. In fact, this randomization could potentially infringe upon their freedom of choice. To make this idea clearer, consider a game of roulette. Suppose that each number on the wheel is assigned to a different choice. The roulette wheel is spun and the agent makes the choice corresponding to the number the ball stops on. We could also play this game to determine the state of will of an agent, to the same effect. It is clear to our intuition that the choice and will of the agent are not free, though the outcome is unpredictable. This analogy could be criticized on the basis that it does not properly capture the nature of our non-deterministic decision-making. In particular, the spinning roulette wheel is independent of the agent, whereas the uncertainty of quantum mechanics directly involves the agent since it acts directly on their brain. Nevertheless, whether or not the random event directly involves the agent does not change the situation in any meaningful way. We could involve the agent directly in the random event by having them spin the roulette wheel, for instance. To our intuition it is clear that the outcome selected by the wheel would still be random and not represent free will.​ An argument against free will: freedom of choice, but not of will A central issue in the free will debate is confusion and disagreement about how the term is defined. The topic is clarified considerably when we distinguish freedom of choice from freedom of will. I... www.sciencesnail.com ​ ​ ​

A modern Moses.

My recurring point being there is nothing revolutionary or new in his book, except maybe his pseudoscience about vision.

He was clear about what he meant by determinism in Chapter One. How can your recurring point about there being nothing revolutionary or new in his book, when you can't even recall why man's will is not free (according to Lessans), not an AI definition? Determinism is not the discovery; it is the gateway to the discovery. Without it, you won't be able to follow his reasoning in Chapter Two that leads to his discovery, yet you have so much to say about what you believe he hasn't provided.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The following is in response to this link from this posting.

Freedom of choice refers to the rational agent's ability to choose between multiple courses of action in accordance with their will, independent of exterior factors.

False. Indeed impossible. At the very least because the author contradicts himself. The "multiple courses" describe limits to a context. An agent always and only operates within a context which presents as there being a set limit to those "multiple courses" available from within that context. This means that an agent is never "independent of" those "exterior factors" which comprise the context in which the agent operates and in which there are "multiple courses". By insisting that freedom of choice requires independence from "exterior factors", and given the fact that context (necessarily) always presents exterior factors that limit what "multiple courses" are available to an agent, no agent is ever independent of exterior factors; therefore, by the author's own reckoning, there can be no freedom of choice, and, yet, the author says, "It is clear that humans ... do have freedom of choice". The author's claim for the actuality of freedom of choice contradicts (is incompatible with) his own claim about the sort of independence necessary for there to be that freedom of choice.

Free will ... refers to the agent's ability to determine their own will, fully free of any outside influences.

False. Because incorrect. Incorrect because the statement is made without eliminating all other possibilities. It is possible that the will is free-to despite those "outside influences" which themselves are constituents of a context. It is possible for the will to be free-to despite not being free-from "any outside influences".

As common as is this author's sort of "reasoning", it is nonetheless tiresome. Maybe it is tiresome because it is so very common in its incompetence.

In his book, Language vs. Reality, N. J. Enfield says, "A classical ideal of truth and knowledge is the concept of a market for ideas: as thinking individuals, we encounter competing ideas, we evaluate them for their best fit to reality, and then let the best and brightest facts form the basis of our beliefs. ... But in practice, most of the time we are in a market for justifications. ... Often we are not seeking statements as facts to help us figure out what we should believe. Usually we already know what we believe. What we seek are statements to justify those beliefs".

The above cited "freedom of choice/no freedom of will" author can hardly be said to have sought a "best fit to reality" at the very least because he did not bother to consider sufficient possibilities. Of course, were he to do so he could not establish the veracity of his claim(s) or justify his haughty certitude. But maybe he is the sort of person who is self-satisfied with having achieved consistency. Yet, as has been shown, he failed to achieve even that with his freedom of choice remarks.

 

[DBT]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

The following is in response to this link from this posting.

Freedom of choice refers to the rational agent's ability to choose between multiple courses of action in accordance with their will, independent of exterior factors.

False. Indeed impossible. At the very least because the author contradicts himself. The "multiple courses" describe limits to a context. An agent always and only operates within a context which presents as there being a set limit to those "multiple courses" available from within that context. This means that an agent is never "independent of" those "exterior factors" which comprise the context in which the agent operates and in which there are "multiple courses". By insisting that freedom of choice requires independence from "exterior factors", and given the fact that context (necessarily) always presents exterior factors that limit what "multiple courses" are available to an agent, no agent is ever independent of exterior factors; therefore, by the author's own reckoning, there can be no freedom of choice, and, yet, the author says, "It is clear that humans ... do have freedom of choice". The author's claim for the actuality of freedom of choice contradicts (is incompatible with) his own claim about the sort of independence necessary for there to be that freedom of choice.

I think you misinterpreted what he said.

Thus, the properties of minds must ultimately be determined by external factors. In summary, rational agents may have the ability to make decisions based on their will (freedom of choice), but cannot be the sole determinant of their own will (freedom of will).

Free will ... refers to the agent's ability to determine their own will, fully free of any outside influences.

False. Because incorrect. Incorrect because the statement is made without eliminating all other possibilities. It is possible that the will is free-to despite those "outside influences" which themselves are constituents of a context. It is possible for the will to be free-to despite not being free-from "any outside influences".

I think what he meant was that "free choice" is the ability to think through multiple courses of action... but it is not sufficient to claim free will, which is dependent on external factors, and why it requires more than just having "free choice". IOW, the action that the agent ultimately takes cannot be determined by his own will. Therefore, having a free choice cannot free our will.

"There is no mechanism by which rational agents can have freedom of will. The will of each human is their own, but we ultimately do not determine them ourselves. Our biology and environment play important roles in shaping our minds. In turn, we make decisions which affect our biology and all aspects of our environment throughout our life. Hence, continuous complex interactions between our biology, environment, and mind determine who we are as a person at large, what preferences we have, and ultimately what decisions we will make. In essence, our will is shaped by factors outside of our control."

As common as is this author's sort of "reasoning", it is nonetheless tiresome. Maybe it is tiresome because it is so very common in its incompetence.

In his book, Language vs. Reality, N. J. Enfield says, "A classical ideal of truth and knowledge is the concept of a market for ideas: as thinking individuals, we encounter competing ideas, we evaluate them for their best fit to reality, and then let the best and brightest facts form the basis of our beliefs. ... But in practice, most of the time we are in a market for justifications. ... Often we are not seeking statements as facts to help us figure out what we should believe. Usually we already know what we believe. What we seek are statements to justify those beliefs".

That is true. It's called confirmation bias.

The above cited "freedom of choice/no freedom of will" author can hardly be said to have sought a "best fit to reality" at the very least because he did not bother to consider sufficient possibilities. Of course, were he to do so he could not establish the veracity of his claim(s) or justify his haughty certitude. But maybe he is the sort of person who is self-satisfied with having achieved consistency. Yet, as has been shown, he failed to achieve even that with his freedom of choice remarks.

I don't see where he was being inconsistent. He was making a distinction between free choice and free will. I think he meant that we have the ability to choose, which he called freedom of choice; we are free to make decisions based on our will. He even said that if that is what is meant by free will, then it's okay to use the term in that way. What he meant when he said "independent of exterior factors" was only that this ability to freely choose exists independently of any choice that is ultimately made, which IS absolutely dependent on external factors. He was trying to make a distinction between "free choice" and "free will." I have a free choice to come online or not to come online (i.e., two different courses of action), which is independent of the choice I will ultimately make, which is not free at all. Having free choice, therefore, doesn't grant me free will.

Freedom of choice refers to the rational agent’s ability to choose between multiple courses of action in accordance with their will, independent of exterior factors. This is distinct from freedom of action and thus it is unimportant whether or not the agent is physically able to carry out the planned actions. It is clear that humans generally do have freedom of choice: we are free to make decisions based on our will. If this is what is meant by free will, then indeed humans have free will. However, freedom of choice alone is not consistent with our intuitive understanding of free will. For instance, a basic requirement of free will is that the agent’s decisions are not deterministic; they have the freedom to do otherwise.

 

[peacegirl]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, was positive that Gregor Mendel was wrong in his fundamental principles of heredity. But it turned out that Mendel was not wrong, even though Nageli would have sworn on his life that Mendel was not right. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean Lessans was right because Mendel was, but it should make you pause before denying a claim that appears impossible.

 

[DBT]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, was positive that Gregor Mendel was wrong in his fundamental principles of heredity. But it turned out that Mendel was not wrong, even though Nageli would have sworn on his life that Mendel was not right. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean Lessans was right because Mendel was, but it should make you pause before denying a claim that appears impossible.

The example you give doesn't relate to the claim being made, a claim where there is no means by which instant vision/light at the eye could possibly work. It's impossible in any way you look at it.

 

[peacegirl]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, was positive that Gregor Mendel was wrong in his fundamental principles of heredity. But it turned out that Mendel was not wrong, even though Nageli would have sworn on his life that Mendel was not right. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean Lessans was right because Mendel was, but it should make you pause before denying a claim that appears impossible.

The example you give doesn't relate to the claim being made, a claim where there is no means by which instant vision/light at the eye could possibly work. It's impossible in any way you look at it.

I didn’t say it was related other than the fact that Nageli said the core of Mendel’s claim had to wrong because he believed it was impossible to look at it any other way.

 

[DBT]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, was positive that Gregor Mendel was wrong in his fundamental principles of heredity. But it turned out that Mendel was not wrong, even though Nageli would have sworn on his life that Mendel was not right. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean Lessans was right because Mendel was, but it should make you pause before denying a claim that appears impossible.

The example you give doesn't relate to the claim being made, a claim where there is no means by which instant vision/light at the eye could possibly work. It's impossible in any way you look at it.

I didn’t say it was related other than the fact that Nageli said the core of Mendel’s claim had to wrong because he believed it was impossible to look at it any other way.

For the claim of instant vision/light at the eye, there is no other way to look at it. It's wrong in any way you look at it. It doesn't relate to how the world works, not physics, not biology, not the role of the senses or the function of a brain, so there is no chance of it being proven right.

 

[peacegirl]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, was positive that Gregor Mendel was wrong in his fundamental principles of heredity. But it turned out that Mendel was not wrong, even though Nageli would have sworn on his life that Mendel was not right. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean Lessans was right because Mendel was, but it should make you pause before denying a claim that appears impossible.

The example you give doesn't relate to the claim being made, a claim where there is no means by which instant vision/light at the eye could possibly work. It's impossible in any way you look at it.

I didn’t say it was related other than the fact that Nageli said the core of Mendel’s claim had to wrong because he believed it was impossible to look at it any other way.

For the claim of instant vision/light at the eye, there is no other way to look at it. It's wrong in any way you look at it. It doesn't relate to how the world works, not physics, not biology, not the role of the senses or the function of a brain, so there is no chance of it being proven right.

It’s not wrong. You’re just looking at it in terms of light traveling, which it does, but this fact has nothing to do with seeing an object in real time because light is not bringing the image.

 

[pood]

It’s not wrong. You’re just looking at it in terms of light traveling, which it does, but this fact has nothing to do with seeing an object in real time because light is not bringing the image.

Just another vacuous repetition of mindless idiocy. Congrats on consistency, anyway. Also, for the ten gazillionth time, no one ever said that light brings an image.

 

[peacegirl]

It’s not wrong. You’re just looking at it in terms of light traveling, which it does, but this fact has nothing to do with seeing an object in real time because light is not bringing the image.

Just another vacuous repetition of mindless idiocy. Congrats on consistency, anyway. Also, for the ten gazillionth time, no one ever said that light brings an image.

You will continue to fight me on this, but there is another way of looking at it, which does not violate physics, biology, the role of the senses, or the function of the brain.

 

[pood]

It’s not wrong. You’re just looking at it in terms of light traveling, which it does, but this fact has nothing to do with seeing an object in real time because light is not bringing the image.

Just another vacuous repetition of mindless idiocy. Congrats on consistency, anyway. Also, for the ten gazillionth time, no one ever said that light brings an image.

You will continue to fight me on this, but there is another way of looking at it, which does not violate physics, biology, the role of the senses, or the function of the brain.

Everything your author wrote violates all those things, plus logic itself. It is sheer idiocy from first to last and everyone but you knows that. I think you know it too but can’t admit it because it threatens your precious world view and makes you extremely angry. You need to deal with your anger issues.