Revolution In Thought

Philosophy
81
I meant by imagination that the thought is not part of reality; it's just something made up in your head that has no corresponding accuracy.
Ok, let's recap: I said: There is a way that the sentence ‘I could have chosen dish 7’ is true in a way that the sentence ‘I could have chose another meal in the cantina’ is not. You said: It is obvious that if the choice is not available as in the cantina, it couldn’t have been chosen, but the followup X could have done otherwise is only in imagination. I said: But they <all the conditional sentences about the kettle> are all part of my imagination! And they are still true! So being true of these sentences is independent of the fact if I really did heat up a kettle with water yesterday. So that ‘only in my imagination’ is irrelevant. I can have true sentences in my imagination or false sentences, but ‘being in my imagination’ does not belong to the criteria if a sentence is true or not. So I repeat: There is a way that the sentence ‘I could have chosen dish 7’ is true in a way that the sentence ‘I could have chose another meal in the cantina’ is not. Truth of the sentence has nothing to do with the fact that it is a sentence in my imagination. And the rest of your argument in this posting goes lost into the difference between the situation in the restaurant and the cantina. If you say 'I could not have taken another meal in the cantina' then you are right. But if you say 'I could not have taken another menu in the restaurant', you would be lying. There were 10 dishes. Say, I am your spouse and today we would leave for an expensive holiday, booked months ago. We both are delighted to go on this trip, but now the following happened: this morning, you got extreme diarrhoea, with strong belly pains. We can't go now, instead you make an emergency appointment with a doctor. The doctor discovers it is an allergic reaction on white beans, something we already know you are allergic for. So the doctor and I ask, 'But for God's sake, where did you eat white beans! You know you are allergic for it!'. Then you say, with a small voice: 'it was in dish 5 I had yesterday in the restaurant...' Now, knowing we already have missed our flight I get really angry: 'But they have a choice of 10 dishes in the restaurant, you could have chosen something else!'. Now you expect me that I accept your excuse: 'No, I could not take another dish. It was determined that I took dish 5, as we know by now.' Oh no, I fully make you responsible for our trip falling into the water. You could have done otherwise.
Who said contemplation doesn't have an advantage for human beings? I don't know why human beings were given this gift, but in my estimation it is a wonderful gift to have because we're not just dominoes falling over each other without any say in our choices. But this ability to contemplate does not grant us free will. There is great confusion here, and it seems that you will not bend at all, or even listen to what I have to say.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You say we are determined, just as animals, and that our deliberating before a choice plays no causal role: it is just contemplating. But now you say that we are not just dominoes anymore, and we have a say in our choices. So what we think matters: we have real choices. Why should I not be able to reflect about my choice of yesterday, knowing that I hesitated between dish 5 and 7, and say 'I could have taken dish 7'? Was there not a choice between 10 dishes? PS. It would be nice if you could comment on this (small) posting here].
82
I meant by imagination that the thought is not part of reality; it's just something made up in your head that has no corresponding accuracy.
Ok, let's recap: I said: There is a way that the sentence ‘I could have chosen dish 7’ is true in a way that the sentence ‘I could have chose another meal in the cantina’ is not. You said: It is obvious that if the choice is not available as in the cantina, it couldn’t have been chosen, but the followup X could have done otherwise is only in imagination. I said: But they <all the conditional sentences about the kettle> are all part of my imagination! And they are still true! So being true of these sentences is independent of the fact if I really did heat up a kettle with water yesterday. So that ‘only in my imagination’ is irrelevant. I can have true sentences in my imagination or false sentences, but ‘being in my imagination’ does not belong to the criteria if a sentence is true or not. So I repeat: There is a way that the sentence ‘I could have chosen dish 7’ is true in a way that the sentence ‘I could have chose another meal in the cantina’ is not. Truth of the sentence has nothing to do with the fact that it is a sentence in my imagination. And the rest of your argument in this posting goes lost into the difference between the situation in the restaurant and the cantina. If you say 'I could not have taken another meal in the cantina' then you are right. But if you say 'I could not have taken another menu in the restaurant', you would be lying. There were 10 dishes. Say, I am your spouse and today we would leave for an expensive holiday, booked months ago. We both are delighted to go on this trip, but now the following happened: this morning, you got extreme diarrhoea, with strong belly pains. We can't go now, instead you make an emergency appointment with a doctor. The doctor discovers it is an allergic reaction on white beans, something we already know you are allergic for. So the doctor and I ask, 'But for God's sake, where did you eat white beans! You know you are allergic for it!'. Then you say, with a small voice: 'it was in dish 5 I had yesterday in the restaurant...' Now, knowing we already have missed our flight I get really angry: 'But they have a choice of 10 dishes in the restaurant, you could have chosen something else!'. Now you expect me that I accept your excuse: 'No, I could not take another dish. It was determined that I took dish 5, as we know by now.' Oh no, I fully make you responsible for our trip falling into the water. You could have done otherwise. It is true that because of my stomach problem, we are unable to go on the trip so it is my responsibility in that sense. That is different than holding me responsible for making the wrong choice when the choice I made is the only choice I could have made at that moment. Maybe I was unaware that there were 10 different dishes to choose from. Maybe I thought I had overcome my allergy to a certain ingredient in the dish and decided to take a chance. Regardless of the reason, the point I'm making is that I could not have chosen otherwise given the pros and cons that determined my choice at the time. I'm sure I feel terrible now that we have had to postpone the trip on my account, so my choice will probably be to eat a different dish next time.
Who said contemplation doesn't have an advantage for human beings? I don't know why human beings were given this gift, but in my estimation it is a wonderful gift to have because we're not just dominoes falling over each other without any say in our choices. But this ability to contemplate does not grant us free will. There is great confusion here, and it seems that you will not bend at all, or even listen to what I have to say.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You say we are determined, just as animals, and that our deliberating before a choice plays no causal role: it is just contemplating. But now you say that we are not just dominoes anymore, and we have a say in our choices. So what we think matters: we have real choices. Why should I not be able to reflect about my choice of yesterday, knowing that I hesitated between dish 5 and 7, and say 'I could have taken dish 7'? Was there not a choice between 10 dishes?
Who is saying you can't reflect about your choice yesterday? And who was saying that you didn't have choices? The question is whether our choices are free. Having choices is not synonymous with freedom of the will. Of course what we think matters but what does this have to do with being held morally responsible when our choices can only go in one direction, not two? I understand the free will/determinism dilemma regarding moral responsibility. I am just trying to get you to understand why we have no free will so I can continue. If you cannot show me where he was wrong in stating that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, then you will hopefully allow me to continue using this knowledge as the basis for further investigation. If not, I can't move on.
PS. It would be nice if you could comment on this (small) posting here].
I just took a look at the thread and I'm not sure what you want me to respond to.
83
It is true that because of my stomach problem, we are unable to go on the trip so it is my responsibility in that sense. That is different than holding me responsible for making the wrong choice when the choice I made is the only choice I could have made at that moment. Maybe I was unaware that there were 10 different dishes to choose from. Maybe I thought I had overcome my allergy to a certain ingredient in the dish and decided to take a chance. Regardless of the reason, the point I'm making is that I could not have chosen otherwise given the pros and cons that determined my choice at the time. I'm sure I feel terrible now that we have had to postpone the trip on my account, so my choice will probably be to eat a different dish next time.
Sorry, but you still do not get the meaning of 'You could have done otherwise' right. Let's make a second example (a bit absurd, but it will do): yesterday the company you work for had the yearly outing, and to the program belongs a meal in this cantina. Now your boss is quite an egomaniac, and refusing to eat the meal he has ordered for everybody would be a serious offence for him, and it might cost you your job. You know there are white beans in it, but you hope you have overcome your allergy, so you eat eat. The next day, at the point we would go on this holiday trip, you have your serious diarrhoea, as in the other example. So again, I cry out 'But for God’s sake, where did you eat white beans! You know you are allergic for it!’. You say 'It was in the dish in the cantina yesterday...'. And I react 'But you could have chosen something else!’. Now you say 'No, I could not, there was other meal, I could not have done otherwise'. Of course the threat to lose your job against the risk of having an allergic reaction, you made your choice, and this time I understand: you really could not have done otherwise. You see the difference with the restaurant? In both cases, you are responsible for our holiday falling into the water, but in the first case, with the fact that you had a choice between 10 dishes I justified do not accept your excuse, because you could have done otherwise. In the cantina, with the also for me unacceptable risk that you would lose your job, and only one dish available, you could not have done otherwise. So, take the following interpretation of 'doing otherwise': 1. present tense: I take dish 5, or I can take another dish. 2. past tense: I took dish 5, or I could have taken another dish. 3. past tense, just more general expressed: I took dish 5, but I could have done otherwise. Just refrain from metaphysical interpretations, just see that 2. is the past tense of 1, i.e. I just look back to the moment yesterday, shortly before I ordered my dish. Can you at least see that this is a possible interpretation? I don't ask you to agree with me that that most people mean it like that, I only ask you to see if this is a possible interpretation. Now, my compatibilist position is that this meaning is enough for assigning responsibility. In the case of the cantina I accept what has happened, in the case of the restaurant, I am, justified, totally angry with you. Because you could have done otherwise. In the simple plain meaning of the past tense of 'I can do this, or I can do that'. And because it is enough for assigning responsibiity, it counts as a free act, as an expression of free will. Nobody forced you in the restaurant to take dish 5, but due to the circumstances of the availability of only one dish, you were forced to eat the meal. As you see, if we are determined or not did not even needed mentioning. The only thing we must accept is that there are real options: there are 10 different dishes in the restaurant, something we have not in the cantina. Now, to bring me from this standpoint, you must show that we need this funny libertarian conception of free will 'that we really could have done otherwise' for responsibility (a conception on which we agree that is does not exist), i.e. that my conception of 'could have done otherwise' does not suffice. Beware: I will be angry with you because it is your fault we can't go on holiday! In other words: can you convince me that I do not make you responsible for this, with your excuse 'but I could not have done otherwise...'? As you probably see, this is the second point I raised in the other thread]. To shortly mention the first: can the compatibilist view in free will explain all our feelings of free will?
I am just trying to get you to understand why we have no free will so I can continue. If you cannot show me where he was wrong in stating that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, then you will hopefully allow me to continue using this knowledge as the basis for further investigation. If not, I can't move on.
Well, you will have some trouble to go on then. You lay heavy under two spells of language. The correct way to see them is: 1. That 'could have done otherwise' is just the past tense of 'capable to choose now' 2. That being compelled by your own good reasons is an expression of free will. The first one you share with all people who think that because of determinism free will does not exist. The second one is not that clear to me, because your expression shows more clearly than others the absurdity of the notion that because everything is caused, we have no free will. We have free will: when my actions are caused by my own reasons.
84
It is true that because of my stomach problem, we are unable to go on the trip so it is my responsibility in that sense. That is different than holding me responsible for making the wrong choice when the choice I made is the only choice I could have made at that moment. Maybe I was unaware that there were 10 different dishes to choose from. Maybe I thought I had overcome my allergy to a certain ingredient in the dish and decided to take a chance. Regardless of the reason, the point I'm making is that I could not have chosen otherwise given the pros and cons that determined my choice at the time. I'm sure I feel terrible now that we have had to postpone the trip on my account, so my choice will probably be to eat a different dish next time.
Sorry, but you still do not get the meaning of 'You could have done otherwise' right.
Oh but believe me I do GdB. You are basing your proof on logic, not mathematics. Logic can be valid but very unsound. It doesn't matter what example you give, the outcome always is the same which is why this is an immutable law not something you can change based on an example.
Let's make a second example (a bit absurd, but it will do): yesterday the company you work for had the yearly outing, and to the program belongs a meal in this cantina. Now your boss is quite an egomaniac, and refusing to eat the meal he has ordered for everybody would be a serious offence for him, and it might cost you your job. You know there are white beans in it, but you hope you have overcome your allergy, so you eat eat. The next day, at the point we would go on this holiday trip, you have your serious diarrhoea, as in the other example. So again, I cry out 'But for God’s sake, where did you eat white beans! You know you are allergic for it!’. You say 'It was in the dish in the cantina yesterday...'. And I react 'But you could have chosen something else!’. Now you say 'No, I could not, there was other meal, I could not have done otherwise'. Of course the threat to lose your job against the risk of having an allergic reaction, you made your choice, and this time I understand: you really could not have done otherwise. You see the difference with the restaurant? In both cases, you are responsible for our holiday falling into the water, but in the first case, with the fact that you had a choice between 10 dishes I justified do not accept your excuse, because you could have done otherwise. In the cantina, with the also for me unacceptable risk that you would lose your job, and only one dish available, you could not have done otherwise.
Of course I see the difference but there is no real difference insofar as determinism goes. Regardless of the reason, I chose to do what I did based on what I knew at the time. It is true that I did not have to eat the beans if I had not wanted to given other options, but I wanted to (and in this context you can say "I chose the beans of my own free will"). That is only a qualification, not a truth that you actually did it of your own free will. Your reaction of frustration is also understandable, but to continue to blame me as if I could have done otherwise is a false notion. In both cases I could not have done otherwise even though you think I could have done otherwise in the first example given the options available to me. But you are making a qualitative mistake.
So, take the following interpretation of 'doing otherwise': 1. present tense: I take dish 5, or I can take another dish. 2. past tense: I took dish 5, or I could have taken another dish. 3. past tense, just more general expressed: I took dish 5, but I could have done otherwise. Just refrain from metaphysical interpretations, just see that 2. is the past tense of 1, i.e. I just look back to the moment yesterday, shortly before I ordered my dish. Can you at least see that this is a possible interpretation? I don't ask you to agree with me that that most people mean it like that, I only ask you to see if this is a possible interpretation.
I am not going to agree with what I know is incorrect. Once I took dish 5, I could not have done otherwise, period. You can argue with me until the cows come home but as long as there are slight or large differences in our selection, we are compelled to choose the option that is most meaningful to us.
Now, my compatibilist position is that this meaning is enough for assigning responsibility. In the case of the cantina I accept what has happened, in the case of the restaurant, I am, justified, totally angry with you. Because you could have done otherwise. In the simple plain meaning of the past tense of 'I can do this, or I can do that'. And because it is enough for assigning responsibiity, it counts as a free act, as an expression of free will. Nobody forced you in the restaurant to take dish 5, but due to the circumstances of the availability of only one dish, you were forced to eat the meal. As you see, if we are determined or not did not even needed mentioning. The only thing we must accept is that there are real options: there are 10 different dishes in the restaurant, something we have not in the cantina.
That is completely false GdB. You have not looked deep enough into this issue and are using a very superficial definition of what constitutes moral responsibility.
Now, to bring me from this standpoint, you must show that we need this funny libertarian conception of free will 'that we really could have done otherwise' for responsibility (a conception on which we agree that is does not exist), i.e. that my conception of 'could have done otherwise' does not suffice.
If moral responsibility does not exist, how in the world can we hold someone morally responsible? I am not saying you shouldn't feel angry out of sheer frustration, but you are presupposing that we will always do things that justify blame. You are jumping the gun.
Beware: I will be angry with you because it is your fault we can't go on holiday! In other words: can you convince me that I do not make you responsible for this, with your excuse 'but I could not have done otherwise...'? As you probably see, this is the second point I raised in the other thread].
If man's will is not free (which Lessans demonstrates), then it is imperative to be patient as he extends the corollary to see where it leads us. You are presupposing that people will do things that justify retaliation. This is being premature in your conclusion.
To shortly mention the first: can the compatibilist view in free will explain all our feelings of free will?
Neither libertarian or compatibilist free will are true. The compatibilist view is just another way of trying to justify blame and punishment in a world where blame and punishment are necessary components, but this in no way proves that man actually has free will.
I am just trying to get you to understand why we have no free will so I can continue. If you cannot show me where he was wrong in stating that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, then you will hopefully allow me to continue using this knowledge as the basis for further investigation. If not, I can't move on.
Well, you will have some trouble to go on then. You lay heavy under two spells of language. The correct way to see them is: 1. That 'could have done otherwise' is just the past tense of 'capable to choose now' The first one you share with all people who think that because of determinism free will does not exist.
But free will does not exist. I'm sorry if that bothers you. :-S Before the fact you can choose because that's what options are for. After the fact, you could not have chosen otherwise. There is nothing contradictory about what I'm pointing out.
2. That being compelled by your own good reasons is an expression of free will. The first one you share with all people who think that because of determinism free will does not exist. The second one is not that clear to me, because your expression shows more clearly than others the absurdity of the notion that because everything is caused, we have no free will. We have free will: when my actions are caused by my own reasons.
I am in agreement with you here. Lessans even stated that using the phrase "free will" in this context (which only means "of my own desire" or "for my own reasons") is fine, but this doesn't mean we actually have freedom of the will. It only means we chose something based on our own reasons, which no one is denying. Your question is valid. There is a problem with the word "cause" which indicates that something other than ourselves is forcing us to do what we do against our will, or independent of our reasons for doing what we do. This is false. I will explain this more fully if you are interested.
85
You are basing your proof on logic, not mathematics. Logic can be valid but very unsound.
I let this stand as it is. But I always thought math is logic applied on numbers, space and time.
It is true that I did not have to eat the beans if I had not wanted to given other options, but I wanted to (and in this context you can say "I chose the beans of my own free will"). That is only a qualification, not a truth that you actually did it of your own free will. Your reaction of frustration is also understandable, but to continue to blame me as if I could have done otherwise is a false notion. In both cases I could not have done otherwise even though you think I could have done otherwise in the first example given the options available to me. But you are making a qualitative mistake.
Bold by me. No comment.
I am not going to agree with what I know is incorrect. Once I took dish 5, I could not have done otherwise, period. You can argue with me until the cows come home but as long as there are slight or large differences in our selection, we are compelled to choose the option that is most meaningful to us.
You refuse to see the sentence 'I took dish 5, or I could have taken another dish' as just the past tense of 'I take dish 5, or I can take another dish'?
That is completely false GdB. You have not looked deep enough into this issue and are using a very superficial definition of what constitutes moral responsibility.
No. You make your definition to magic, and then you say that magic does not exist.
If man's will is not free (which Lessans demonstrates), then it is imperative to be patient as he extends the corollary to see where it leads us. You are presupposing that people will do things that justify retaliation. This is being premature in your conclusion.
He, sorry, you, have not demonstrated that compatbilists' conception of free will cannot bear our praxis of praising, blaming and assigning responsibility. You see that there is a clear difference between the situations in the restaurant and in the cantina, but you cannot account for it. You cannot explain why in the first situation I am justified angry with you, but I am not in the second. In the end, in both you are determined.
Neither libertarian or compatibilist free will are true. The compatibilist view is just another way of trying to justify blame and punishment in a world where blame and punishment are necessary components, but this in no way proves that man actually has free will.
There is a difference with responsibility in a compatibilist context or in a libertarian context. A compatibilist notion gives no room to metaphysical, to absolute free will and responsibility, and therefore also not to see punishment as retribution.
But free will does not exist. I'm sorry if that bothers you. :-S
But free will exists. It is just not what you think it is. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
Before the fact you can choose because that's what options are for. After the fact, you could not have chosen otherwise. There is nothing contradictory about what I'm pointing out.
And here you do the context shift again. If I am determined after the fact, then I also was before the fact. So if there was no choice when I look at the fact afterwards, then there was no choice before I chose. The knowledge of what I will choose or what I have chosen plays no role in me being determined. But this is simply inconsistent with the fact that there are real options (10 dishes to choose from).
I am in agreement with you here. Lessans even stated that using the phrase "free will" in this context (which only means "of my own desire" or "for my own reasons") is fine, but this doesn't mean we actually have freedom of the will.
He can state that, but he is wrong. It is exactly all there is to free will, and it is the free will we need for our praxis of praising, blaming and assigning responsibility. I am sorry you do not see that.
There is a problem with the word "cause" which indicates that something other than ourselves is forcing us to do what we do against our will, or independent of our reasons for doing what we do.
The devil? Sorry, when I do something in accordance with my own reasons, then it is an free act; when I do something against my own reasons, but because those of somebody else, then the act is not free. But my own reasons are of course determined by my biology and biography. I assume we agree at least on that.
I will explain this more fully if you are interested.
I am interested, but I am afraid it might be a frustrating experience for you.
86

Interesting discussion between two very smart people. Reminds me of my college philosophy days. But this all strikes me as meaningless until you figure out the Evil Genius argument. Gdb you made this statement: “Sorry, when I do something in accordance with my own reasons, then it is an free act; when I do something against my own reasons, but because those of somebody else, then the act is not free. But my own reasons are of course determined by my biology and biography. I assume we agree at least on that.”
Seems reasonable EXCEPT how do you know from within the system (i.e. the universe and us inside it) that there isn’t something outside the system (or even inside it, but several orders of magnitude more advanced than us) putting those thoughts into your head? So to us it appears that we have reasons and take free actions based on them, but it could very well be just an illusion caused by the “Evil Genius” working the wires so to speak.
ADDITION: I guess I should just finish my thought. The answer is, IMO, that you can’t get around the Evil Genius argument and therefore any discussion about free will and determinism is just that…meaningless talk that SEEMS to make sense but ultimately doesn’t. Very similar to god-talk. Since we can’t from the inside so to speak know if we possess the necessary concepts to discuss the topic, no one can actually define what they mean by god, even though all the talk about it seems to make sense, it really doesn’t. This sucks of course, but so be it.

87
You are basing your proof on logic, not mathematics. Logic can be valid but very unsound.
I let this stand as it is. But I always thought math is logic applied on numbers, space and time. Mathematics to me is more precise than logic. I would not drive on a bridge that was built based on logic. Maybe it's just semantics but Lessans does differentiate between logical thinking and mathematical thinking. Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 5 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’ in order 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 cost. 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 and 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."
It is true that I did not have to eat the beans if I had not wanted to given other options, but I wanted to (and in this context you can say "I chose the beans of my own free will"). That is only a qualification, not a truth that you actually did it of your own free will. Your reaction of frustration is also understandable, but to continue to blame me as if I could have done otherwise is a false notion. In both cases I could not have done otherwise even though you think I could have done otherwise in the first example given the options available to me. But you are making a qualitative mistake.
Bold by me. No comment.
What are you disagreeing with?
I am not going to agree with what I know is incorrect. Once I took dish 5, I could not have done otherwise, period. You can argue with me until the cows come home but as long as there are slight or large differences in our selection, we are compelled to choose the option that is most meaningful to us.
I took dish 5, or I could have taken another dish' as just the past tense of 'I take dish 5, or I can take another dish'?
Let's analyze this a little differently: You said, "I take dish 5". Now that you have said it, could you not say "I take dish 5"? How can you prove that you didn't have to say "I take dish 5" when you cannot reverse time, undo what has already been done, and show that you could have said "I do not want dish 5? This is not proof of determinism but it does show that you cannot prove that you could have done otherwise, which is required to prove free will true.
That is completely false GdB. You have not looked deep enough into this issue and are using a very superficial definition of what constitutes moral responsibility.
No. You make your definition to magic, and then you say that magic does not exist.
What magic?
If man's will is not free (which Lessans demonstrates), then it is imperative to be patient as he extends the corollary to see where it leads us. You are presupposing that people will do things that justify retaliation. This is being premature in your conclusion.
He, sorry, you, have not demonstrated that compatbilists' conception of free will cannot bear our praxis of praising, blaming and assigning responsibility. You see that there is a clear difference between the situations in the restaurant and in the cantina, but you cannot account for it. You cannot explain why in the first situation I am justified angry with you, but I am not in the second. In the end, in both you are determined.
Of course there is a difference between the cantina example which offers no alternate choices, and the restaurant which offers 10 choices. This is a difference in quantity, not quality. I could have 100 different choices, or none at all, but this has nothing to do with the direction my desire is forced to take me. Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 48 To satisfy you I shall put this to a mathematical test for further proof and clarification. Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?
Neither libertarian or compatibilist free will are true. The compatibilist view is just another way of trying to justify blame and punishment in a world where blame and punishment are necessary components, but this in no way proves that man actually has free will.
There is a difference with responsibility in a compatibilist context or in a libertarian context. A compatibilist notion gives no room to metaphysical, to absolute free will and responsibility, and therefore also not to see punishment as retribution.
I am hoping that you will try to follow the author's reasoning as to why blame and punishment are not compatible with determinism. Compatibilists came up with a useful definition of what constitutes blameworthiness, but the truth is free will and determinism are polar opposites. Moreover, threats of blame and punishment do not always bring about the desired effect. What if there's a better way? Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 27 Free will became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and why my discovery was never found.
But free will does not exist. I'm sorry if that bothers you. :-S
But free will exists. It is just not what you think it is. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
That's why defining terms is so important. It is okay to say, "I did it of my own free will" if you mean "I did it because I wanted to" (i.e., there was no external coercion), but this does not mean will is actually free.
Before the fact you can choose because that's what options are for. After the fact, you could not have chosen otherwise. There is nothing contradictory about what I'm pointing out.
And here you do the context shift again. If I am determined after the fact, then I also was before the fact. So if there was no choice when I look at the fact afterwards, then there was no choice before I chose. The knowledge of what I will choose or what I have chosen plays no role in me being determined. But this is simply inconsistent with the fact that there are
If will is not free then it is obvious all of our actions are determined. Choosing is part and parcel of the contemplation process that all human beings endow, but that in itself does not grant us free will which is causing a lot of confusion in the free will/determinism debate. p. 49 The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.
88
This depends upon how you define free will.
My definition is Liberterianism. From the wiki here]
Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics. In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position, argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.
Strict determinism implies there is no degree of freedom, hence no free will per se.
The biggest problem in this debate, or at least a big problem is there is an insistence that free will means only one thing. Clearly it doesn't clearly it's used to mean more than one thing.
It is possible to have compatibilist free will with adequate macro determinism.
So compatibilists and incompatibilists who disbelieve in free will basically agree, whilst appearing not to.
Agree on what?
The problem with determinism is that to behave differently we'd need a different (distant) past. So to have the sort of free will you believe in we'd have to control the past, which is why you say if determinism holds there is no free will, would you agree with that?
Not quite so. 1. Causal determinism is highly problematic beyond a few steps. 2. If strict determinism is false, we are not shackled to it. 3. This is the free will worth having.
89
I asked you to tell me why man's will is not free, according to Lessans. You said you listened to the first chapter and there was nothing revealed. That is totally false and makes me realize that either you don't want to hear what he has to say because you want to believe free will exists, or it went over your head completely.
Free will exist. End of story. The audio of Chapter 1 (which took 47min.), was boring and revealed nothing of interest except for the author's insistence that there is no free will. It was a waste of my time.
What kind of events are undetermined? Just because an event feels random doesn't mean there isn't a cause. This is gobbledygook.
Obviously, you don't understand that there are uncaused/undetermined events.
Of course it can't. There is no such thing.
There is libertarian free will, but you have closed your mind to it.
That is the whole point of compatibilism; to try to hold onto moral responsibility in a determined world. It can't be done, yet they are trying to make it all fit without there being any contradiction. But their logic is false. No matter how they try it doesn't add up because determinism and freedom of the will (I am not talking about other types of freedom so defining the words are necessary in order to have a basis for communication) are mutually exclusive concepts.
The Cognito model is libertarian, not compatibilist free will.
How does this negate determinism? Philosophy is a process. So what! Thinking is a process. So what!
Processes are never deterministic.
When we throw dice it is impossible to know how it's going to land so we call it random. But there are laws behind the apparent randomness and it is arrogant to think that just because man can't figure out the cause of certain micro phenomena, that his conclusions about indeterminism must be correct.
Quantum processes are uncaused/undetermined.
90
It is possible to have compatibilist free will with adequate macro determinism.
No it isn't. Not if everybody is being sensible. That gives us alternative future we can get to from the past as it was which is indeterminism.
So compatibilists and incompatibilists who disbelieve in free will basically agree, whilst appearing not to.
Agree on what?
That we have free will as the compatibilist defines it. The objection is "but that's not free will, semantics.
2. If strict determinism is false, we are not shackled to it. 3. This is the free will worth having.
This doesn't tell me why. If determinism is true the past would have to have been different for us to make different choices. So we're shackled to the past. But what's the problem with that? Isn't it that we didn't choose our (distant ) pasts?
91
You just gave yourself away. You could not have studied or even skimmed the first chapter.
Don't presume that I did not read or heard the first chapter.
92
No it isn't. Not if everybody is being sensible. That gives us alternative future we can get to from the past as it was which is indeterminism.
Then, what are the criteria for compatibilist free will? And what do you mean by "not if everybody is being sensible"?
That we have free will as the compatibilist defines it. The objection is "but that's not free will, semantics.
Kindly explain why wrt the semantics. BTW you wrote disbelieve free will.
This doesn't tell me why. If determinism is true the past would have to have been different for us to make different choices. So we're shackled to the past.
We don't need an explanation for free will per se if processes are fundamental in the universe and processes are never deterministic. Consequently, free will is essential and inherent to the universe.
But what's the problem with that? Isn't it that we didn't choose our (distant ) pasts?
No doubt we didn't choose our (distant) past but that does not imply we are shackled by it.
93
Then, what are the criteria for compatibilist free will?
It depends upon how the compatibilist defines it. The starting point is we are free to do what we want.
And what do you mean by "not if everybody is being sensible"?
It's not sensible to lump adequate determinism in with determinism because the whole point is to see what freedom we have if there is one physically possible future we can get to from the past as it was and what freedom if any we lack.
Kindly explain why wrt the semantics.
What I mean is an incompatibilist disbeliever and a compatibilist can agree completely and just be defining free will differently. For example GdB and peacegirl are in quite close agreement but there is a semantic difference over CHDO. It's making it look like they disagree in a way that they don't.
No doubt we didn't choose our (distant) past but that does not imply we are shackled by it.
The point is what if we could only behave differently if the distant past were different, what's the problem with that, why would it take away our free will? I'm suggesting it's because we don't choose our distant past. What else could the answer be? What is your answer?
94

peacgirl,
This might help, which is what I’d like to do since you’re right that the myth of libertarian free will is harmful and that’s what you really want to talk about.
CHDO.
What GdB means is assuming determinism you had to select the option you did with your distant past as it was and the laws of nature as they are. So he’s agreeing with you.
But he’s saying there is another sense in which you did not have to meaning the same laws of nature in conjunction with different pasts would have produced different choices. Also different laws of nature would produce different future but he’s only concerned with the physically possible, so we can leave that aside.
So it’s just if you had evaluated the options differently which you would have done if the causal antecedents of the choice had been different you would have done otherwise.
If you agree with that, you are in complete agreement over CHDO really and you can hopefully move on.

95
I asked you to tell me why man's will is not free, according to Lessans. You said you listened to the first chapter and there was nothing revealed. That is totally false and makes me realize that either you don't want to hear what he has to say because you want to believe free will exists, or it went over your head completely.
Free will exist. End of story. The audio of Chapter 1 (which took 47min.), was boring and revealed nothing of interest except for the author's insistence that there is no free will. It was a waste of my time. Really? Then tell me what it was about? It's amazing to me that no one can answer this adequately yet their defensiveness immediately steps in to defend their indefensible position. I guarantee you have no conception of what his proof of determinism was.
What kind of events are undetermined? Just because an event feels random doesn't mean there isn't a cause. This is gobbledygook.
Obviously, you don't understand that there are uncaused/undetermined events.
Just because we cannot determine what the conditions were that caused a particular event does not mean it was uncaused. Quantum physics does not disprove Lessans' claim that we have no free will.
Of course it can't. There is no such thing.
There is libertarian free will, but you have closed your mind to it.
You can say that I close my mind to 1+1=3 also. Yes I do because I know that 1+1=2.
That is the whole point of compatibilism; to try to hold onto moral responsibility in a determined world. It can't be done, yet they are trying to make it all fit without there being any contradiction. But their logic is false. No matter how they try it doesn't add up because determinism and freedom of the will (I am not talking about other types of freedom so defining the words are necessary in order to have a basis for communication) are mutually exclusive concepts.
The Cognito model is libertarian, not compatibilist free will.
Stick with your illusion. I don't want to be the one responsible for challenging it.
How does this negate determinism? Philosophy is a process. So what! Thinking is a process. So what!
Processes are never deterministic.
You obviously understood nothing about this first chapter. You were too involved in defending your position to grasp anything he said. Your dukes are up ready to attack. Not good for a genuine scientific investigation.
When we throw dice it is impossible to know how it's going to land so we call it random. But there are laws behind the apparent randomness and it is arrogant to think that just because man can't figure out the cause of certain micro phenomena, that his conclusions about indeterminism must be correct.
Quantum processes are uncaused/undetermined.
Undetermined by our standards, but it is quite egotistical to assume that just because we don't know the cause, that these outcomes have no cause whatsoever. I have no desire to argue with you. Believe what you feel is right and let it rest. :-)
96
peacgirl, This might help, which is what I'd like to do since you're right that the myth of libertarian free will is harmful and that's what you really want to talk about. CHDO. What GdB means is assuming determinism you had to select the option you did with your distant past as it was and the laws of nature as they are. So he's agreeing with you.
Wait! Before I even read the rest of this post, where is there any free will (libertarian or compatibilist) if we had to select the option of our choice. Please respond.
But he's saying there is another sense in which you did not have to meaning the same laws of nature in conjunction with different pasts would have produced different choices.
Theoretically anything is possible, but I'm not talking theory. I'm talking reality.
Also different laws of nature would produce different future but he's only concerned with the physically possible, so we can leave that aside.
Regardless of what is physically possible (i.e., it is possible that I could choose a hamburger over fish) does not mean that, in reality, I could have done this once I chose the hamburger. The fact that we cannot predict what a person will choose does not negate the fact that he must choose what gives him greater satisfaction. If you want to defend your argument, prove to me that under the same exact conditions a person could have chosen otherwise, which everyone seems to be conveniently overlooking.
So it's just if you had evaluated the options differently which you would have done if the causal antecedents of the choice had been different you would have done otherwise. If you agree with that, you are in complete agreement over CHDO really and you can hopefully move on.
That is what I was trying to say. That if there was anything different in the chain of events that drove one to choose what he did, then we could say his will was free to choose otherwise. But this is impossible given the same exact situation he was faced with, along with his predispositions, environment, experiences, and so on.
97
Mathematics to me is more precise than logic.
Then you do not know what logic is.
I would not drive on a bridge that was built based on logic. Maybe it's just semantics but Lessans does differentiate between logical thinking and mathematical thinking.
There is nearly no difference in the thinking, there are only differences in the subject.
Logic is the use and study of valid reasoning.
You do not trust valid reasoning?
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’ in order to be exact and scientific.
What can I say? You think that somebody who writes such lines will be heard by people who think seriously? These are all symptoms of crackpotism. Do not cite your father again, or call him as authoritative witness. If his ideas are valuable, then show me here. But I think you chances are small.
It is true that I did not have to eat the beans if I had not wanted to given other options, but I wanted to (and in this context you can say "I chose the beans of my own free will"). That is only a qualification, not a truth that you actually did it of your own free will. Your reaction of frustration is also understandable, but to continue to blame me as if I could have done otherwise is a false notion. In both cases I could not have done otherwise even though you think I could have done otherwise in the first example given the options available to me. But you are making a qualitative mistake.
Bold by me. No comment.
What are you disagreeing with?
The 2 bold sentences contradict each other.
Let's analyze this a little differently: You said, "I take dish 5". Now that you have said it, could you not say "I take dish 5"? How can you prove that you didn't have to say "I take dish 5" when you cannot reverse time, undo what has already been done, and show that you could have said "I do not want dish 5? This is not proof of determinism but it does show that you cannot prove that you could have done otherwise, which is required to prove free will true.
I don't need that proof, because I state that having 10 options is just as true before the choice, as it was true in the past. But of course the past cannot be undone, but that is not necessary. (And btw, it is also true when the world would not be determined. What has happened has happened, and that is also true for chance processes.) And that I had 10 options is just as true as there was, for you in that situation in the cantina, no other option. In one I could have done otherwise, in the other I could not.
No. You make your definition to magic, and then you say that magic does not exist.
What magic?
Libertarian free will is magic. Instead of taking a definition of free will that fits to determinism, you take a magical definition, suppose that only this magical definition supports our present praxis of blaming, praising and assigning responsibility, and then say that magic is unscientific (ehh..., unmathematical?).
Of course there is a difference between the cantina example which offers no alternate choices, and the restaurant which offers 10 choices. This is a difference in quantity, not quality.
No, it is the difference between having no choice, or having one, of could not have done otherwise, or not. See my anger about your eating white beans.
I am hoping that you will try to follow the author's reasoning as to why blame and punishment are not compatible with determinism.
No, I will not, because it is not true. You think that my anger about the white beans is unjustified in both situations? You really think that your excuse 'but I could not have done otherwise' works the same in both situations to temper my anger? If not, why not?
IMoreover, threats of blame and punishment do not always bring about the desired effect.
That is fully true. But that is what science can examine. I just want to leave this point (as we obviously agree here). I only want to note that the countries I know pretty well (Netherlands and Switzerland) are much farther in this respect than the USA.
That's why defining terms is so important. It is okay to say, "I did it of my own free will" if you mean "I did it because I wanted to" (i.e., there was no external coercion), but this does not mean will is actually free.
That’s the whole point. It is an illusion that free will is more than that, and it is an illusion that this notion of free will is not enough to support our praxis of blaming, praising and assigning responsibility. Sorry, peacegirl, I really think you are spoiling your time. Not just here, but with trying to get your father's work known. I regret that you already invested so much time, because it makes it emotionally more difficult to stop. But the earlier you stop, the better for you: so you can give more time to other activities, or study other philosophers. I assume your father was a good-willing and lovable man, and his drive to get humanity out of his miserable position is beautiful. But it just doesn't work, because it is based on too much erroneous thinking. It was not even possible to get beyond the basics with you.
98
It is possible to have compatibilist free will with adequate macro determinism.
No it isn't. :question: Now for one time kkwan writes something that is true, and you deny it? Of course he should have formulated better, that without adequate determinism, free will would be impossible.
99
For example GdB and peacegirl are in quite close agreement but there is a semantic difference over CHDO. It's making it look like they disagree in a way that they don't.
We do not disagree about the fact that we are, for all practical purposes, determined. But we do not agree that 'could have done otherwise' means 'under exactly the same conditions, with every atom on the same place, one could have done otherwise'. First, we all agree that under determinism, this is simply impossible. Exact the same conditions lead to exactly the same results. 'Could have done otherwise' just means that there were real options you had when you choose. It seems to me you also live under this confusion: you also think CHDO means 'under exactly the same circumstances'. That's why you think that the past should have been differently to have done something else. So you are under the same semantic spell as peacegirl.
100
Mathematics to me is more precise than logic.
Then you do not know what logic is.
Yes I do, do you?
I would not drive on a bridge that was built based on logic. Maybe it's just semantics but Lessans does differentiate between logical thinking and mathematical thinking.
There is nearly no difference in the thinking, there are only differences in the subject.
Logic is the use and study of valid reasoning.
Isn't that what I said?
You do not trust valid reasoning?[/qutoe] I trust sound reasoning, and your reasoning is not sound.
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’ in order to be exact and scientific.
What can I say? You think that somebody who writes such lines will be heard by people who think seriously? These are all symptoms of crackpotism. Do not cite your father again, or call him as authoritative witness. If his ideas are valuable, then show me here. But I think you chances are small.
He is absolutely spot on, and I have every right to cite his work. You are very defensive GdB. You are not looking to learn the truth but to be right at all costs. I can't talk to a person who is this resistant because there is no good to come out of it except to name call, as you're doing. I will call him an authoritative witness because that's what he was. Thanks for the term.
It is true that I did not have to eat the beans if I had not wanted to given other options, but I wanted to (and in this context you can say "I chose the beans of my own free will"). That is only a qualification, not a truth that you actually did it of your own free will. Your reaction of frustration is also understandable, but to continue to blame me as if I could have done otherwise is a false notion. In both cases I could not have done otherwise even though you think I could have done otherwise in the first example given the options available to me. But you are making a qualitative mistake.
Bold by me. No comment.
What are you disagreeing with?
The 2 bold sentences contradict each other.
Your reasoning is getting more and more scrambled.
Let's analyze this a little differently: You said, "I take dish 5". Now that you have said it, could you not say "I take dish 5"? How can you prove that you didn't have to say "I take dish 5" when you cannot reverse time, undo what has already been done, and show that you could have said "I do not want dish 5? This is not proof of determinism but it does show that you cannot prove that you could have done otherwise, which is required to prove free will true.
I don't need that proof, because I state that having 10 options is just as true before the choice, as it was true in the past. But of course the past cannot be undone, but that is not necessary.
Of course it is necessary to prove conclusively that you could have done otherwise, otherwise you have no leg to stand on. Proof is beyond your reach as you can go in a time machine back to the exact situation to prove that given the same exact situation a person could have chosen any of the other 10 options.
(And btw, it is also true when the world would not be determined. What has happened has happened, and that is also true for chance processes.) And that I had 10 options is just as true as there was, for you in that situation in the cantina, no other option. In one I could have done otherwise, in the other I could not.
Absolutely 100% false. He was so clear about this but you refuse to listen because you don't want to. It gives you greater satisfaction to believe that you had a certain amount of free will so you can justify blaming those whom you believe could have done otherwise. You have completely failed to understand the principle of "greater satisfaction". Amazing how people can be in total denial even when the truth is staring them right in the face.
No. You make your definition to magic, and then you say that magic does not exist.
What magic?
Libertarian free will is magic.
So is compatibilism. It offers a definition that has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
Instead of taking a definition of free will that fits to determinism, you take a magical definition, suppose that only this magical definition supports our present praxis of blaming, praising and assigning responsibility, and then say that magic is unscientific (ehh..., unmathematical?).
It is completely unscientific. I don't even use a definition. This is an observation that cannot be disproved.
Of course there is a difference between the cantina example which offers no alternate choices, and the restaurant which offers 10 choices. This is a difference in quantity, not quality.
No, it is the difference between having no choice, or having one, of could not have done otherwise, or not. See my anger about your eating white beans.
How many choices we have has nothing to do with the fact that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction GIVEN THE CHOICES AT OUR DISPOSAL.
I am hoping that you will try to follow the author's reasoning as to why blame and punishment are not compatible with determinism.
No, I will not, because it is not true. You think that my anger about the white beans is unjustified in both situations? You really think that your excuse 'but I could not have done otherwise' works the same in both situations to temper my anger? If not, why not?
I told you why not. Scroll back. Whether we have one choice or 100 choices, it doesn't change the direction we are compelled to go GIVEN THE CHOICES THAT WE ARE CONTEMPLATING. This does not mean that I wouldn't rather have 100 choices to pick from than 2, but this is irrelevant to the science behind his observation.
IMoreover, threats of blame and punishment do not always bring about the desired effect.
That is fully true. But that is what science can examine. I just want to leave this point (as we obviously agree here). I only want to note that the countries I know pretty well (Netherlands and Switzerland) are much farther in this respect than the USA.
Well there you go; the US is behind the eight ball in this respect. In time, Lessans' observations will be confirmed valid and when that happens will be well on our way toward global peace. These other countries give a little bit of credence to what he is saying.
That's why defining terms is so important. It is okay to say, "I did it of my own free will" if you mean "I did it because I wanted to" (i.e., there was no external coercion), but this does not mean will is actually free.
That’s the whole point. It is an illusion that free will is more than that, and it is an illusion that this notion of free will is not enough to support our praxis of blaming, praising and assigning responsibility.
It most certainly is an illusion that the compatibilist notion of free will is enough to support (intellectually, not practically, because we all know that blame and punishment are the only deterrent we have at this moment in time) our praxis of blaming, praising and assigning responsibility. This is obviously a very sensitive subject and until you're willing to listen to the rest, you will hold onto your belief that the compatibilist notion of free will reconciles these two opposing ideologies without there being any contradiction.
Sorry, peacegirl, I really think you are spoiling your time. Not just here, but with trying to get your father's work known.
Oh my goodness, who are you to say something like this? You have not even read the book. Unfortunately, you are not an exception. I have found more and more people like you than not; people who refuse to let go of their worldview even temporarily to give this knowledge a fair and balanced review. You have done no such thing.
I regret that you already invested so much time, because it makes it emotionally more difficult to stop. But the earlier you stop, the better for you: so you can give more time to other activities, or study other philosophers. I assume your father was a good-willing and lovable man, and his drive to get humanity out of his miserable position is beautiful. But it just doesn't work, because it is based on too much erroneous thinking. It was not even possible to get beyond the basics with you.
I am laughing right now. You don't even know what his discovery is, yet you have the gumption to tell me to give up? If I didn't have the confidence that I have in this knowledge I may have thrown in the towel by listening to you. It's not like I expected this knowledge to be embraced right off the bat, but I did expect a little more investigation. 8-/ I'm really surprised at the lack of depth many people display. We don't have to talk anymore. If others are interested I will stick around. If not, I will not waste my time here.