A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

you just proved my point, not your own, but you seem not to have noticed. Hence something can be caused in the present that does not exist anymore.

A fire can start, spread, and the original source of the fire be put out but the other fires still remain. A river could dry up and its tributaries could still flow with water, at least for awhile. It is a fact that past events influence our decisions Vivisectus. Defense lawyers often use this strategy in court by claiming that it was the drugs that caused him to kill without his knowledge or consent, but in reality nothing can cause someone to do anything without his consent (even though drugs could make it easier for someone who already wants to hurt another to do what he wouldn't otherwise do). Please hold onto that thought or we can't move forward.

Originally Posted by vivisectus

2: Memories, which are caused by events that are in the past, but can nevertheless cause us to make certain decisions.

As I said before, there is a subtle distinction between the standard definition and Lessans' definition. Our experiences, memories, perceptions, feelings, what happened two minutes ago --- along with our genetic predisposition --- arouse our desire to move in a particular direction. We are compelled, by our nature, to choose that which we believe is the best choice under the circumstances (even if it doesn't look this way to others) based on all of these factors. But we can't say that these things caused us to kill someone, for example, because nothing (not heredity or environment) can make us or cause us to hurt anyone if we don't want to, for over this we have mathematical control. If that were true, people could very easily use the excuse that they couldn't help themselves because they were caused to do what they did, even if they didn't want to. This is inaccurate, and it's no wonder this line of thinking is rejected. Lessans is only clarifying one small, but major, point, which has become the source of all the confusion.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What an enormous pile of waffle again. In it, you say

That is a true statement.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which is the same as saying that past experiences cause memories which in turn cause us to make decisions. Hence past events can indeed be the cause of present choices.

But there is an important distinction, which I've been repeating for days now. If you say something caused you to do something, it implies that you did it not because you wanted to, but because it made you do it. But nothing can make you do something if you don't want to. These two opposing principles are not contradictory. And they are important for the understanding of his discovery.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You then continue with

Which merely states "and the way in which these past experiences influence our present choices is called a desire". And a ludicrous claim about "mathematical control".

Where does "control" come into this? Our desire is under a compulsion to move in the direction of "greater" satisfaction, which is why will is not free. We have no control over this, but we do have absolute control over the fact that nothing can make us do to another what we make up our mind not to do.

That's why the present determinism is causing confusion, for it implies that if will is not free, that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions, but this is not true. We could then use the excuse that our bad childhood, our bad genes, etc. was responsible, which allows one to shift what is his responsibility. Don't you see now that nothing on this earth can cause us to do what we don't want to do, so when someone says my genes made me do it, or my past made me do it, they are not being honest with themselves.

I never said we are not influenced by things that happened beforehand. We obviously are. All I'm saying (and this is a very subtle, but important, distinction) is that we are experiencing those things in the present. If I get hit by a tsunami, I am feeling the effects now, not yesterday or tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then things that do not exist any more can be causes in the present. Which you denied when you said "the past does not exist any more, how can it cause me to do anything?"

Using the word past in regard to determinism is causing a serious problem in philosophy. What happened a minute ago is no longer here. That doesn't mean we don't remember different experiences that will contniue to influence our present day choices. I will repeat: You can't say the past causes the present because it can be used as an excuse to justify sub-optimal choices by saying my past made me do this against my will, when nothing has the power to cause you to do anything if you don't want to do it. If you don't get this straight in your mind, we won't be able to make headway because these two principles; that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and that nothing can make someone do anything against his will (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink), are the foundation of his discovery.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again, very simple examples are sufficient to completely derail your point: it really does not seem to have been carefully thought through. If I am wrong, I would be delighted to listen to your explanation why, but so far you have merely dogmatically repeated THAT it is so, without explaining why my examples are mistaken.

I have tried to explain it. Many thinkers (not just Lessans) have recognized that all we have is the present. Sam Harris for one. This is not a secret Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I doubt Harris agrees with you, but that is neither here nor there. The point remains: the past can indeed be the cause of events in the present: you are now pretending you never denied this yourself. It is the same for decisions. If this is not the case, you must feel memory does not influence decisions. You have once again avoided this point (or tried to) by throwing up enormous piles of waffle.

I am not waffling. I am being as clear as possible.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Tell me: if I told you yesterday that the red berries are poisonous, will that make you treat them differently than if I had not told you?

If the answer is yes, then past events can cause present ones through a chain of causation. If no, then you are saying that you would have taken the same action regarding the berries whether you remembered me telling you or not.

Past events that have an impact on us are remembered and are taken into account when making decisions, as we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. The reason this distinction is important is because it impacts moral responsibility.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never reached that point in the discussion except for Spacemonkey's accusation that Lessans is making unsupported assertions in regard to conscience, which is simply not true.

And yet you can't support his assertions about conscience when asked. You can only assert that they are supported when they are not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look - don't take my word for it. Go to the philosophers forum. There you have your leading experts who can validate this knowledge. Send them the first two chapters and see what they say. They will tell you the same thing you have been told here: I absolutely guarantee it. But you already know this: that is why you don't do it. Safer to argue in here, where you will at least get attention. It is better than nothing, and you get to feel like you are the defender of Truth.

The rest of the world just thinks of you as a crazy lady with a dead fool's book. Always have, always will.

QFT.

Why are you still posting here, Peacegirl? Have you worked that out yet? Do you think you are making some kind of progress?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you can't support his assertions about conscience when asked. You can only assert that they are supported when they are not.

If you follow his observations and reasoning to its conclusion, you will see that conscience will not permit actions that cannot be justified. Under the changed conditions, choices that hurt others cannot be justified because the justification has been removed, therefore, these actions are prevented from occurring.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

QFT.

Why are you still posting here, Peacegirl? Have you worked that out yet? Do you think you are making some kind of progress?

And yet you sit here for hours reading my every word. You are a contradiction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is an important distinction, which I've been repeating for days now. If you say something caused you to do something, it implies that you did it not because you wanted to, but because it made you do it.

And we've been explaining for days that this is wrong. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. Both you and Lessans are wrong about this alleged implication.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you follow his observations and reasoning to its conclusion, you will see that conscience will not permit actions that cannot be justified. Under the changed conditions, choices that hurt others cannot be justified because the justification has been removed, therefore, these actions are prevented from occurring.

More bullshit. You still aren't even trying to support his claim about justification and conscience under his changed conditions. All you have is your faith-claim that the support is there if I go looking for it. Show me some support for your claim that "Under the changed conditions it will be impossible to find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow without justification". You can't support this claim because Lessans never supported it, and you have merely accepted it on faith.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And yet you sit here for hours reading my every word. You are a contradiction.

More evasion. Why do you always run from this question, Peacegirl? Why are you still posting here? Have you worked that out yet? Do you think you are making some kind of progress?

[Vivisectus]

A fire can start, spread, and the original source of the fire be put out but the other fires still remain. A river could dry up and its tributaries could still flow with water, at least for awhile. It is a fact that past events influence our decisions Vivisectus. In a courtroom, someone could say that drugs caused to do what they did without their consent, but in reality nothing can cause them to do something without their consent. Please hold onto that thought or we can't move forward.

Wow - none of that made sense, unless as more examples of the past causing the present. You just have a problem admitting you made a mistake, haven't you?

Originally Posted by vivisectus

2: Memories, which are caused by events that are in the past, but can nevertheless cause us to make certain decisions.

[quote="Vivisectus"]What an enormous pile of waffle again. In it, you say

Our experiences, memories, perceptions, feelings, what happened two minutes ago --- along with our genetic predisposition --- arouse our desire to move in a particular direction.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which is the same as saying that past experiences cause memories which in turn cause us to make decisions. Hence past events can indeed be the cause of present choices.

But there is an important distinction, which I've been repeating for days now. If you say something caused you to do something, it implies that you did it not because you wanted to, but because it made you do it. But nothing can make you do something if you don't want to. These two opposing principles are not contradictory. And they are important for the understanding of his discovery.

The fact remains - and now you have done a 180 and admit it! - that events in the past DO cause decisions in the present.

Where does "control" come into this?

You brought it up, but you seem to have forgotten this. This whole thing where the past does not influence the present really seems to be true about you.

Our desire is forced is under a compulsion, each and every moment, to move in the direction of "greater" satisfaction, which is why will is not free. We have no control over this, but we do have absolute control over the fact that nothing can make us do to another what we make up our mind not to do.

That is just a different way of saying "the past causes us to do things by creating a desire"

Which is what you are arguing against. *sigh*. Honestly.

That's why the present determinism is causing confusion, for it implies that if will is not free, that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions, but this is not true. We could then use the excuse that our bad childhood, our bad genes, etc. was responsible, which allows one to shift what is his responsibility. Don't you see now that nothing on this earth can cause us to do what we don't want to do, so when someone says my genes made me do it, or my past made me do it, they are not being honest with themselves.

You are again mixing what IS with what Ought. Interesting: in many ways you really are about 150 years behind the times.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then things that do not exist any more can be causes in the present. Which you denied when you said "the past does not exist any more, how can it cause me to do anything?"

Using the word past in regard to determinism is causing a serious problem in philosophy.

Not really.

What happened a minute ago is no longer here. That doesn't mean we don't remember different experiences that will contniue to influence our present day choices.

Thus: past events can be causes.

I will repeat: You can't say the past causes the present because it can be used as an excuse to justify sub-optimal choices by saying my past made me do this against my will, when nothing has the power to cause you to do anything if you don't want to do it.

You claim that but there is no reason to assume this is correct.

If you don't get this straight in your mind, we won't be able to make headway because these two principles; that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and that nothing can make someone do anything against his will (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink), are the foundation of his discovery.

Another way of saying " if you do not agree, you wont agree!"

I am not waffling. I am being as clear as possible.

I realize that you may not be mentally capable of escaping your delusion.

Past events that have an impact on us are remembered and are taken into account when making decisions

How is that different from causing a decision?

, as we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. The reason this distinction is important is because it impacts moral responsibility.

Moral responsibility does not make determinism more or less true, as you have already admitted.

Honestly. This is like trying to play a game with a concussed person who cannot remember the rules. Either concede when you have to or stop pretending you are in a rational debate.

This is the core problem for both you and your father: you are trying to engage in something you do not really understand. You just make the right noises, repeat words that sound nice. But neither of you are prepared to do the work, to really study what you are making all these claims about.

Why have you not studied TLR's explanation of sight? Why did your father never examine the properties of light and sight? Why is there no reason to believe that conscience works the way he said?

The answer is: because neither you nor your father were interested in the truth. You just want confirmation of your beliefs.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The answer is: because neither you nor your father were interested in the truth. You just want confirmation of your beliefs.

And the very sad thing about all this is that peacegirl is far too ill to realize she will never get her confirmation here. Or pretty much anywhere else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And we've been explaining for days that this is wrong. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. Both you and Lessans are wrong about this alleged implication.

No, he is not wrong. This is one of the stumbling blocks that philosophers see as a problem and they have not been able to resolve it. This is not something Lessans made up. If we followed the reasoning of determinism the way it is presently defined, people could use the excuse in a court of law that they were caused to kill that person even though they didn't want to do it.

[peacegirl]

A fire can start, spread, and the original source of the fire be put out but the other fires still remain. A river could dry up and its tributaries could still flow with water, at least for awhile. It is a fact that past events influence our decisions Vivisectus. In a courtroom, someone could say that drugs caused to do what they did without their consent, but in reality nothing can cause them to do something without their consent. Please hold onto that thought or we can't move forward.

Wow - none of that made sense, unless as more examples of the past causing the present. You just have a problem admitting you made a mistake, haven't you?

Originally Posted by vivisectus

2: Memories, which are caused by events that are in the past, but can nevertheless cause us to make certain decisions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What an enormous pile of waffle again. In it, you say

The fact remains - and now you have done a 180 and admit it! - that events in the past DO cause decisions in the present.

You brought it up, but you seem to have forgotten this. This whole thing where the past does not influence the present really seems to be true about you.

That is just a different way of saying "the past causes us to do things by creating a desire"

Which is what you are arguing against. *sigh*. Honestly.

You are again mixing what IS with what Ought. Interesting: in many ways you really are about 150 years behind the times.

Not really.

Thus: past events can be causes.

You claim that but there is no reason to assume this is correct.

Another way of saying " if you do not agree, you wont agree!"

I realize that you may not be mentally capable of escaping your delusion.

How is that different from causing a decision?

Moral responsibility does not make determinism more or less true, as you have already admitted.

Honestly. This is like trying to play a game with a concussed person who cannot remember the rules. Either concede when you have to or stop pretending you are in a rational debate.

This is the core problem for both you and your father: you are trying to engage in something you do not really understand. You just make the right noises, repeat words that sound nice. But neither of you are prepared to do the work, to really study what you are making all these claims about.

Why have you not studied TLR's explanation of sight? Why did your father never examine the properties of light and sight? Why is there no reason to believe that conscience works the way he said?

The answer is: because neither you nor your father were interested in the truth. You just want confirmation of your beliefs.

I'm not answering this post Vivisectus. You're beginning to get nasty and you get like this when you aren't winning the debate so you resort to name calling like everyone else in here. It's extremely underhanded, and I won't put up with it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

[I]Honestly. This is like trying to play a game with a concussed person who cannot remember the rules. Either concede when you have to or stop pretending you are in a rational debate.

I am in a rational debate and you know it. Please stop posting to me today. I will not answer you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he is not wrong.

Yes he is. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. Both you and Lessans are wrong about this alleged implication.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am in a rational debate and you know it.

No, you're not. You are deluding yourself if you think anything you've been doing is even remotely rational.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop posting to me today. I will not answer you.

Instead of posting only to refuse to answer posts, why don't you just stop posting here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More bullshit. You still aren't even trying to support his claim about justification and conscience under his changed conditions. All you have is your faith-claim that the support is there if I go looking for it. Show me some support for your claim that "Under the changed conditions it will be impossible to find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow without justification". You can't support this claim because Lessans never supported it, and you have merely accepted it on faith.

More evasion. Why do you always run from this question, Peacegirl? Why are you still posting here? Have you worked that out yet? Do you think you are making some kind of progress?

<skip>

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you're not. You are deluding yourself if you think anything you've been doing is even remotely rational.

Instead of posting only to refuse to answer posts, why don't you just stop posting here?

I think I will take you up on that request. If no one comes forward to say they are interested and want me to be here, I will leave.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

<skip>

Again, why bother posting when all you're doing is refusing to address posts?

Why are you still here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes he is. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. Both you and Lessans are wrong about this alleged implication.

No, you are wrong Spacemonkey. If something is caused by a previous circumstance, the implication could be devastating to this position if someone uses it as an excuse for what he did because he could always say, "My will is not free to have done otherwise. I was caused to do what I did by previous circumstances." This conflicts with the absolute fact that nothing in this world can cause us do what we make up our minds not to do, for over this we have absolute control. This is a major problem that has caused a stumbling block in the free will/determinism debate. Nevermind, you don't want me to be here. I wonder if anyone else does. I'll know shortly.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I will take you up on that request. If no one comes forward to say they are interested and want me to be here, I will leave.

And after you leave, how long will it be before you come back here claiming only to be updating us on your progress, before immediately restarting the conversation again?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, why bother posting when all you're doing is refusing to address posts?

Why are you still here?

Are you kidding me? I have spent hours and hours answering questions, and you have the nerve to tell me I refuse to answer posts? You're out the door Spacemonkey.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And after you leave, how long will it be before you come back here claiming only to be updating us on your progress, before immediately restarting the conversation again?

May a day, maybe a year, maybe never.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you are wrong Spacemonkey. If something is caused by a previous circumstance, the implication could be devastating to this position if someone uses it as an excuse for what he did because he could always say, "My will is not free to have done otherwise. I was caused to do what I did by previous circumstances, which conflicts with the absolute fact that nothing in this world can cause you do what you make up your mind not to do. This is the glitch that has caused a major stumbling block in the free will/determinism debate. Nevermind, you don't want me to be here. I wonder if anyone else does.

Sorry, but you are still wrong. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. Being caused to do something by previous circumstances does not mean you have been caused to do something you had made up your mind not to do.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

May a day, maybe a year, or maybe never.

You really don't know, do you? You have no idea how long it will be before you forget why you had left, or that you have already returned several times before, or just become so starved for Lessans-centered attention that even returning here will be preferable to having no-one to talk to about him.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding me? I have spent hours and hours answering questions...

You've spent months and months avoiding questions...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and you have the nerve to tell me I refuse to answer posts? You're out the door Spacemonkey.

You really are clueless. You've completely skipped my posts twice, and you just refused to answer Vivisectus. That's three times you've posted only to tell us you're refusing to answer a post.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, why bother posting when all you're doing is refusing to address posts?

Why are you still here?

LOL, quoting a post only to reply with skip is the oddest thing I've seen in a while. It's such a passive aggressive tactic.

[peacegirl]

A fire can start, spread, and the original source of the fire be put out but the other fires still remain. A river could dry up and its tributaries could still flow with water, at least for awhile. It is a fact that past events influence our decisions Vivisectus. In a courtroom, someone could say that drugs caused to do what they did without their consent, but in reality nothing can cause them to do something without their consent. Please hold onto that thought or we can't move forward.

Wow - none of that made sense, unless as more examples of the past causing the present. You just have a problem admitting you made a mistake, haven't you?

Originally Posted by vivisectus

2: Memories, which are caused by events that are in the past, but can nevertheless cause us to make certain decisions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What an enormous pile of waffle again. In it, you say

The fact remains - and now you have done a 180 and admit it! - that events in the past DO cause decisions in the present.

You brought it up, but you seem to have forgotten this. This whole thing where the past does not influence the present really seems to be true about you.

That is just a different way of saying "the past causes us to do things by creating a desire"

Which is what you are arguing against. *sigh*. Honestly.

You are again mixing what IS with what Ought. Interesting: in many ways you really are about 150 years behind the times.

Not really.

Thus: past events can be causes.

You claim that but there is no reason to assume this is correct.

Another way of saying " if you do not agree, you wont agree!"

I realize that you may not be mentally capable of escaping your delusion.

How is that different from causing a decision?

Moral responsibility does not make determinism more or less true, as you have already admitted.

Honestly. This is like trying to play a game with a concussed person who cannot remember the rules. Either concede when you have to or stop pretending you are in a rational debate.

This is the core problem for both you and your father: you are trying to engage in something you do not really understand. You just make the right noises, repeat words that sound nice. But neither of you are prepared to do the work, to really study what you are making all these claims about.

Why have you not studied TLR's explanation of sight? Why did your father never examine the properties of light and sight? Why is there no reason to believe that conscience works the way he said?

The answer is: because neither you nor your father were interested in the truth. You just want confirmation of your beliefs.

I decided to answer one small portion of this post just in case no one comes forward to say they want me to stay, and I won't have a chance.

I never said that the past doesn't influence the present (everything in our lives that had an impact on us influences which choices we are going to make in the direction of greater satisfaction, but the past does not cause us to do anything we don't consent to (which is implied in the standard definition and can be used as a rationalization in a court of law as to why we were compelled to do what we didn't want to do). In other words, how can the past cause the present when we only have the present? Think about this instead of giving a knee jerk reaction, or trying to use tactics that put me down to make everybody think poorly of my reasoning abilities. If you can't understand this excerpt, I can't help you.

p. 51 If someone was to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.