A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem lies with the flawed excuse, and not with any definition. The solution is to improve people's understanding of determinism so they will not employ such bad excuses.

It can only be used for that purpose by those who fail to understand that being caused does not imply a lack of control.

What are the flaws in compatibilism? Why do you keep presupposing its falsity? Determinism (the regular version) does not entail any lack of moral responsibility.

I'll ask you again: What do your words "give rise to" mean, if they exclude causation? How can X give rise to anything without causing it?

Why do you assume that only contra-causal free will can justify punishment? Why do you assume that determinism implies a lack of control? You are yet again presupposing the falsity of compatibilism. Why? (Let me guess: 'It has flaws!') The definition of determinism (the normal one) doesn't say anything about whether or not we can be blamed.

Saying "My past made me do it; I really didn't want to" is still a bullshit excuse, as being caused does not imply that one was caused against one's will, or absolve one of responsibility. You and Lessans think otherwise because you understand nothing of the free will debate, compatibilism, or the implications of determinism.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So, just to be clear, the above claims were nothing but histrionic rhetoric, were they? As opposed to you actually saying something that you meant.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a problem with the definition because of how the word "cause" could hypothetically be used to shift one's responsibility.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem lies with the flawed excuse, and not with any definition. The solution is to improve people's understanding of determinism so they will not employ such bad excuses.

What excuse Spacemonkey? This is the problem with the definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can be used for that purpose. In a deterministic world, it is believed that people would use the fact that they were caused to do what they did in order to be absolved of responsibility.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It can only be used for that purpose by those who fail to understand that being caused does not imply a lack of control.

Being caused to do something whether it's the standard definition or Lessans' definition does not necessarily imply a lack of control, but it does imply doing that which is beyond control.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compatibilism is not determinism. It is a position that tries to reconcile free will with determinism, but there are flaws. Strict determinism means there is no free will. If there is no free will, there is no blame. If there is no blame, there is no responsibility. If there is no responsibility, there is no accounting for one's actions. That's where the present position leads us, but it doesn't have the full picture.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What are the flaws in compatibilism? Why do you keep presupposing its falsity? Determinism (the regular version) does not entail any lack of moral responsibility.

Because compatibilism is trying to reconcile two versions of reality that are mutually exclusive. You can't have both. Your will can't be free and not free. And, by the way, determinism (the regular version or Lessans' version) means that man cannot be held responsible for his actions. The regular version says that if man is not held responsible because his will is not free, we cannot blame him for what he does, even if what he does is morally irresponsible. Therefore, we would have to excuse people for their heinous crimes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that one cannot shift responsibility by saying something in his past caused him to kill. Past states of affairs gave rise to his wanting or desiring to kill this person, which gave him greater satisfaction. It places the responsibility back on him. That's the only difference, but it has huge implications.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'll ask you again: What do your words "give rise to" mean, if they exclude causation? How can X give rise to anything without causing it?

They don't exclude causation. We are compelled to do what we do. Does that sound like we're not caused? The only reason he made this distinction is so that he could show how the two sides of this equation come together. You don't yet understand how it works, and why moral responsibility gets stronger even though man's will is not free, which is the opposite of what philosophers believe. They believe responsibility will get weaker because they won't have to account for their actions since there will be no consequences.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you follow the reasoning, you will see that it does. Free will justifies punishment because it assumes man has one or more choices, and when he makes the wrong choice, he can then be punished for his actions.

Determinism, on the other hand, cannot justify punishment due to the fact that he can only make one choice each and every moment of time, rendering his choice beyond control.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you assume that only contra-causal free will can justify punishment? Why do you assume that determinism implies a lack of control? You are yet again presupposing the falsity of compatibilism. Why? (Let me guess: 'It has flaws!') The definition of determinism (the normal one) doesn't say anything about whether or not we can be blamed.

You don't know this topic then. Contra-causal free will justifies punishment because it assumes man has one or more possibilities when making a choice. If he makes the wrong one, he can be punished under the law.

p. 27 In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of
development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to
control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the
reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense
of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of
everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However,
in order to reach this stage of development so God could reveal
Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it
was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he
believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It 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. No one could ever get beyond this point
because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does.

Well, is it any wonder the
solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it
possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing
and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are
supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less
responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature?
Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough he
will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other
nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor
from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of
punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart
of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a
problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since
time immemorial.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In serious cases it will not, and they will be sent to jail. But in either case they are willing to take the risk of getting caught in order to fullfill a desire.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Saying "My past made me do it; I really didn't want to" is still a bullshit excuse, as being caused does not imply that one was caused against one's will, or absolve one of responsibility.

You're right about that, but Lessans is demonstrating that the way it is defined, a person COULD use this as an excuse. This is not something I'm making up. Look up the argument and you'll see what the ramifications are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You and Lessans think otherwise because you understand nothing of the free will debate, compatibilism, or the implications of determinism.

I beg to differ. It is YOU that has very little understanding of the implications of both positions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I'm not interested in these distractions anymore.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What excuse Spacemonkey? This is the problem with the definition.

The excuse that one was caused to act as one did by previous events despite not wanting to do what one did. As you have agreed, this is a bullshit excuse. Therefore the problem lies with the excuse and not the definition. The solution is to improve people's understanding of determinism so they will not employ such bad excuses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being caused to do something whether it's the standard definition or Lessans' definition does not necessarily imply a lack of control, but it does imply doing that which is beyond control.

Doing what is beyond one's control implies a lack of control. Do you even think about what you are typing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because compatibilism is trying to reconcile two versions of reality that are mutually exclusive. You can't have both. Your will can't be free and not free. And, by the way, determinism (the regular version or Lessans' version) means that man cannot be held responsible for his actions. The regular version says that if man is not held responsible because his will is not free, we cannot blame him for what he does, even if what he does is morally irresponsible. Therefore, we would have to excuse people for their heinous crimes.

It would help if you were capable of learning what compatibilism actually is before trying to refute it. Compatibilism is not trying to reconcile two mutually exclusive versions of reality, and to claim that it is doing so is to presuppose compatibilism to be false. It is not trying to reconcile determinism with contra-causal free will, but rather to show that the only kind of free will we need, or should even want, in order to be morally responsible for our actions is of the non-contra-causal kind. Compatibilism does not claim that we can be both free and not free, but rather that we can be both free and causally determined. And the regular version of determinism does not say that we cannot be free, morally responsible, or blamed for our actions. That is only what YOU keep wrongly inferring from the standard definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't exclude causation. We are compelled to do what we do. Does that sound like we're not caused?

You said: "Past states of affairs do give rise to present states of affairs, but they don't cause present states of affairs."

If your words "give rise to" do not exclude causation, then you were saying that past states of affairs both do and do not cause present states of affairs, i.e. you were directly contradicting yourself yet again. And if you were not contradicting yourself, then you have yet to explain what the words "give rise to" were supposed to mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know this topic then. Contra-causal free will justifies punishment because it assumes man has one or more possibilities when making a choice. If he makes the wrong one, he can be punished under the law.

Can't you read? I didn't ask you why you think contra-causal free will justifies punishment. I asked you why you think only contra-causal free will justifies punishment. To assume this is to presuppose the falsity of compatibilism. The definition of determinism (the normal one) doesn't say anything about whether or not we can be blamed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right about that, but Lessans is demonstrating that the way it is defined, a person COULD use this as an excuse. This is not something I'm making up. Look up the argument and you'll see what the ramifications are.

A person could use that excuse at any time, under any definition, including Lessans'. But he would be just as wrong to do so under the standard definition as you think he is under that of Lessans. Introducing different definitions does not prevent people from wrongly employing bullshit excuses (as you yourself demonstrate to perfection).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not interested in these distractions anymore.

The distraction in this case being your blatant dishonesty. When you said you were leaving, did you even mean what you said at the time? If you just changed your mind about leaving, then what changed it? Why are you still here? You don't know, do you?

[Spacemonkey]

QUESTIONS JANIS WILL NEVER (CONSISTENTLY) ANSWER.*


1) Anything to do with light and traveling photons.

2) Where did Lessans support your claim that "Under the changed conditions it will be impossible to find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow without justification".

3) Is the thesis of determinism (as standardly defined) true or false?

4) Why are you still here?



(* Obviously the above is not intended as a comprehensive listing.)

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, here is a forum that may be more receptive to your ideas,

Spiritual Forums - Spirituality, Metaphysical, Paranormal and Religious Discussion Forums

[LadyShea]

I really don't care what these people think because they are the authorities, so, according to them, anything that goes against their thought system can't be pure. This is like a gestapo, but people are blind. Seriously, who are these people? Who gives them the right to take away our vote?

Who are you talking about? Take away our vote? Gestapo? This is seriously crazy sounding.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

As previously discussed at some length in this thread, I beg to differ. As Minkowksi noted more than 100 years ago, the theory of relativity means that space and time can no longer be thought of separately. They must be thought of as a unified whole, space-time.

Sorry I was not clear. I meant there is no creature named The Past, or physical force called The Past lumbering around causing us to act or setting fires or something. I have no idea what peacegirl is talking about so I took a stab at it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Anga, can you elaborate on that point a bit? I have always instinctively hated it, even more so as I have seen it used as an excuse not to have to come up with a justification for eternal damnation.

I am not proposing that this is the way things ought to be. I am merely making the observation that this is the way things work. I agree that "might makes right" is a horrible philosophy. Nevertheless, it is, and has been, one of the ruling philosophies throughout human history. Those with the power to impose their will have often attempted to clothe their exercise of power with moral justifications, but those justifications are simply fig leaves covering the naked use of force. Such justifications are, if you will, merely accommodations to the lack of absolute power.

Given the ubiquitousness of "might makes right" in human affairs it is not at all surprising that the same principle has often been applied in attempts to explicate a divine economy.

[peacegirl]

I don't know what else to say if you can't see from his explanation that there is no past except in our memories

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think we are saying that the past is some kind of physically existing thing like a chair? Because, that's stupid. Of course we don't think that.

No, that's not what I think. I think everyone is getting defensive when we're basically on the same page.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When we say the past causes the present, we mean that past events and situations determine/affect/lead to or otherwise cause present events and situations. A fire in the present was caused by a lit match in the past. The past event caused the present situation. The house that exists in the present was caused by it being built in the past. The past events determine the present situation.

Yes, you can say it that way, that the past caused the present situation, but if you want to get technical, which is important for this discussion, the past is only a memory. Just like Lessans said, the sun doesn't shine in the past. It is shining now. Four is not caused by 2+2, it is that already. It is absolutely true that we are caused to do what we do. He is just making a distinction so that you will be able to understand the two sides of the equation that lead to the discovery.

We do not live in the past or future, only the present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who is saying we live in the past or future? Why is this statement pertinent to anything?

It is pertinent because if we only have the present, then we can't say that past causes the present if it doesn't exist. The past is a memory only. It is does not exist in reality. You can't find the past anywhere. I am not saying that the past doesn't have an effect on the present, but it doesn't cause the present in technical terms. That's why his definition of "greater satisfaction" is more accurate because we are compelled to move in a certain direction in the present. This doesn't change the fact that man's will is not free. This is a very subtle distinction, as I said, but it has huge implications.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So do you think the "harshness of the free will environment" is responsible for your Fibromyalgia, which is associated with neurobiological abnormalities? It also causes cognitive dysfunction such as memory impairment.

Adrenal insufficiency is a discrete diagnosis, it is not another name for fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome, as you implied.

Adrenal insufficiency is a discrete diagnosis (the cause) of the type of chronic fatigue I am describing. I am not saying that adrenal insufficiency is responsible for all fatigue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

As previously discussed at some length in this thread, I beg to differ. As Minkowksi noted more than 100 years ago, the theory of relativity means that space and time can no longer be thought of separately. They must be thought of as a unified whole, space-time.

In Minkowksi space-time, each location in the universe necessary bears four co-ordinates: three spatial, and one temporal. These locations are called space-time events. If all locations in space exist, then all locations in time must exist as well, because each event in the space-time manifold necessarily has four coordinates, and nothing can exist without them. What we call the "present" is merely an indexical utterance. From this it follows that "now" is no different from "here," which is also an indexical. If I am in New York and I saw that I am "here" in New York, it would never occur to me to think that New York is the only place that exists. Of course I realize that many other places exist; it's just that from my personal perspective, those other locations are "theres." But the people inhabiting those locations call them "heres" whereas I am "there" from their point of view.

So it is with time. Socrates exists. He just does't exit NOW, as we who are posting to the message board reckon now (indexically). He exists, when he exists. As do all the people of the future. This is no different, and no more problematic, than saying that Mars exists, it just doesn't exist HERE, where the earth is.

Bascially, what the relativity of simultaneity demonstrates is there is an existent "block spacetime" in which all spacetime events exist. Presentism, the thesis that only NOW exists, is destroyed by relativity theory, and hence "now" takes it proper place as an indexical utterance, like "here." The relativity of simulataneity emerges precisely as a consequence of the fact that different observers in different inertial frames are carving up a pre-existent four-dimensional space-time relaity in different cross sections, like slicing a loaf of bread at different angles. In Einstein's classic train thought experiment, for instance, the observer on the ground sees the lightning flashes strike the front and back of the train simultaneously. The observer on the train, however, sees the lightning hit the front of the train first, and then some moments later sees the flash at the back of the train. The inescapable conclusion is that the flash existed even before the observer on the train "arrived" at it. This means that past, present and future all exist (when they exist) and all events in spacetime are fixed and immutable.

Interestingly enough, this thesis probably does detroy the notion of cause and effect, which is a kind of ideality or illusion, like the alleged "passage" of time, which of course does not pass at all. Quantum mechanics in conjunction with realtivity theory also overturns causality, as can be demonstrated with a simple thought experiment involving quantum entanglement over space-like separated distances.

It is trivially true, though, that all we have is the present. That's because whenever we find ourselves, is NOW! But it's the same thing with space. Whereever we find oursleves, is HERE!

Finally, though, it is a mistake to think that we are wholly located at a moment. Just as we have spatial parts, we have temporal parts. We are extended in time as we are in space. Your actual being consists of a four-dimension "worm" embedded in spacetime, with the temporal terminus points birth and death, which correspond to spatial terminus points like the top of the head and the bottom of the feet.

This is a wonderful sounding theory, but that's all it is. Do you actually think if a person said that I was destined to be a killer because this action was already set in the future, therefore it could never have been otherwise? If that's true, we certainly could not hold this person responsible. This theory is not compatible with moral responsibility at all, therefore it could never be accepted other than a fun thought experiment. It would only be thought of as trivially true (if it was thought of as possibly true at all), but have absolutely no impact in how we live our everyday lives.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism, a satirical movement celebrating lighthearted irreligion and opposing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. Although some adherents state that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion, it is generally recognized by the media as a parody religion.

I don't happen to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster but I have no reason to reject the standard definition of the Flying Spaghetti Monster just because I don't think it describes something that is real. Now, if I wanted to talk about the Flying Ravioli Monster I would not make the mistake of calling it the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Neither would I insist that it is necessary to redefine the term 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' so that it more accurately describes the characteristics of the Flying Ravioli Monster. I might, were I so inclined, create a new term, say 'Flying Pasta Monster' and proceed to incorporate both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Flying Ravioli Monster as sub-definitions under the term 'Flying Pasta Monster'.

I see where you are in error now. It is not free will that justifies punishment. It is the ability to punish that justifies punishment. Those who have the power to punish will use that power to punish. Those who do not have the power to punish will not punish. The bottom line is that power provides its own justifications. I am surprised that Lessans, with his comprehensive study of history and human behavior, never made this astute observation.

This has nothing to do with the power. The belief in free will is a principle that came into being because in our stage of development we had to believe that a person could have chosen otherwise in order to justify punishment, which was a necessary deterrent and the only way we could prevent people from hurting others. In Christianity it also relieved God of all responsibility for evil, which was attributed to Satan.

[LadyShea]

The past doesn't need to exist to have been the cause of present conditions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you don't have any evidence, then it was just a faith claim. What makes you think that the majority of mental illness results from factors such as war, crime, hatred, poverty, murder, and low self-esteem? Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just another unsupported assumption on your part?

Um, I don't have to have physical data on this (in writing), but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe the after-effects of war, crime, accidents, murder, and poverty. It is very easy to see a causal relationship between the conditions of our present environment and the misery that ensues, leaving people scarred for life. Therefore, these observations do offer evidence that with the removal of these conditions, mankind's mental status will be a hell of a lot healthier. It's called common sense Spacemonkey because sometimes that's all that's needed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Although we are able to choose between alternatives, this does not mean we have free will, although, as I mentioned many times, "free will" used in the following sense is fine, "I did something of my own free will (of my own desire). That man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction keeps determinism intact because it doesn't change the causal chain of events, but, to repeat, it places the responsibility for one's actions on the person who made the choice, not on mitigating factors that he could be used as an excuse in a court of law. I'm still not even close to explaining the two-sided equation, which is the discovery itself. That man's will is not free is only the gateway to the discovery.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is a complete non-sequitur. It doesn't even indirectly address what I asked you about. I asked you to state Lessans' proposition and explain how it keeps determinism intact, and you've gone off on an unrelated tangent blabbing about free will instead. LadyShea pointed this out, and you said you were trying to clarify that free will remains intact, which is still not what I asked you about. The question was how it keeps determinism intact. You've said both:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(1) "You're just repeating the same thing over again because you don't understand that his proposition keeps determinism intact"

I am not repeating the same thing over and over again unless I feel you are failing to understand what I'm saying, which makes it necessary to repeat myself. Of course I know that his proposition keeps determinism intact, otherwise, I wouldn't be here defending it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(2) "It is extremely pertinent because the present definition of determinism states that the past causes the present, which is not only not true, but it is preventing the truth of determinism from being made known."

These two claims are in direct contradiction (and (2) even contradicts itself). They cannot both be true.

Both of his claims are true and do not contradict themselves. Show me where? Obviously, there's something you are missing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you think determinism is wrong to state that the past causes the present, then determinism has not been kept intact.

Determinism is very much intact for although the past does not cause the present, it presents conditions that compel a person to move in a particular direction, namely, the direction of greater satisfaction. I don't even think you understand his position at all.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if his proposition does keep determinism intact, then the definition of determinism cannot be wrong in stating that the past causes the present.

But you're wrong that if his proposition does keep determinism intact, that the standard definition cannot be wrong in stating that the past causes the present. You're making an assumption that this is the only way determinism can be defined.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If determinism is false then it has not been preserved.

Yes, if determinism is false, it has not been preserved, but it is not false, so it is preserved.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it has been preserved then it cannot say anything that is false. And if determinism says something that is false, then there is no "truth of determinism" there to be made known.

Huh? You told me that the definition is either useful or not, and in the standard definition, although will is not free, it is not useful because there is an element in the definition that is misleading. That doesn't make determinism false.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I asked you earlier to tell me whether determinism (as standardly defined) is true or false, and you never answered. Why can't you give a straight and consistent answer to such a simple and straightforward question?

I have answered. The past does not cause the present which does not mean that will is free. It just means that the definition has to be tweaked to make it more reflective of what is going on in reality. It does not mean determinism is false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The past doesn't need to exist to have been the cause of present conditions.

What happened before is very much a part of our present choices, but we cannot say the past causes the present if that phrase is misleading. And it is misleading. If we can't get past this, I will not be able to discuss his discovery.

[LadyShea]

A fire in the present necessarily, without exception, had a cause in the past, peacegirl. Fires start without humans around to remember it all the time, such as lightning strikes in the wilderness. If the past is only a memory, how can unremembered events have happened that are the direct cause of present conditions?

Often those past conditions leave evidence. We find a fossil of a dinosaur in the present, but dinosaurs don't live in the present nor are they remembered by anyone in the present. So, the past existed even if it doesn't exist now, and things that happened in the past cause the now.

Your stance makes no sense from any logical or practical standpoint. Why is it important for you to keep denying the obvious?

[LadyShea]

Do you actually think if a person said that I was destined to be a killer because this action was already set in the future, therefore it could never have been otherwise? If that's true, we certainly could not hold this person responsible.

You are conflating determinism with predeterminism, again. You don't understand the difference?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happened before is very much a part of our present choices, but we cannot say the past causes the present if that phrase is misleading. And it is misleading. If we can't get past this, I will not be able to discuss his discovery.

It isn't misleading at all. You seem to have some block against stating the obvious facts in this case.

Name anything happening right now that does NOT have a cause in the past. Anything at all.

[LadyShea]

Interestingly enough, this thesis probably does destroy the notion of cause and effect, which is a kind of ideality or illusion, like the alleged "passage" of time, which of course does not pass at all. Quantum mechanics in conjunction with realtivity theory also overturns causality, as can be demonstrated with a simple thought experiment involving quantum entanglement over space-like separated distances.

This is an interesting thought. So, could it be said that states of affairs in this here and now can affect states of affairs in another here and now, at all? Like an underwater landslide at one here and now leads to water displacement at another here and now which is a tsunami at yet a third here and now. The size of the effect would be limited by the energy and other states of affairs. I think the term might be distributed causality.

I've also heard a theory of time, where time is built from bits, which sort of come together in front of us from the events preceding.

Also, yeah, big question in physics: What is Time? http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

Anyway, from a practical human standpoint, causality seems to hold.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happened before is very much a part of our present choices, but we cannot say the past causes the present if that phrase is misleading. And it is misleading. If we can't get past this, I will not be able to discuss his discovery.

Wow - a blend of 2 of your favourite gambits:

1: it is true because it is true, and
2: How can you understand I am right if you do not even agree that I am right?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A fire in the present necessarily, without exception had a cause in the past, peacegirl. Fires start without humans around to remember it all the time, such as lightning strikes in the wilderness. If the past is only a memory, how can unremembered events have happened that are the direct cause of present conditions?

Often those past conditions leave evidence. We find a fossil of a dinosaur in the present, but dinosaurs don't live in the present nor are they remembered by anyone in the present. So, the past existed even if it doesn't exist now, and things that happened in the past cause the now.

Your stance makes no sense from any logical or practical standpoint. Why is it important for you to keep denying the obvious?

It is in the book, and according to Peacegirl the book cannot be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The excuse that one was caused to act as one did by previous events despite not wanting to do what one did. As you have agreed, this is a bullshit excuse. Therefore the problem lies with the excuse and not the definition. The solution is to improve people's understanding of determinism so they will not employ such bad excuses.

I agree that it is a bullshit excuse. We're actually on the same page, without you realizing it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being caused to do something whether it's the standard definition or Lessans' definition does not necessarily imply a lack of control, but it does imply doing that which is beyond control.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Doing what is beyond one's control implies a lack of control. Do you even think about what you are typing?

Yes it does, but it eliminates the other side of this debate, which is that nothing can cause us to anything to hurt another without our consent. Unless you get this, you are going to be confused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because compatibilism is trying to reconcile two versions of reality that are mutually exclusive. You can't have both. Your will can't be free and not free. And, by the way, determinism (the regular version or Lessans' version) means that man cannot be held responsible for his actions. The regular version says that if man is not held responsible because his will is not free, we cannot blame him for what he does, even if what he does is morally irresponsible. Therefore, we would have to excuse people for their heinous crimes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It would help if you were capable of learning what compatibilism actually is before trying to refute it. Compatibilism is not trying to reconcile two mutually exclusive versions of reality, and to claim that it is doing so is to presuppose compatibilism to be false. It is not trying to reconcile determinism with contra-causal free will, but rather to show that the only kind of free will we need, or should even want, in order to be morally responsible for our actions is of the non-contra-causal kind.

You're playing with semantics. If you study my words, you will see that we are on the same page, once again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Compatibilism does not claim that we can be both free and not free, but rather that we can be both free and causally determined.

Isn't that what Lessans is saying? The freedom you're talking about does not mean we actually have free will. You have not understood this knowledge at all Spacemonkey, which is why you come up with your refutations that do no more than to make you wrong in your analysis.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And the regular version of determinism does not say that we cannot be free, morally responsible, or blamed for our actions. That is only what YOU keep wrongly inferring from the standard definition.

Of course it doesn't. But when push comes to shove, we cannot justify punishing people whose will is not free. It's either one or the other Spacemonkey. Face the facts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't exclude causation. We are compelled to do what we do. Does that sound like we're not caused?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You said: "Past states of affairs do give rise to present states of affairs, but they don't cause present states of affairs."

If your words "give rise to" do not exclude causation,

I never said this excludes causation. You need to reread this book. You are so confused and you are the spokesperson in this forum, it's no wonder people are not getting it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...then you were saying that past states of affairs both do and do not cause present states of affairs, i.e. you were directly contradicting yourself yet again. And if you were not contradicting yourself, then you have yet to explain what the words "give rise to" were supposed to mean.

I explained what "give rise" means. If you fail the test, that's not my fault.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know this topic then. Contra-causal free will justifies punishment because it assumes man has one or more possibilities when making a choice. If he makes the wrong one, he can be punished under the law.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can't you read? I didn't ask you why you think contra-causal free will justifies punishment. I asked you why you think only contra-causal free will justifies punishment. To assume this is to presuppose the falsity of compatibilism. The definition of determinism (the normal one) doesn't say anything about whether or not we can be blamed.

We're reverting back to the definition, and if you look into this debate you will see that anything that is other than determinism HOLDS PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE, INCLUDING COMPATIBILISM.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right about that, but Lessans is demonstrating that the way it is defined, a person COULD use this as an excuse. This is not something I'm making up. Look up the argument and you'll see what the ramifications are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

A person could use that excuse at any time, under any definition, including Lessans'. But he would be just as wrong to do so under the standard definition as you think he is under that of Lessans. Introducing different definitions does not prevent people from wrongly employing bullshit excuses (as you yourself demonstrate to perfection).

Just as wrong implies, you are in judgment which means you believe in free will. This goes against the very definition of determinism. So tell me how a person would not be able to offer excuses using the standard definition? I'm just asking you to show me how this works because obviously he is using excuses that justify his behavior?