A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

Your refutation holds no weight whatsoever, and is getting very old for those who are searching for the truth. Your reasoning as to why determinism is not true doesn't follow, but people can listen to what you have to say and come to their own decision.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Your refutation holds no weight whatsoever, and is getting very old for those who are searching for the truth. Your reasoning as to why determinism is not true doesn't follow, but people can listen to what you have to say and come to their own decision.

I never said determinism is not true. All I say is that if you hold that the past cannot cause us to do anything in the present, then you cannot also believe in any form of determinism, and certainly not in any compulsion to choose what is the most preferable. That would be a contradiction.

You seem unable to explain this - all you do is repeat yourself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Nor can you find satisfaction or directions anywhere. They do not exist. They are mental constructs only. As are love and truth.

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.

Being compelled is a cause. Being compelled is also caused. What, exactly, is it that compels us, in the present, "in technical terms" as you seem fond of distinguishing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nor can you find satisfaction or directions anywhere. They do not exist. They are mental constructs only. As are love and truth.

You can't compare the two. Greater satisfaction is not just a mental construct as if it means nothing. This is an observed phenomenon. Most things are mental constructs but that doesn't make them any less true or important. Reasoning itself is a mental construct but we learn a lot if the reasoning is sound. The past is not anywhere to be found. That does not mean we don't remember what happened. It is obvious that what has happened in our experiences influence our present choices, which I've said all along.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Being compelled is a cause. Being compelled is also caused. What, exactly, is it that compels us, in the present, "in technical terms" as you seem fond of distinguishing?

I've explained this so many times. We are compelled to move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction than what our present position offers, otherwise we wouldn't move at all. We can't move in the direction of what gives us less satisfaction when a better alternative is available. Obviously, we can't know what choice another person will pick in this direction, but that does not take away from the fact that this is the direction desire is forced to take, making any other choice, at that moment, an impossibility.

When we say the past caused me to do something, we are actually giving up our responsibility in that action. We know that nothing can cause us to do anything unless we want to. This distinction is not made clear in the present definition, which is causing problems in how we believe the world would look if we extended this knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I never said determinism is not true. All I say is that if you hold that the past cannot cause us to do anything in the present, then you cannot also believe in any form of determinism, and certainly not in any compulsion to choose what is the most preferable. That would be a contradiction.

You seem unable to explain this - all you do is repeat yourself.

I have to repeat myself because you're not understanding. There is a compulsion to choose what is the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time, which is why will is not free. There is no contradiction. I have also said that previous experience compels us to choose that which is most preferable, so the past has an influence, but in reality the past cannot cause anything because the past exists in our minds, not in the external world. Our memories arouse our desire to move in a certain direction, and in that sense the past exists. This is a subtle distinction, and the only reason this is important is because of the two principles that are based on this understanding. The first principle: Man is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The second principle: Nothing can compel man (not the past or anything else; this bars what other people can do to us) to do anything against his will, for over this he has absolute control (you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink). These two principles are accurate and form the foundation for the two-sided equation, which I don't believe we are ever going to get to.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't compare the two. Greater satisfaction is not just a mental construct as if it means nothing. This is an observed phenomenon. Most things are mental constructs but that doesn't make them any less true or important. Reasoning itself is a mental construct but we learn a lot if the reasoning is sound. The past is not anywhere to be found. That does not mean we don't remember what happened. It is obvious that what has happened in our experiences influence our present choices, which I've said all along.

You aren't making any sense at all. The past is simply what we call the states of affairs preceding the present. It is a useful and necessary concept to describe things that have happened in reality, but are not happening right now. The past is as true and as important (and necessary and useful) as any other non-tangible concept. You keep contradicting yourself by some need to avoid the word "cause" by using synonyms for the word "cause".

Why do you feel such a need to deny this obvious fact? You sound quite deranged.

Not even related to the question I asked. Are you on drugs?

What, exactly, is it that compels us, in the present, "in technical terms" as you seem fond of distinguishing? Where do compulsions come from? What causes (leads to them, gives rise to them) them? How are we compelled and why?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Sorry, but it's not common sense that the majority of mental illness is due to a free will environment. So unless you have data to support this claim, it remains an unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

My God, you're an idiot. Those were your words I was quoting. I said that they were your words. And yet you've responded as if they were my words to you. You have started arguing against yourself again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

They were your claims, not his. And I just did explain how they are contradictory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I think I've worked out your confusion. You think the standard definition of determinism says something false because it states that the past causes the present. You think this is false because the past never exists in the present to be presently causing it. Right? But this is simply a failure to appreciate the use of tense. Obviously the past is gone so it can no longer be causing anything right now. But the past is what caused the present, right? When determinism states that the past causes present events, it is not saying that the past ever does so in the present. It is simply stating things in a tenseless fashion. Determinism can be equally well stated as claiming that past events are what have causally determined the present, and that this always has been and always will be the case. So you are wrong to think that the standard definition of determinism says anything objectionable. It certainly doesn't say anything that you have been disputing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't compare the two. Greater satisfaction is not just a mental construct as if it means nothing. This is an observed phenomenon. Most things are mental constructs but that doesn't make them any less true or important. Reasoning itself is a mental construct but we learn a lot if the reasoning is sound. The past is not anywhere to be found. That does not mean we don't remember what happened. It is obvious that what has happened in our experiences influence our present choices, which I've said all along.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You aren't making any sense at all. The past is simply what we call the states of affairs preceding the present. It is a useful and necessary concept to describe things that have happened in reality, but are not happening right now. The past is as true and as important (and necessary and useful) as any other non-tangible concept. You keep contradicting yourself by some need to avoid the word "cause" by using synonyms for the word "cause".

Why do you feel such a need to deny this obvious fact? You sound quite deranged.

It is not useful for the purposes of this discussion because it's important that Lessans make this distinction. It's fine to say my past caused me to do this if we're not in a discussion where this distinction is pertinent.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Being compelled is a cause. Being compelled is also caused. What, exactly, is it that compels us, in the present, "in technical terms" as you seem fond of distinguishing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've explained this so many times. We are compelled to move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction than what our present position offers, otherwise we wouldn't move at all. We can't move in the direction of what gives us less satisfaction when a better alternative is available. Obviously, we can't know what choice another person will pick in this direction, but that does not take away from the fact that this is the direction desire is forced to take, making any other choice, at that moment, an impossibility.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not even related to the question I asked. Are you on drugs?

Keep it up LadyShea, and I'll just tune you out.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What, exactly, is it that compels us, in the present, "in technical terms" as you seem fond of distinguishing? Where do compulsions come from? What causes (leads to them, gives rise to them) them? How are we compelled and why?

Our compulsions come from our background, our heredity and environment, which cause us to do certain things in the present. We are compelled to do everything we do, although some compulsions are more obvious than others. That's why we often say, "I had no choice but to do what I did", indicating that my desire to do something was so strong that it appeared as if there was no choice. And although these particular times allow us to feel the strength of this compulsion, we never have a choice.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Then you agree, contrary to your own previous words, that the problem lies with the faulty excuse rather than with the definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

The confusion is obviously yours, as you've just contradicted yourself yet again. You've just agreed with me that doing what is beyond one's control implies a lack of control. But you previously said that being caused to do something does not imply a lack of control, but does imply doing that which is beyond control. Do you see the contradiction?

In letters, you've agreed that B implies C, but previously said that A implies B without implying C. But if B implies C, then A cannot imply B without also thereby implying C (by the transitivity of implication). Contradiction!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Bullshit. I understood your words just fine, and I am not just playing with semantics. I am pointing out that you have been continually presupposing the falsity of compatibilism without having the faintest idea of what it is or what it says.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't that what Lessans is saying? The freedom you're talking about does not mean we actually have free will.

Yes, I've been telling you for months that Lessans' position is a form of compatibilism. Which is why it is so ridiculous for you to keep presupposing that compatibilism is false. Any form of freedom that preserves moral responsibility qualifies as a form of free will. And both you and Lessans agree that we have this, therefore it is wrong of you to claim that we do not have free will. You are illegitimately restricting the use of the term to apply only to contra-causal free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it doesn't.

Then why did you say this?: "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

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.

We can certainly still justify punishing people when the only kind of free will they lack is contra-causal free will. So long as we have the compatibilist form of freedom which both you and Lessans agree we have, then punishment remains perfectly justified. Why do you keep assuming that only contra-causal free will can justify punishment and blame?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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

Then as I said, if your words "give rise to" include causation, then you were contradicting yourself to say that past states of affairs give rise to (thereby causing) present states of affairs without causing them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? I asked you why you think only contra-causal free will can justify punishment, and you've merely told me again that an absence of determinism (which you bizarrely take to include compatibilism) will allow people to be held responsible. This is just to say that contra-causal free will can justify punishment. It does not tell me why you think determinism prevents people from being held responsible via punishment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just as wrong implies, you are in judgment which means you believe in free will. This goes against the very definition of determinism.

What kind of free will do you think I believe in? I've repeatedly explained that the only kind of free will I believe in is the kind compatible with determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

When did I say that a person could not offer excuses using the standard definition? A person can offer excuses under any definition. I simply pointed out that claiming one is not responsible because one was caused by previous events is a bullshit excuse, because being caused does not imply being caused against one's will or desires. And you agreed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by 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?

Why are you still here, Peacegirl? What keeps bringing you back?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sorry, but it's not common sense that the majority of mental illness is due to a free will environment. So unless you have data to support this claim, it remains an unsupported assertion.

I contend that a no blame (a no free will) environment will create the conditions that lead to "no war, no crime, no murder, no abuse and neglect, no preventable accidents, no poverty, no hatred," therefore, when this occurs, this world will see an end to the majority of mental illnesses that exist today. Of course, you say that this is an unsupported assertion because you think this discovery is a mere unsupported assertion, so it's no surprise.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've said both:

(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

My God, you're an idiot. Those were your words I was quoting. I said that they were your words. And yet you've responded as if they were my words to you. You have started arguing against yourself again.

I thought you said that if he doesn't go along with the standard definition, then he is not keeping determinism intact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

They were your claims, not his. And I just did explain how they are contradictory.

No you didn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think I've worked out your confusion. You think the standard definition of determinism says something false because it states that the past causes the present. You think this is false because the past never exists in the present to be presently causing it. Right? But this is simply a failure to appreciate the use of tense. Obviously the past is gone so it can no longer be causing anything right now. But the past is what caused the present, right? When determinism states that the past causes present events, it is not saying that the past ever does so in the present. It is simply stating things in a tenseless fashion. Determinism can be equally well stated as claiming that past events are what have causally determined the present, and that this always has been and always will be the case. So you are wrong to think that the standard definition of determinism says anything objectionable. It certainly doesn't say anything that you have been disputing.

I don't care what definition is used as long as there is a disclaimer that the past cannot be used as an excuse to shift one's responsibility by saying that the past caused me to kill this person even though I didn't want to. That's a lie because nothing can cause someone to kill against their will.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I contend that a no blame (a no free will) environment will create the conditions that lead to "no war, no crime, no murder, no abuse and neglect, no preventable accidents, no poverty, no hatred," therefore, when this occurs, this world will see an end to the majority of mental illnesses that exist today. Of course, you say that this is an unsupported assertion because you think this discovery is a mere unsupported assertion, so it's no surprise.

Your unsupported claim is that the majority of mental illness is due to the causes you specify. Until you support this assertion, it will remain an unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you said that if he doesn't go along with the standard definition, then he is not keeping determinism intact.

I did. You don't save a thesis by redefining it as something else. And what does this have to do with your mistake of responding to your own words as if they were mine?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you didn't.

Yeah, I did. In post #20100, immediately after the point where you inserted your request for me to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what definition is used as long as there is a disclaimer that the past cannot be used as an excuse to shift one's responsibility by saying that the past caused me to kill this person even though I didn't want to.

Great. Then we can throw out Lessans' pointless redefinition and stick with the perfectly adequate standard one. By the way, you've spent several pages arguing about the reality of the past as a cause. Do you have nothing more to say on my above analysis regarding tense?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is obvious that what has happened in our experiences influence our present choices, which I've said all along.

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.

What has happened in our experience is 'the past', and to say it influences our present choices is to say that the past 'causes' the present.

Your second sentence that the past effects the present, but does not cause the present, is a contradiction. To effect, is to cause.

[naturalist.atheist]

It is interesting that difficulty with time perception can be a symptom of schizophrenia.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So you and Lessans say. Neither of you offer any evidence that such is the case, just unsupported assertions, as usual.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Peacegirl, it seems to me that you are confusing explanation with excuse. Just because an act has been explained in terms of the factors that caused it does not mean that the act has been excused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have also said that previous experience compels us to choose that which is most preferable, so the past has an influence, but in reality the past cannot cause anything because the past exists in our minds, not in the external world.

If the past cannot be said to have caused an event in the present, because the past no longer exists, then, for the same reason (i.e. the non-existence of the past), it is equally true that the past cannot be said to have influenced an event in the present.

[Traditional native]

I have read and respect the posts above. Allow me to suggest to peace girl, "Accept these posts as constructive criticism." As for myself, I don't want to read or purchase the book yet (I'm lazy and or cheap ) However, if you were to post a few ideas from the book, I and I'm sure others, would love to discuss them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Traditional native

I have read and respect the posts above. Allow me to suggest to peace girl, "Accept these posts as constructive criticism." As for myself, I don't want to read or purchase the book yet (I'm lazy and or cheap ) However, if you were to post a few ideas from the book, I and I'm sure others, would love to discuss them.

We've been discussing them for over a year. It pretty much looks like the last few pages the whole time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you agree, contrary to your own previous words, that the problem lies with the faulty excuse rather than with the definition.

Yes, it's a faulty excuse but it would be permitted based on the way determinism is defined. If will is not free because the past caused me to kill this person, it implies that this killing took place due to something that forced me to do it, even without my consent as a free agent (which only means nothing restrained me from choosing); that it was done as part of a chain of causal determinants which I had nothing to do with. If that is not the case; if this definition does not allow these excuses because the word "cause" does not mean that he is not responsible for his actions (WHICH ONLY MEANS THAT HE PERFORMED THE ACT; IT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS DESERVING OF PUNISHMENT), then it's an okay definition because owning responsibility in an action stays intact. But it does not mean that just because we are responsible for an act makes us deserving of blame, if our will is not free and we could not have done otherwise.

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 Spacemonkey

The confusion is obviously yours, as you've just contradicted yourself yet again. You've just agreed with me that doing what is beyond one's control implies a lack of control. But you previously said that being caused to do something does not imply a lack of control, but does imply doing that which is beyond control. Do you see the contradiction?

Doing what is beyond one's control means that I had no other choice since my will is not free. But that does not mean I have a lack of control because nothing made me do it except for my decision to do it, which puts the responsibility for the action on my shoulders. If I kill someone in a car accident, I was the one that did it by speeding up when I should have slowed down. I can't use the excuse that my bad genes or my past made me do it, which I could use as an excuse the way the standard definition is constructed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In letters, you've agreed that B implies C, but previously said that A implies B without implying C. But if B implies C, then A cannot imply B without also thereby implying C (by the transitivity of implication). Contradiction!

It's not a contradiction at all which he clearly explains in Chapter One and reviewed again in Chapter Two. But you said you have a better grasp of this knowledge than me.

p. 67 To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary —
Thou Shall Not Blame — (for this seems mathematically impossible since
it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and
punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a
de-confusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact
revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal
this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not
have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to.
As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death
cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He
is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his
environment and heredity but prefers this action because at that moment
of time he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a
normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to
another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely
crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment
of his existence to do everything he does.

This reveals that he has
mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water but
you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move
in the direction of greater satisfaction. In other words, no one is
compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country
against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes
simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion and he
must choose something to do among the various things in his environment
or else commit suicide. Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers
do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was
judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for
freedom to prefer non-violence, turning the other cheek as a solution to
their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to
do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered
worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words
and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another
is done only because he wants to do it which means that his preference
gave him satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Bullshit. I understood your words just fine, and I am not just playing with semantics. I am pointing out that you have been continually presupposing the falsity of compatibilism without having the faintest idea of what it is or what it says.

I am not presuupposing the falsity of compatibilism. I am saying it loud and clear that compatibalism is an effort to keep "free will" (the kind Lessans does not deny, but which he also says does not make WILL FREE; he explained this numerous times) intact and therefore this position justifies punishment for those who make sub-optimal choices. But our will cannot be free and unfree at the same time. It doesn't fly Spacemonkey. Lessans' claim proves determinism is true; there is no free will even though this does not mean that what we want to do "of our own free will" of our own desire, is taken away. He was so clear about this. He uses this phrase, "I was compelled, of my own free will," throughout the book which is accurate if understood correctly. It means: I did it because I wanted to do it, BUT THIS AGAIN DOES NOT MEAN WILL IS FREE. The way he defines determinism (which is more useful because his proposition is more accurate) keeps responsibility not only intact, but brought to a much higher level where blame and punishment are no longer required because no one would desire to do those things the make blame and punishment necessary, as the lesser of two evils. You will not understand this unless you understand the two-sided equation, but you are so sure, so convinced, he is wrong that you won't allow me to continue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't that what Lessans is saying? The freedom you're talking about does not mean we actually have free will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I've been telling you for months that Lessans' position is a form of compatibilism. Which is why it is so ridiculous for you to keep presupposing that compatibilism is false. Any form of freedom that preserves moral responsibility qualifies as a form of free will.

That is incorrect. That's what I've been trying to tell you for months on end, that just because this knowledge preserves moral responsibility does not in any way, shape, or form, mean that we have freedom of the will. I thought you understood this knowledge better than me? Go figure.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And both you and Lessans agree that we have this, therefore it is wrong of you to claim that we do not have free will. You are illegitimately restricting the use of the term to apply only to contra-causal free will.

The use of the term "free will" in the sense that we can choose among many possibilities (which in today's terms is defined as free will) does not mean we actually have free will. How can we have free will if what we choose is a forced move based on a comparison of preferable differences, which only allows one choice each and every moment of time, rendering all other choices at that moment an impossibility?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then why did you say this?: "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."

The standard definition, if extended, would mean that we cannot hold people responsible for their actions, which is true based on the very definition of determinism. It does not imply that we can be held responsible, which is why philosophers cannot get past this impasse.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 Spacemonkey

We can certainly still justify punishing people when the only kind of free will they lack is contra-causal free will. So long as we have the compatibilist form of freedom which both you and Lessans agree we have, then punishment remains perfectly justified. Why do you keep assuming that only contra-causal free will can justify punishment and blame?

Any kind of free will would justify punishment and blame because then we would know that he could have chosen otherwise under the same conditions. But there is no free will Spacemonkey, so we have to start at this point in order to extend this knowledge to see where it leads. You haven't let me do this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then as I said, if your words "give rise to" include causation, then you were contradicting yourself to say that past states of affairs give rise to (thereby causing) present states of affairs without causing them.

Past states of affairs do give rise (or compel, or cause) present states of affairs, but this phrase has to be qualified. That's all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 Spacemonkey

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? I asked you why you think only contra-causal free will can justify punishment, and you've merely told me again that an absence of determinism (which you bizarrely take to include compatibilism) will allow people to be held responsible. This is just to say that contra-causal free will can justify punishment. It does not tell me why you think determinism prevents people from being held responsible via punishment.

The very definition of determinism means that what we do is beyond control. How can we punish someone if we know that he could not have chosen otherwise? Think about it. I'm not making this up. This is implied in the very definition of what determinism means.

p. 27 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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just as wrong implies, you are in judgment which means you believe in free will. This goes against the very definition of determinism.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What kind of free will do you think I believe in? I've repeatedly explained that the only kind of free will I believe in is the kind compatible with determinism.

But if there is no free will whatsoever, then compatibilism is a flawed mental construct in a desperate effort to reconcile these two opposing ideologies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When did I say that a person could not offer excuses using the standard definition? A person can offer excuses under any definition. I simply pointed out that claiming one is not responsible because one was caused by previous events is a bullshit excuse, because being caused does not imply being caused against one's will or desires. And you agreed.

Then that's fine, but I will tell you that people who don't understand this fact will use it and do use it in courtrooms all over the country.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you still here, Peacegirl? What keeps bringing you back?

The same reason that keeps you coming back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Traditional native

I have read and respect the posts above. Allow me to suggest to peace girl, "Accept these posts as constructive criticism." As for myself, I don't want to read or purchase the book yet (I'm lazy and or cheap ) However, if you were to post a few ideas from the book, I and I'm sure others, would love to discuss them.

I guess you haven't been here long. I put the entire book online for free, and it was abused. Everything this man wrote was taken out of context, so I am not ever doing that again. That being said, I am still posting excerpts from the book, if you haven't noticed. You must be a newcomer. I suggest going to the website and listening to the first chapter. At the very least you will hear the audio from the horse's mouth, not one step removed. You will decide if you want to hear more. One day, this knowledge will be well known.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess you haven't been here long. I put the entire book online for free, and it was abused. Everything this man wrote was taken out of context, so I am not ever doing that again. That being said, I am still posting excerpts from the book, if you haven't noticed. You must be a newcomer. I suggest going to the website and listening to the first chapter. At the very least you will hear the audio from the horse's mouth, not one step removed. You will decide if you want to hear more. One day, this knowledge will be well known.

Yes a newcomer, that was Traditional Native's first post here at and so far his/her only post here

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your unsupported claim is that the majority of mental illness is due to the causes you specify. Until you support this assertion, it will remain an unsupported assertion.

When the new world is here, that will be time enough to know that most mental illness is environmentally induced.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you said that if he doesn't go along with the standard definition, then he is not keeping determinism intact.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I did. You don't save a thesis by redefining it as something else. And what does this have to do with your mistake of responding to your own words as if they were mine?

This is not a thesis, number one. It is a proposition. And I also said that the standard definition can remain but there is a caveat that needs to be addressed. I was clearly not responding to my own words. Maybe I made a mistake in posting but I know what you said, and I know what I said, and I responding to what you said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you didn't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yeah, I did. In post #20100, immediately after the point where you inserted your request for me to do so.

And I answered that doing something that is beyond your control does not mean that you're out of control. You can be a very responsible person, but still be subject to the laws of your nature. If will is not free your choices are beyond your control.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what definition is used as long as there is a disclaimer that the past cannot be used as an excuse to shift one's responsibility by saying that the past caused me to kill this person even though I didn't want to.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Great. Then we can throw out Lessans' pointless redefinition and stick with the perfectly adequate standard one. By the way, you've spent several pages arguing about the reality of the past as a cause. Do you have nothing more to say on my above analysis regarding tense?

His qualification is not pointless Spacemonkey. It's key to understanding the two-sided equation, which is the discovery and leads to what everyone wants; peace on earth. If you want to keep this definition, then this qualification has to be understood.

[LadyShea]

If will is not free your choices are beyond your control.

Then whose control are they in?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes a newcomer, that was Traditional Native's first post here at and so far his/her only post here

Well I'm glad Traditional Native had the courage to come forward and post something. It's so refreshing. Most people don't because they're either afraid to or they have no questions. I hope the people in here don't scare Traditional Native away by their callous remarks.