A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The compatibilist position is still contradictory. They tried to solve the contradiction by making it seem that a person, even though he is caused to do what he does, is still morally responsible and therefore blameworthy. Being caused to do something is the very definition of being under a compulsion. That compulsion is desire pushing someone in a particular direction due to his circumstances and background. You can't say someone was caused to do something and in the next breath say he chose freely and is deserving of punishment. You can believe in free will though, and justify punishment, but you can't believe in both free will and determinism and reconcile these two opposing positions in this way.

No, the compatibilist position is not contradictory, nor have you ever once shown there to be any contradiction (despite repeatedly asserting that there is one). I am using "compulsion" in the following dictionary sense:

com·pul·sion (noun) Psychology: a strong, usually irresistible impulse to perform an act, especially one that is irrational or contrary to one's will.

If you want to include causation as a form of compulsion, then I can simply stipulate that this is not a part of what is meant by the word within the compatibilist definition of free will...

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion (as defined above, i.e. without any 'compulsion' other than causal determination) or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

The definitions are different. Compatibilism says that only the first kind of freedom is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you have yet to show this to be wrong or contradictory.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to repeat myself a thousand times. I know that an image is not actually being reflected, but the pattern of non-absorbed light IS believed to be reflected, which is not a strawman because that is what the afferent account states. If I say "images are not being reflected", you should know what I mean by now.

You say you know that, now (after being corrected a thousand times), however it seems from the excerpt you pasted earlier, Lessans hadn't the slightest idea. I was responding to Lessans explanation, not yours.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that his efforts failed due to the fact that he was an unknown.

We know that you and Lessans think that was why his efforts failed. However, that claim implies specific knowledge of the mental processes of the people to whom he addressed those failed efforts. Do you have evidence that such was the case?

The simplest explanation, and one that does not require special knowledge regarding the thought processes of others, is that Lessans' nonsense was recognised for the nonsense that it was, and is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am so disgusted with you, as a spokesperson for this forum, I am going to the toilet to throw up.

Lady Shea speaks for herself. She is not a spokesperson for this forum. Not that she wouldn't make an excellent spokesperson, if one were desired or needed.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not only an imperfect analogy, but a completely useless one. Because - other than the real-time qualification which you cannot explain, and which the analogy does not help with - it doesn't say anything that the afferent account doesn't also agree with.

It is, however, undeniably true that the eyes are the windows to the soul.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light (or photons) strikes the retina where it is then relayed to the brain for interpretation.

HEY! LISTEN UP. Is anyone really reading these posts? Peacegirl just accurately stated the afferent theory of vision. Is anyone paying attention?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

HEY! LISTEN UP. Is anyone really reading these posts? Peacegirl just accurately stated the afferent theory of vision. Is anyone paying attention?

Well, not quite. Light itself does not get relayed from the eyes to the brain, but for once she did get close.

[Angakuk]

Picky, picky. Give her a break. As she has said often enough, she is doing the best she can, with the limited resources at her disposal.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Picky, picky. Give her a break. As she has said often enough, she is doing the best she can, with the limited resources at her disposal.

If she could maintain this degree of accuracy for more than a few posts at a time before reverting to absurd strawmen, I'm sure we'd all be quite satisfied. But we all know that within a few posts she'll be back to denying that light carries the images/wavelengths/information across space/time to the eyes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, not quite. Light itself does not get relayed from the eyes to the brain, but for once she did get close.

OK she missed the step where the light is converted into nervous impulses, but other wise it's close enough.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1097454]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The compatibilist position is still contradictory. They tried to solve the contradiction by making it seem that a person, even though he is caused to do what he does, is still morally responsible and therefore blameworthy. Being caused to do something is the very definition of being under a compulsion. That compulsion is desire pushing someone in a particular direction due to his circumstances and background. You can't say someone was caused to do something and in the next breath say he chose freely and is deserving of punishment. You can believe in free will though, and justify punishment, but you can't believe in both free will and determinism and reconcile these two opposing positions in this way.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, the compatibilist position is not contradictory, nor have you ever once shown there to be any contradiction (despite repeatedly asserting that there is one). I am using "compulsion" in the following dictionary sense:

I will have a dual with you on this count, and I will win this dual whether it's now or later on. You are not right; compatibilism is not right, and all I care about is what's right, not who wins.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

com·pul·sion (noun) Psychology: a strong, usually irresistible impulse to perform an act, especially one that is irrational or contrary to one's will.

Oh my god, you can't do something that is against your will. Even though your choice could be not what you want (i.e., the lesser of the evils that are presented to you), that is exactly what you're not understanding. I could care less about definitions. I WANT THE TRUTH SPACEMONKEY AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING ME TO MOVE FORWARD.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you want to include causation as a form of compulsion, then I can simply stipulate that this is not a part of what is meant by the word within the compatibilist definition of free will...

I don't care what is, or what is not, included in the compatibilist definition. The point is IT'S WRONG; IT'S NOT ACCURATE; IT DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO BE ACCURATE SPACEMONEY, and for you to keep defending it gives me no hope in talking to you because you are becoming irrational in defense of compatibilism so you can justify punishment and blame.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not right; compatibilism is not right

It can't be right or wrong, only agreed with or disagreed with. The question of free will vs. determinism isn't answered with hard data or empirically measurable facts- it's a question of various understandings and definitions.

Instead of it being an either/or -contra causal free will or hard determinism- those two concepts are on opposite ends of a spectrum. There are lots of valid concepts in between. If you get a lot of people reading the book, you are going to have readers that fall all over that spectrum. Is your response to them also going to be to scream that they are wrong, because of your rigid binary thinking on this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You say you know that, now (after being corrected a thousand times), however it seems from the excerpt you pasted earlier, Lessans hadn't the slightest idea. I was responding to Lessans explanation, not yours.

His explanation makes sense if the proof comes from the efferent perspective which he explained using terms that you don't like. That nevertheless does not negate his findings because what he said was not a strawman. This back and forth bickering won't bring us any closer to the truth unfortunately. The key that will help us to determine who is right will not be found here. Until further empirical evidence is provided (on either side), this is just flexing one's muscles and acting domineering over the small guy. That's not good enough. That's why I want to move on LadyShea. Will you allow me to? I know you are going to say that it's not up to you, but you are contributing to the conversation which adds momentum. I'm not asking just you, I'm asking everybody to hold off and wait, but don't forget his claim as time goes on. I do want to move on to a much more important topic which will provide a way out of a miserable existence for a large portion of the population.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can't be right or wrong, only agreed with or disagreed with.

Wrong LadyShea. At one time the shape of the earth was a philosophical question until it became known that it had a spherical shape, which then became factual. To say it can't be wrong or right is ridiculous LadyShea, just because this has been philosophical debate for centuries. This does not mean someone along the way proved determinism true, and free will false. That's progress LadyShea, and that's what our world is gravitating toward every moment of our existence.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The question of free will vs. determinism isn't answered with hard data or empirically measurable facts- it's a question of various understandings and definitions.

Noooooo LadyShea. Definitions are words only, and if they don't reflect reality, they mean nothing whatsoever. They are just words that cause people to be fooled.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Instead of it being an either/or -contra causal free will or hard determinism- those two concepts are on opposite ends of a spectrum. There are lots of valid concepts in between. If you get a lot of people reading the book, you are going to have readers that fall all over that spectrum. Is your response to them also going to be to scream that they are wrong, because of your rigid binary thinking on this?

Once again, you are putting this discovery in a philosphical category. It is not philosophy although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought. It is a proven fact that man's will is not free, and he absolutely and positively proved it. Whether you hear him or not is another story since you, just like Koan, Vivisectus, TLR, Angakuk, Spacemonkey, Dragar, thedoc, anonymous, and others, don't believe someone could come online and have an authentic discovery and are fighting me tooth and nail. That's the source of the problem.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His explanation makes sense if the proof comes from the efferent perspective

Weasel. In that passage he was describing what he thought the standard model of sight was. And he was terribly mistaken.

He so badly misunderstood how sight works according to science, so his arguments against it are nonsensical.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This back and forth bickering won't bring us any closer to the truth unfortunately. The key that will help us to determine who is right will not be found here. Until further empirical evidence is provided (on either side), this is just flexing one's muscles and acting domineering over the small guy.

Yes, yes, it's all very dramatic and you are a martyr

That's not good enough. That's why I want to move on LadyShea. Will you allow me to? I know you are going to say that it's not up to you, but you are contributing to the conversation which adds momentum.

It's not up to me, and momentum is meaningless if you're not onboard.

Stop reading the posts, stop visiting , stop responding to the posts and post whatever you want if you choose to stay (though you will be considered a coward and a weasel if you do that)...do whatever "move on" means to you. Nobody can help you do that, force you to do that, or stop you from doing that. You can choose it of your own free will

I'm not asking just you, I'm asking everybody to hold off and wait, but don't forget his claim as time goes on. I do want to move on to a much more important topic which will provide a way out of a miserable existence for a large portion of the population.

You can't decide what interests the people you are discussing with. You do not get to direct the conversation here.

You can direct the discussion on your own website, or blog, or lecture series, or companion guide to the book or whatever...but not on a discussion forum on the Internet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. In that passage he was describing what he thought the standard model of sight was. And he was terribly mistaken.

He so badly misunderstood how sight works according to science, so his arguments against it are nonsensical.

According to whom, LadyShea, are his observations nonsensical? You? Who is making this decision that he is misunderstanding how sight works? You can't go by that because there is a conflict of interest due to the very people who want, and have the power, to keep this discovery from ever being tested. They start off with the position that he is wrong based on the very premise that is being disputed. As far as I can see, it appears that the desire to learn the truth, or even find out what the truth is, is not as pure as you may think.

[LadyShea]

According to whom, LadyShea, are his observations nonsensical? You? Who is making this decision that he is misunderstanding how sight works?

peacegirl, he misunderstood and misrepresented what the standard scientific model of sight states. Any argument he made against his strawman/fake/incorrect model of sight therefore isn't a sensical argument against the actual model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, yes, it's all very dramatic and you are a martyr

This kind of response is exactly what I'm talking about. I never claimed to be a martyr LadyShea, so why are you accusing me of this? I'm just trying to help our world and I have knowledge that can help. I don't call that being a martyr.

That's not good enough. That's why I want to move on LadyShea. Will you allow me to? I know you are going to say that it's not up to you, but you are contributing to the conversation which adds momentum.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not up to me, and momentum is meaningless if you're not onboard.

You could try to understand my position and let me move forward instead of confront me every step of the way, which is not helping. What you say does have momentum because you are one of the main participants. If you helped me by asking me questions about his first discovery (which has the absolute power to prevent war and crime), then the conversation might take a different course.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stop reading the posts, stop visiting , stop responding to the posts and post whatever you want if you choose to stay (though you will be considered a coward and a weasel if you do that)...do whatever "move on" means to you. Nobody can help you do that, force you to do that, or stop you from doing that. You can choose it of your own free will

Saying I can do it of my own free will is true in the sense that I can do it because I want to. No one is stopping me. But, once again, this does not mean I have free will. Why do you think Lessans said, throughout the book, (which davidm made so much fun of because he didn't understand it): I was compelled, of my own free will...to do this or that.

I'm not asking just you, I'm asking everybody to hold off and wait, but don't forget his claim as time goes on. I do want to move on to a much more important topic which will provide a way out of a miserable existence for a large portion of the population.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't decide what interests the people you are discussing with. You do not get to direct the conversation here.

It's not about "not getting". It's about sharing the most important discovery of our times. I can't force you to be interested in something that you think has no value because you think it's just philosophy with no right or wrong answers.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can direct the discussion on your own website, or blog, or lecture series, or companion guide to the book or whatever...but not on a discussion forum on the Internet.

I can ask people to please take a break from the discussion on the eyes. You're right, I can't make anyone do anything they don't want to do (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink), but it certainly can't hurt to ask and to give my reasons as to why I want to discuss his first discovery. If people thought for one second that this knowledge could actually prevent war, crime, and poverty, they wouldn't hesitate to listen, but they think it's a big joke which has to do with how I'm being treated in here. It can't help but rub off on those who are lurking.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, he misunderstood and misrepresented what the standard scientific model of sight states. Any argument he made against his strawman/fake/incorrect model of sight therefore isn't a sensical argument against the actual model.

I am telling you that it was not a strawman, even though he didn't state it in the kind of "scientific" terms that you may have liked. He knew what the afferent model stated, and he was disputing that the brain interpreted images. There is no confusion here except for what you're making it appear.

[naturalist.atheist]

To paraphrase the last year and a half:

everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One and a half year later

everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
everyone else: peacegirl, Lessans got just about everything wrong.
peacegirl: No he didnt. You are wrong.
.
.
.
.
.

peacegirl is clearly crazy so I can understand her behavior. At first her insanity was interesting. Now it's becoming redundantly boring. It is everyone else's behavior that's becoming the item of interest.

So what makes you so interested in repeating yourself over and over to absolutely no effect? You realize that you could easily be bested by a 3 year old?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am telling you that it was not a strawman, even though he didn't state it in the kind of "scientific" terms that you may have liked. He knew what the afferent model stated, and he was disputing that the brain interpreted images. There is no confusion here except for what you're making it appear.

If Lessans understood the afferent model of vision so well? how dod he get is so wrong in his book, almost everything he stated about the afferent model was incorrect at some level.

[naturalist.atheist]

duplicate post.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

duplicate post.

You Should have let is stand, it would have fit.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You Should have let is stand, it would have fit.

It works either way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am telling you that it was not a strawman, even though he didn't state it in the kind of "scientific" terms that you may have liked. He knew what the afferent model stated, and he was disputing that the brain interpreted images. There is no confusion here except for what you're making it appear.

What he actually wrote was a laughably incorrect, a complete and total misrepresentation of the standard model of sight....for reasons I already laid out.

He didn't know a goddamned thing about it, so was absolutely fighting a strawman. Lessans confusion is right there in the book peacegirl, his strawman is in black and white for anyone to read.