A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did Lessans understand and define compelled? How can we apply force or pressure to ourselves?

Seems to me he was using "compelled" to mean "motivated", which does not at all include force, and motivation is heavily influenced by conscious thought. If we are merely motivated to choose that which is more preferable (and why would we not be) and if we can influence our motivations with contemplation, then Lessans version of determinism falls apart.

You need to make a case for this compulsion of our nature to actually be a compulsion (force) rather than a motivation (reason)

It doesn't matter what term you use, so don't get caught up in that. There is a feeling of wanting to do something other than stay where you are, whether it's scratching your nose, turning in bed because the feeling has grown uncomfortable, or just going about your business doing what you do on an everyday basis. You don't have to be thinking "this is dissatisfying to me", although what is actually happening is that you are not satisfied to remain where you are, or you would never have moved at all. When I'm satisfied, I don't make a move. I stay where I am, but if something isn't satisfying, I change it, and it could be the smallest thing. It doesn't even require contemplation, which most of the time it doesn't. When I do make a move; it is often an unconscious act. Dogs don't think, "Oh I'm dissatisfied, therefore I'm going to smell this patch of grass because it gives me greater satisfaction, but in reality, that is what is happening. Life itself pushes us forward in this direction and, to repeat, it does not have to be a conscious act for this process to be working at all times.

[Spacemonkey]

Where did the photons come from?

[Spacemonkey]

Where did he define greater satisfaction?

[Spacemonkey]

Where did he support his claim of the innate potential perfection of conscience?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assertion

Assertion

No it is not, and if you want to talk to me anymore LadyShea, leave out that word or I will delete your posts. I'm tired of having to defend your flawed thinking. It's that upsetting to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? Nobody cares what your opinion of me is. If it makes you feel better to keep attacking me go ahead. I assure you that you are incapable of hurting me.

I did not purposely intend to hurt you. But I am telling you that your thinking is flawed, and you are asserting that I'm the one asserting when you are the one guilty of this. This is why I can't stay. I cannot make progress whatsoever because you are throwing around words that are not accurate, and you are acting pompous as if your words are more important and more accurate than someone whose capabilities are so much superior to yours that there's no comparison. And I don't mean this in a vindictive way; I'm just telling it like it is. I can't compare to Einstein in certain areas, and you cannot compare to Lessans in your ability to analyze correctly. Neither can Spacemonkey. He is totally off because of the twisted logic that he is using to judge the accuracy of this work. I'm exhausted and I do need to move on shortly, for no other reason than I'm making not one bit of progress in here. Not one. If it makes you happy, stick with your logic! It really makes no difference to me. Being here has definitely taught me what not to do ever again, so all was not lost.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter what term you use, so don't get caught up in that.

Of course it matters, because the terms don't mean the same thing.

There is a feeling of wanting to do something other than stay where you are, whether it's scratching your nose, turning in bed because the feeling has grown uncomfortable, or just going about your business doing what you do on an everyday basis.

Okay

You don't have to be thinking "this is dissatisfying to me", although what is actually happening is that you are not satisfied to remain where you are, or you would never have moved at all. When I'm satisfied, I don't make a move. I stay where I am, but if something isn't satisfying, I change it, and it could be the smallest thing. It doesn't even require contemplation, which most of the time it doesn't. When I do make a move; it is often an unconscious act. Dogs don't think, "Oh I'm dissatisfied, therefore I'm going to smell this patch of grass because it gives me greater satisfaction, but in reality, that is what is happening. Life itself pushes us forward in this direction and, to repeat, it does not have to be a conscious act for this process to be working at all times.

Irrelevant to my question. If we are not compelled (forced) to make certain choices, but instead simply have reasons for making them (motivations), and those reasons can be informed and changed by our conscious contemplation, then our will is manifest by our choices and actions rather than eliminated by force.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...leave out that word or I will delete your posts.

What on Earth are you even talking about? You're not a moderator here. You don't get to delete anyone's posts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it matters, because the terms don't mean the same thing.

Okay

Irrelevant to my question. If we are not compelled (forced) to make certain choices, but instead simply have reasons for making them (motivations), and those reasons can be informed and changed by our conscious contemplation, then our will is manifest in our choices.

Oh my goddd, of course it is. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN???? I need another break, I'm hyperventilating.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is why I can't stay. I cannot make progress whatsoever...

You can't stay and yet you are incapable of leaving. Whatever will you do?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you are acting pompous as if your words are more important and more accurate than someone whose capabilities are so much superior to yours that there's no comparison.

Lessans wasn't superior to anyone here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you cannot compare to Lessans in your ability to analyze correctly. Neither can Spacemonkey. He is totally off because of the twisted logic that he is using to judge the accuracy of this work.

That's an assertion, Peacegirl. It is an assertion because you are not supporting it with any reasoning or evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being here has definitely taught me what not to do ever again, so all was not lost.

But you will do it again. We both know that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not

Yet another assertion. If you don't like being told you are making assertions, stop making them. All you need to do is offer supporting argumentation or reasons or explanations in addition to stating your opinion. But if you merely make a statement as if it is the truth and leave it at that, it is an assertion by definition.

, and if you want to talk to me anymore LadyShea, leave out that word or I will delete your posts.

You can't delete my posts. You can ignore me, of course, but others will still be able to see my posts and be influenced by me unjustly without you to tell me I am wrong! Can't have that.

I'm tired of having to defend your flawed thinking. It's that upsetting to me.

You aren't defending anything

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

*Edited final sentence*


Oh my goddd, of course it is. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN???? I need another break, I'm hyperventilating.

Of course what is what? Of course our will is manifest by our choices? That is completely the opposite of what Lessans stated.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can it be trivially true LadyShea, if it is the very thing that can prevent war and crime, whether you see it or not?

When I said trivially true I meant true by definition and offering no additional information, it is devoid of content.

We can't have both free will and not free will at the same time because that is what those terms mean. There is no content or information in that sentence. If you said "The lamp cannot be both on and not on" that is true, but it doesn't tell us anything.

If it can do this, is it trivially true?

Argument from consequences. This is fallacious reasoning. It's also a misunderstanding of my point as discussed above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that it doesn't have to do with science, which is a synonym for undeniability.

You mean of course that Lessans chose to use it as a synonym arbitrarily. The words are not synonyms to anyone other than you

[LadyShea]

Anyway, here were my actual points that you ignored.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this is not a false dichotomy; there can be only freedom of the will or no freedom of the will.

Free will vs. not free will (~free will) is not the same thing as free will vs. determinism, unless you are fallaciously defining determinism as ~free will.

Originally Posted by peacegil

Either we are compelled to move in one direction (determinism), or we're not.

You are again changing the argument from free will vs. determinism to determinism vs. not determinism.

As I stated if you are defining the terms as opposites, then your argument is nothing more than trivially true because you are saying "X and Not X cannot both be true".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What on Earth are you even talking about? You're not a moderator here. You don't get to delete anyone's posts.

Skip over, not answer, ignore. Is that better?

[LadyShea]

Whether you ignore me or not makes no difference to me. I will still respond to your posts and others' posts. I might even say things you don't like! Others might read my posts and like what I have to say!

Oh no, it's like the 7th level of Hell!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, here were my actual points that you ignored.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Free will vs. not free will (~free will) is not the same thing as free will vs. determinism, unless you are fallaciously defining determinism as ~free will.

You're playing with semantics again LadyShea, and don't tell me what is fallacious and what isn't. You don't know, you only think you know. Free will is the ability to choose more than one choice that is independent of any previous conditions or circumstances. There is absolutely no compulsion whatsoever. Determinism is the opposite; it is based on one's present experiences, background, heredity and options. The reason we contemplate is for that very reason; to weigh the pros and cons to decide which option is the most favorable choice under the circumstances. These two positions are opposite. You cannot have a little bit of free will, and you cannot have a little bit of determinism. It's either/or and this is not a false dilemma.

Originally Posted by peacegil

Either we are compelled to move in one direction (determinism), or we're not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are again changing the argument from free will vs. determinism to determinism vs. not determinism.

What does that even mean? Not determinism = free will. You're trying to make it sound like there's a continuum. There is no continuum. If you're behind bars you're not free. If you get to go to the cafeteria or to the exercise room, you're still locked up and therefore not free. That's what I mean by the core definition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I stated if you are defining the terms as opposites, then your argument is nothing more than trivially true because you are saying "X and Not X cannot both be true".

Just because free will and no free will cannot both be true does not make this trivially true. They cannot exist together, therefore it can only be one or the other. This has extremely important implications. You are in such a mire of confusion because of your flawed logic that I don't think there's any hope for us to communicate in any productive way LadyShea. I'm really sorry but I've given our discourse more than enough time and it's a lost cause. There's no point in continuing to discuss this discovery with you because you will keep accusing him of fallacious reasoning and false assertions, which is so ridiculously wrong that it's hard for me to deal with. You rush to judgment, make false accusations, and put yourself on an intellectual pedestal which is hard for me to stomach because you are not intellectually superior to this man. You don't come close.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not determinism = free will.

This is merely subjectively defining the terms in a way that makes your statements trivially true. That is the fallacious reasoning I have been pointing out to you.

You are the one playing with semantics.

If one concept is defined by another, and the other is defined by the first, we have a pair of circular definitions, somewhat similar to a question-begging argument: neither offers us enlightenment about the thing we wanted to be enlightened about Fallacies of definition

.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really sorry but I've given our discourse more than enough time and it's a lost cause. There's no point in continuing to discuss this discovery with you because you will keep accusing him of fallacious reasoning and false assertions, which is so ridiculously wrong that it's hard for me to deal with. You rush to judgment, make false accusations, and put yourself on an intellectual pedestal which is hard for me to stomach because you are not intellectually superior to this man. You don't come close.

Blah blah blah, you can't intelligently address my points so you resort to attacking me. You do this all the time, and it really makes you an asshole.

And you have been saying you are going to stop discussing here for almost the whole 2 years you have been discussing here. Put up or shut up already!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're playing with semantics again LadyShea, and don't tell me what is fallacious and what isn't. You don't know, you only think you know. Free will is the ability to choose more than one choice that is independent of any previous conditions or circumstances. There is absolutely no compulsion whatsoever. Determinism is the opposite; it is based on one's present experiences, background, heredity and options. The reason we contemplate is for that very reason; to weigh the pros and cons to decide which option is the most favorable choice under the circumstances. These two positions are opposite. You cannot have a little bit of free will, and you cannot have a little bit of determinism. It's either/or and this is not a false dilemma.

What does that even mean? Not determinism = free will. You're trying to make it sound like there's a continuum. There is no continuum. If you're behind bars you're not free. If you get to go to the cafeteria or to the exercise room, you're still locked up and therefore not free. That's what I mean by the core definition.

Just because free will and no free will cannot both be true does not make this trivially true. They cannot exist together, therefore it can only be one or the other. This has extremely important implications. You are in such a mire of confusion because of your flawed logic that I don't think there's any hope for us to communicate in any productive way LadyShea. I'm really sorry but I've given our discourse more than enough time and it's a lost cause. There's no point in continuing to discuss this discovery with you because you will keep accusing him of fallacious reasoning and false assertions, which is so ridiculously wrong that it's hard for me to deal with. You rush to judgment, make false accusations, and put yourself on an intellectual pedestal which is hard for me to stomach because you are not intellectually superior to this man. You don't come close.

There are some philosophers who think we can have free will in a deterministic universe. Where in the book did Lessans address those ideas?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot have a little bit of free will, and you cannot have a little bit of determinism. It's either/or and this is not a false dilemma.

It is a false dilemma as has been demonstrated.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you're behind bars you're not free. If you get to go to the cafeteria or to the exercise room, you're still locked up and therefore not free.

Here's a perfect example of your fallacious reasoning. If you are imprisoned you are not free to do certain things, like travel to some different place, but you are perfectly free to do other things, like think and imagine.

There are many types of freedom you are not taking into consideration, nor are you securing agreement that your narrow definition is accepted in the context of the discussion. As I said in the other thread, You cannot dictate what other people understand free will to mean, so if your arguments rest on an agreed to meaning of the terms, you will need to get that agreement up front.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't stay and yet you are incapable of leaving. Whatever will you do?

Lessans wasn't superior to anyone here.

I didn't say he was superior to anyone Spacemonkey. Why are you twisting my words? I said he was superior in his reasoning and analytical abilities, which he was. There's a difference. When this knowledge is confirmed valid, you will change your attitude. Until then, you will continue to criticize him and make every effort to discredit him.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you cannot compare to Lessans in your ability to analyze correctly. Neither can Spacemonkey. He is totally off because of the twisted logic that he is using to judge the accuracy of this work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's an assertion, Peacegirl. It is an assertion because you are not supporting it with any reasoning or evidence.

No it is not. Your logic is twisted and flawed Spacemonkey. If a premise is flawed, there is no accuracy in anything that follows. We can only move in one direction, and no matter how you try to tell me that this isn't true, your logic is the problem, not the observation. You can logically talk yourself out of anything you want, and it may sound perfectly reasonable, but if it's flawed thinkin, then it's stinkin thinkin.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being here has definitely taught me what not to do ever again, so all was not lost.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you will do it again. We both know that.

That's just another one of your flawed conclusions, which just shows me how wrong wrong can be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here's a perfect example of your fallacious reasoning. If you are imprisoned you are not free to do certain things, like travel to some different place, but you are perfectly free to do other things, like think and imagine.

There are many types of freedom you are not taking into consideration, nor are you securing agreement that your narrow definition is accepted in the context of the discussion. As I said in the other thread, You cannot dictate what other people understand free will to mean, so if your arguments rest on an agreed to meaning of the terms, you will need to get that agreement up front.

I am not dictating to anyone. This is not a narrow, but an accurate, definition LadyShea. As per the previous example, you cannot be in prison and consider yourself a free person just because you get to go to the commissary to get a snack. You're still locked. You're still not free. By the same token, you cannot be compelled some of the time (only when you show signs of an obsession according to the compatibist definition), and not be compelled (or free) the rest of the time, just because one's choices don't have the kind of emotional constraint that a strong obsession has. The difference is in degree [only], not in kind.

[LadyShea]

I am not dictating to anyone. This is not a narrow, but an accurate, definition LadyShea. As per the previous example, you cannot be in prison and consider yourself a free person just because you get to go to the commissary to get a snack. You're still locked. You're still not free.

You are requiring a definition of freedom that doesn't include many types of freedom, therefore it is a narrow definition that you are dictating.

You say you are not doing things then do them in the very next sentence, and wonder why people you're stupid and/or crazy?