A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Sure, but mental states don't spring into existence without reasons, normally. And normally those reasons are also best described by mental states. Again if they're either random or the reasons are not well described as mental states we regard their behaviour differently.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say this again for the last time. It is impossible to have free will and no free will at the same time. They are complete contradictions.

Of course x and not-x are contradictory. But you're talking about a term that is not well defined or universally understood and certainly not concrete or objective. We could have 1X and 2X at the same time, for different definitions of X. That was my point.

Can you have happiness and not happiness at the same time? Yes, of course.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

For a number of reasons: because it protects society; because it influences his future behavior; because it influences the future behavior of others ; because revenge feels good (and it's only recently this became considered a bad reason).

Sure revenge feels good; it's a natural response when we feel wronged. You are right in that we punish people in an effort to elicit a changed behavior, but this often backfires. How many people go right back to their previous activities when they are released from prison? What they are finding is that true rehabilitation comes with understanding and compassion, not blame and punishment. That is why the prisoners who turn to religion often show deeper and more permanent changes in their personalities and behavior. Of course confinement is necessary in the world of free will in order to protect the public, especially if the crime was heinous. But if you understand that every behavior has a cause, when the cause is eliminated, the criminal will no longer be compelled to act in a criminal fashion.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And finally, because because a person could (would!) have done differently if his values and internal mental states were different. Because he made a choice based on those things. If he didn't make his choice based on those things (i.e. he chose that way because he was mentally ill, or he had a gun to his head), we treat him differently.

That is because we think he could have chosen otherwise; that he was not compelled to do what he did; that he had a free choice (this is the compatibilist use of the term "free will"). In other words, we believe we are justified in punishing him because he was free in the compatibilist sense. But again it has been shown over and over again that the worst criminals will repeat their crimes because punishment doesn't always work as a deterrent. We are often not safe when these people are let out of prison, even when the doctors say they are better and are not a danger to society.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Exploring those nuances is a fun discussion, but again it's not a discussion you're even capable of understanding - I suspect because it doesn't match anything Lessans rambled about.

I really don't appreciate your put downs. If that's how you feel, let's not communicate. I'm tired of the criticism that has nothing to do with the topic. If you think that this knowledge is rambling, then don't participate. Why are you even here engaging with me if you feel this way?

If a person cannot help being anything other than what he is, how can he be blamed for being what he is?

Originally Posted by Dragar

What else would you blame someone for? That's what blame is: associating responsibility of a person's choices on their mental states or values.

But if a person could not have acted otherwise (imagine that he had a tumor in his head), could you blame him? Well if will is not free, it is like having a brain tumor where a person was incapable of being any different. This leads back to how do we protect ourselves if punishment is no longer used. That is where Lessans' discovery comes into play.

Choice is actually an illusion because it implies we can pick one thing or another equally...

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. It implies that you didn't have to choose A. You could have chosen B just as equally, and if you didn't choose B (the better choice), we now are justified in punishing you.

Originally Posted by Dragar

A choice means one option is selected from many, for reasons. Change the reasons, change the resulting choice. That's what makes it a choice.

Right, but that's the illusion; the illusion that you really have a free choice. When the conditions change, the choice changes because the preferences change. This is not free at all; it is a choice that is based on the preceding events and circumstances compelling only one option, the option that gives greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Your definition is weird and nobody uses it; I don't care your incoherent 'free choices' don't exist any more than I don't care four sided triangles don't exist.

If you don't care, then why are you here discussing it? Nothing I am saying is incoherent. You are getting all flustered because you don't like his claim about the eyes, and you're trying to discredit his other discoveries so that you won't to revisit his other claim.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Look, I see what your point is: we should be more compassionate because there but for fortune, etc. And I agree (particularly as I think mental states and values are folk-psychology myths most of the time). But it's hardly a novel notion, nor is it one that requires fighting against this straw-man concept of free-will and choices. People have written about this sort of thing for decades if not centuries, and your (and Lessan's) bumbling around in ignorance on the literature while claiming it's a revolution is rather arrogant behaviour, to say the least.

His discovery is genuine, and there is no bumbling around. You have no idea how sharp this man was, and how he did his due diligence by studying this topic more than, or equal to, any philosopher that has ever lived.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course x and not-x are contradictory. But you're talking about a term that is not well defined or universally understood and certainly not concrete or objective. We could have 1X and 2X at the same time, for different definitions of X. That was my point.

Can you have happiness and not happiness at the same time? Yes, of course.

That is not a good analogy. You cannot be dead (really dead LadyShea, when your heart has stopped and you can no longer be revived) and alive at the same time. By the same token, you cannot have free will and no free will at the same time. This confusion comes from the need to punish, and people are trying to find a way to justify it, otherwise it is believed people would be given a free pass to do anything they want by saying, "Well I couldn't help myself; I had to kill that person because my will is not free." Do you see the problem, and why this issue has been unresolved up until now? It is believed that the belief in determinism would cause moral destruction; a decrease in responsibility that would lead to moral decay.

[Vivisectus]

You cannot be dead (really dead LadyShea, when your heart has stopped and you can no longer be revived) and alive at the same time.

Actually we can imagine scenarios where this is not the case

What if I am frozen? Technically I am dead. If no-one ever unfreezes me, we could consider me dead from the moment I was frozen. But if someone unfreezes me after 5 years, does that mean I was dead for 5 years and came back to life? Or that I was actually alive all the time, but merely unconscious? Wjat exactly is the difference?

This is not altogether unfeasible: some frogs manege it, and it is not inconceivable that we discover a way to treat our tissue from getting damaged by the freezing process...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well if will is not free, it is like having a brain tumor where a person was incapable of being any different

If the person does not have a brain tumor or other brain ailment, then they can learn, and think and contemplate...which can actually change their reasons and mental states and values. Changing the antecedent conditions can absolutely change the choice that is ultimately made, as you've admitted.

The only way to justify your statement "a person is incapable of being any different" is if that person is incapable of thinking, contemplating, or learning. That is hard determinism, the kind that makes us robots running an immutable program, is that what you are now arguing for?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not a good analogy. You cannot be dead (really dead LadyShea, when your heart has stopped and you can no longer be revived) and alive at the same time.

My analogy is just as apt as yours. You are using terms that have no concrete, universally understood and accepted definition. We have already discussed that there is no single understanding of what "dead' really is. So it remains possible to be 1X and 2X at the same time for different definitions of X.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure revenge feels good; it's a natural response when we feel wronged. You are right in that we punish people in an effort to elicit a changed behavior, but this often backfires. How many people go right back to their previous activities when they are released from prison? ... [Blah blah practical objections] ... But if you understand that every behavior has a cause, when the cause is eliminated, the criminal will no longer be compelled to act in a criminal fashion.

So the only issues you have a practical ones?

If yes, then why are you arguing against this on a 'justification' level?

If no, then why are you listing practical objections?

It's like you forget what your own argument is...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you even here engaging with me if you feel this way?

Because I like pointing out when people are wrong.

But if a person could not have acted otherwise (imagine that he had a tumor in his head), could you blame him?

Of course not - in this case the best description for his choices is 'He had a tumour on his head' and not 'he valued eating children'.

Well if will is not free, it is like having a brain tumor where a person was incapable of being any different.

See below on definition of 'free'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

This is fun!

Right, but that's the illusion; the illusion that you really have a free choice. When the conditions change, the choice changes because the preferences change. This is not free at all...

That's the definition of free. It's hard to imagine a more free choice: the outcome is determined by my preferences, not somebody elses, or by a tumour pressing on my brain. Hurrah, freedom!

If you don't care, then why are you here discussing it? Nothing I am saying is incoherent. You are getting all flustered because you don't like his claim about the eyes...

You get flustered because you don't like that your Dad promoted crackpottery, and it's constantly being ruled out.

NASA is launching missions to Mars soon. They are ignoring Lessans when they look up at the sky and work out where Mars is, to launch their rockets. They're ignoring what you claim are crucial facts about vision that Lessans wrote down. What do you think will happen? I think they'll succeed by ignoring him, because he was wrong.

His discovery is genuine, and there is no bumbling around. You have no idea how sharp this man was, and how he did his due diligence by studying this topic more than, or equal to, any philosopher that has ever lived.

I have a pretty good idea how sharp he was!

[LadyShea]

Resolved: Free will is the ability to choose, in accordance with our own personal values, mental states, and preferences, that action which is thought to lead to greater satisfaction. If our will were not free, we could be forced to act contrary to our preferences. We cannot be made to do that which we don't want to do by any means, therefore our will is free.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually we can imagine scenarios where this is not the case

What if I am frozen? Technically I am dead. If no-one ever unfreezes me, we could consider me dead from the moment I was frozen. But if someone unfreezes me after 5 years, does that mean I was dead for 5 years and came back to life? Or that I was actually alive all the time, but merely unconscious? Wjat exactly is the difference?

This is not altogether unfeasible: some frogs manege it, and it is not inconceivable that we discover a way to treat our tissue from getting damaged by the freezing process...

You are not listening Vivisectus. I said if a person is dead. not frozen. Why are you bringing suspended animation up? I am not referring to this at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Resolved: Free will is the ability to choose, in accordance with our own personal values, mental states, and preferences, that action which is thought to lead to greater satisfaction. If our will were not free, we could be forced to act contrary to our preferences. We cannot be made to do that which we don't want to do by any means, therefore our will is free.

It is true that we cannot act contrary to our preferences. Who is saying otherwise? Again, you are expressing the second part of his two-sided equation which is not contradictory at all. The problem I have with you is your insolence and confrontation in the face of a topic you don't have a grasp of. That could be my weakness, maybe, but regardless I am having a hard time. The definition you offered is a very simple definition which does not prove freedom of the will. You understand very little on this topic, and it makes me realize how futile this thread has become. I need to market this book and reach those who already have a deeper understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My analogy is just as apt as yours. You are using terms that have no concrete, universally understood and accepted definition. We have already discussed that there is no single understanding of what "dead' really is. So it remains possible to be 1X and 2X at the same time for different definitions of X.

It does not matter what is universally understood. What matters is whether the proposition is correct. I could easily define something that has no truth in reality. I am giving up on this thread, not because Lessans is wrong but because the argument people have doesn't hold one iota.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I need to market this book and reach those who already have a deeper understanding.

Translation, - "I need to reach those who will accept the book without thinking."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot be dead (really dead LadyShea, when your heart has stopped and you can no longer be revived) and alive at the same time. By the same token, you cannot have free will and no free will at the same time.

Ah! Back to Lessans world of absolute black and white, unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way, and no amount of declaring it so will change that.

Peacegirl, FYI, just because you say something that was written in the book, does not make it so, it's just as wrong when you post it as it was wrong when Lessans wrote it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not matter what is universally understood. What matters is whether the proposition is correct. I could easily define something that has no truth in reality.

And Lessans has demonstrated that very nicely, several times in the book, and you have kindly posted them here for all to read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the person does not have a brain tumor or other brain ailment, then they can learn, and think and contemplate...which can actually change their reasons and mental states and values. Changing the antecedent conditions can absolutely change the choice that is ultimately made, as you've admitted.

The only way to justify your statement "a person is incapable of being any different" is if that person is incapable of thinking, contemplating, or learning. That is hard determinism, the kind that makes us robots running an immutable program, is that what you are now arguing for?

A person is capable of being different as he learns from past experience, but only after he sees that his past choices are no longer serving him. This does not change the fact that his will is not free, nor does it turn him into a robot since he is an active participant in the choices he makes. This was explained in Chapter One. I think I've given you a lot of food for thought, but the time has arrived that there's nothing more I can add. When science stamps this knowledge with the brevet of truth, then you'll come around but until then I'm wasting time.

p. 41 There is a great
deal of irony here because the philosophers who did not know it was
impossible to prove freedom of the will believed in this theory because
they were under the impression their reasoning had demonstrated the
falseness of determinism. The reason proof of determinism is
absolutely necessary is to preclude someone quoting Durant and
interjecting a remark about man not being a machine. Is there
anything about my demonstration that would make the reader think
he is now a machine? On page 87 in Mansions of Philosophy he
writes, “If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool,
it was the fault of the machine, which had slipped a cog in generating
him.”

In other words, he assumes that this kind of knowledge, the
knowledge that states man’s will is not free, allows a person to shift his
responsibility for what he does. One individual blames society for his
crimes as he rots in prison while another blames the mechanical
structure of the machine which slipped a cog and made him into a
fool. You will soon see that not only Durant but all mankind are very
much confused by the misleading logic of words that do not describe
reality for what it is. This is why it is imperative that we proceed in an
undeniable, not logical, manner otherwise someone may quote
Durant, a priest, professor, lawyer, judge or politician as an authority
for believing in freedom of the will. I recently had a conversation with
a friend who was very sincere in his desire to understand the principles
in my book. His questions were predictable coming from a superficial
understanding of man’s nature and represent the confusion many
people feel when the issue of determinism comes up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Resolved: Free will is the ability to choose, in accordance with our own personal values, mental states, and preferences, that action which is thought to lead to greater satisfaction. If our will were not free, we could be forced to act contrary to our preferences. We cannot be made to do that which we don't want to do by any means, therefore our will is free.

And if you think you understood Chapter One, think again.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not listening Vivisectus. I said if a person is dead. not frozen. Why are you bringing suspended animation up? I am not referring to this at all.

Because there is no difference between permanent suspended animation (or suspended animation followed by a failed re-animation) and death.

You can only tell what it was after the fact: it is the act of bringing someone back to life that determines, in retrospect, if it was death or suspended animation that that person was going through. And that is only because that is the label we attach to the state, depending on the outcome.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Andy you think you understood Chapter One? Think again.

Peacegirl, you are still applying your litmus test of agreement with the book = understanding of the book. This is, unfortunately, not valid, as many who claim to have read the book have clearly demonstrated that understanding in their posts. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated by your posts that you understand neither the book or the posts of other users on this thread. Your protestations against this position only demonstrate your lack of understanding and the thread will be preserved as evidence of that lack of understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My analogy is just as apt as yours. You are using terms that have no concrete, universally understood and accepted definition. We have already discussed that there is no single understanding of what "dead' really is. So it remains possible to be 1X and 2X at the same time for different definitions of X.

Death is the absence of life by most definitions. My father died. He is no longer on this earth. The confusion over free will as being the opposite of determinism was also explained in Chapter One. You must have missed that too.

p. 53 The words cause and compel
are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in
order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary
that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless
interpreted properly.


Just to be clear, there is a way to determine whether we have free will or we don't. This is not an insoluble problem as you are suggesting. Free will means that our actions are undetermined, uncaused, and unrelated to anything that came before it; in other words, without constraint or necessity; free or independent of any causal factors. This is the basic definition that can be broken down into subgroups, but this is it in a nutshell. And guess what? The belief in determinism is slowly entering mainstream thought.

Is Free Will an Illusion?: Scientific American

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because there is no difference between permanent suspended animation (or suspended animation followed by a failed re-animation) and death.

You can only tell what it was after the fact: it is the act of bringing someone back to life that determines, in retrospect, if it was death or suspended animation that that person was going through. And that is only because that is the label we attach to the state, depending on the outcome.

I am only talking about death, not suspended animation where a person could be brought back to life, but where he cannot be brought back to life because his heart stopped and rigor mortis has set in. That is true death and it is the opposite of life.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will means that our actions are undetermined, uncaused, and unrelated to anything that came before it; in other words, without constraint or necessity; free or independent of any causal factors. This is the basic definition that can be broken down into subgroups, but this is it in a nutshell.

This very narrow definition is only useful to validate Lessans claims but nowhere else in the real world.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am only talking about death, not suspended animation where a person could be brought back to life, but where he cannot be brought back to life because his heart stopped and rigor mortis has set in. That is true death and it is the opposite of life.

So you admit that the term "death" is only applied in retrospect. If we freeze a person, for all intents and purposes she or he is dead. But if we were to invent a way to revive that person, it turns out that person was not dead, but in a state of suspended animation. If we do not, then that person is dead and has been all along.

But what about the mean time? Let us imagine an experimental defrosting procedure. If the experiment works, we can re-animate the person. If it fails we cannot. Chances of the procedure working is 50-50.

Is that person dead or alive?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you admit that the term "death" is only applied in retrospect. If we freeze a person, for all intents and purposes she or he is dead. But if we were to invent a way to revive that person, it turns out that person was not dead, but in a state of suspended animation. If we do not, then that person is dead and has been all along.

But what about the mean time? Let us imagine an experimental defrosting procedure. If the experiment works, we can re-animate the person. If it fails we cannot. Chances of the procedure working is 50-50.

Is that person dead or alive?

Obviously, we can't tell if the procedure works until the person is defrosted. So what? This doesn't change the fact that death is the opposite of life.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that we cannot act contrary to our preferences. Who is saying otherwise? Again, you are expressing the second part of his two-sided equation which is not contradictory at all. The problem I have with you is your insolence and confrontation in the face of a topic you don't have a grasp of. That could be my weakness, maybe, but regardless I am having a hard time. The definition you offered is a very simple definition which does not prove freedom of the will. You understand very little on this topic, and it makes me realize how futile this thread has become. I need to market this book and reach those who already have a deeper understanding.

It is true though. In all observed reality, we have the ability to choose, in accordance with our own personal values, mental states, and preferences, that action which is thought to lead to greater satisfaction...that is the definition of free will, so free will is proven.

And seriously, I just swapped free will for the no free will in Lessans definition, so if mine is simple so is Lessans'