A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Read my last post to see why you are lying.

Seeing the Sun at noon is Lessans claim. Light being located at the retina, on Earth, at noon, 8 minutes before any light has reached Earth, is your claim. So, your statement "Never did I say light is at the retina before it gets to the retina" is a lie.

It is not my claim that light is at the retina before it gets to the retina. That doesn't even make sense. Light is at the retina if the object is within one's field of view.

[LadyShea]

There is one basic definition of free will and one basic definition of determinism

If there is one basic definition for free will, it's simply the ability to contemplate circumstances and make decisions based on desires and goals.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is not correct, as has been pointed out before. There are very different definitions of free will. Some of them, for instance, do not even go into the matter of causation, and simply define it as the ability to choose according to your preference.

This applies only to your definition of free will. I know what your definition is - and I will go into some of the implications of that later - but what I was asking is what you base your assertion that it is the correct one on.

Even if that were true it would make no difference: the question is, why is your definition correct?

All this is neither here nor there.

The question remains: on what do you base your assertion that your definition of free will is the "correct" one?

Here are just a few and they are all variations of the same thing.

The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.
----------------------------
World English Dictionary
free will

— n
1. a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
b. Compare determinism the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory
c. ( as modifier ): a free-will decision
2. the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him

-------------------------------

If we have free will, we can consciously make decisions that are not determined by the physics and biology of our brains. It's a philosophical and religious concept that has found no support in science, despite the strong illusion that we are free.

Free Will | Psychology Today
---------------------------------

I construe free will the way I think most people do: At the moment when you have to decide among alternatives, you have free will if you could have chosen otherwise. To put it more technically, if you could rerun the tape of your life up to the moment you make a choice, with every aspect of the universe configured identically, free will means that your choice could have been different.

Coyne goes on to argue against the existence this version of free will:

To assert that we can freely choose among alternatives is to claim, then, that we can somehow step outside the physical structure of our brain and change its workings. That is impossible. Like the output of a programmed computer, only one choice is ever physically possible: the one you made. As such, the burden of proof rests on those who argue that we can make alternative choices, for that’s a claim that our brains, unique among all forms of matter, are exempt from the laws of physics by a spooky, nonphysical ‘will’ that can redirect our own molecules.

Free Will Can't Possibly Exist, So Feel Free to Do Whatever You Want | Motherboard

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's simply your opinion. I and others disagree with you.

Do you think I'm going to sit here and argue with you? Believe what you want.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not my claim that light is at the retina before it gets to the retina. That doesn't even make sense. Light is at the retina if the object is within the field of view.

You are saying that light is located at the retina, on Earth, without having traveled to Earth to become located at the retina. So yes, you are saying light is at the retina before it gets to the retina. No, it doesn't make sense, but it is exactly what you are stating.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

To repeat: a choice with reasons is the only sort of choice there is, and is as free as anyone could wish or believe it to be. The world won't change because you've proven we don't have four sided triangles, nor is it sensible to claim we don't have triangles at all on the basis of that proof.

Of course it's true. You say:

"Of course we make choices but they are not free [="without reasons"] ones."

"Of course we have triangles, but they're not four sided ones!"

Having reasons for making a choice does not equate with having free will.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think I'm going to sit here and argue with you? Believe what you want.

Of course I think that, you've been doing so for almost 3 years now. What past experience would lead me to think you will suddenly stop?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having reasons for making a choice does not equate with having free will.

Says who? You?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am coming from the laws of physics perspective, and it's not just in my mind. Your claim doesn't work within them because light cannot be somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

You still have no understanding of why an object that can be seen due to light's presence puts the light at the retina instantly due to efferent vision, without said light having to travel to Earth. I can't explain it any differently so we might as well call it quits.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If there is one basic definition for free will, it's simply the ability to contemplate circumstances and make decisions based on desires and goals.

That is an okay definition, which is just another variation of all the others. But Lessans whole thesis is that doing what one wants to do based on one's desires and goals does not make his will free. Why do you think he writes this in the first few pages of the book?

p. 44 We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Says who? You?

Oh my god LadyShea, your resentment is showing through. You can't stand that Lessans actually has a discovery, can you? Having reasons for what one chooses is part of the contemplative process, but this in no way proves free will. We don't even initiate the thoughts that allow us to determine, through reasoning, which choice is preferable in favor of all the others.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still have no understanding of why an object that can be seen due to light's presence puts the light at the retina instantly due to efferent vision, without said light having to travel to Earth. I can't explain it any differently so we might as well call it quits.

You haven't explained it at all. You've asserted that it is so, without providing so much as a single shred of supporting evidence.

There's a very important difference.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not my claim that light is at the retina before it gets to the retina. That doesn't even make sense.

We know it doesn't make sense, yet that is exactly what you have repeatedly claimed. The last time you claimed it was today in post #34344.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still have no understanding of why an object that can be seen due to light's presence puts the light at the retina instantly due to efferent vision, without said light having to travel to Earth. I can't explain it any differently so we might as well call it quits.

Wow. You've just AGAIN claimed that light can be at the retina without getting to the retina. You just explicitly denied that this was your position barely half an hour ago! What the hell is wrong with you??

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truthfully, when I posted George Ortega's video, I was not looking for any responses.

I call bullshit on this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not getting into this again. I have no desire to continue this conversation with you. You are ruining your chances with me because you continue to accuse me of lying. It's a false charge and I've told you to stop. You refuse to listen. It's your loss.

What exactly is it that you think he has lost?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having reasons for making a choice does not equate with having free will.

Making choices for reasons that are best described in terms of mental processes is free-will. It's impossible to imagine any more freedom of the will than this: it's as free as it gets. Telling us that we don't have more freedom than this isn't a surprise, or important: it's irrelevant, much like your daft claims on vision are. Your objections still boil down to "Triangles can't have four sides, so you don't have any triangles!"

p.s. Why do you keep lying to Spacemonkey about what you have just said? It's not very conducive to good communication.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course I think that, you've been doing so for almost 3 years now. What past experience would lead me to think you will suddenly stop?

I'm not arguing with you when your mind is made up, and after 3 years I know what to discuss and what is useless, and trying to convince you that this is not an opinion is useless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Making choices for reasons that are best described in terms of mental processes is free-will.

That is what is being disputed Dragar. Repeating the premise as to what free will is does not prove anything. Making choices for particular reasons in terms of mental processes does not prove that these mental processes are done freely.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's impossible to imagine any more freedom of the will than this: it's as free as it gets.

No, it is a common perception that being able to choose this or that [through the reasoning process] is free will. In fact, it is anything but free. Yes, it's free of the kind of coercion that you normally think of when you imagine what constitutes an unfree circumstance (the kind that obviously is beyond our control), but that does not mean the kind of freedom you are referring to is within our control either.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Telling us that we don't have more freedom than this isn't a surprise, or important: it's irrelevant, much like your daft claims on vision are. Your objections still boil down to "Triangles can't have four sides, so you don't have any triangles!"

It is far from irrelevant; it is life changing; it is revolutionary, it is actually a leap in our understanding of ourselves which will lead us to the very thing nothing else can; a world of peace and prosperity for all!! I don't call that irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Dragar

p.s. Why do you keep lying to Spacemonkey about what you have just said? It's not very conducive to good communication.

The word "lie" is being used inappropriately. I will not engage with people who keep accusing me of this. Lie implies intent, and I have never purposely lied about anything for the purpose of deception. If I said something that sounded contradictory, I will clarity what I meant, but not when I am accused of being a liar which I believe is motivated by the desire to get people to look at me suspiciously.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still have no understanding of why an object that can be seen due to light's presence puts the light at the retina instantly due to efferent vision, without said light having to travel to Earth. I can't explain it any differently so we might as well call it quits.

Of course I have no understanding of that. Light present at the Sun is not light that can be present at the retina until/unless it has traveled the 93 million miles from the Sun to the retina. There is no other physical mechanism by which that can possibly happen.

You are invoking properties of light that don't exist.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god LadyShea, your resentment is showing through. You can't stand that Lessans actually has a discovery, can you? Having reasons for what one chooses is part of the contemplative process, but this in no way proves free will. We don't even initiate the thoughts that allow us to determine, through reasoning, which choice is preferable in favor of all the others.

There is no resentment. I am trying to get you to see how you are simply asserting your opinion and further claiming that opinion is somehow the only "correct" one. With an immaterial concept that has multiple definitions and understandings such as free will, an opinion of what it is is the only thing anyone can have.

That's why I said at the beginning that free will is a useless concept. It has different meanings to different people, can't be directly observed or examined, nor can it be objectively described. It certainly can't be proven or disproven!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is an okay definition, which is just another variation of all the others. But Lessans whole thesis is that doing what one wants to do based on one's desires and goals does not make his will free. Why do you think he writes this in the first few pages of the book?

p. 44 We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

It doesn't make it not free either. Lessans asserted his opinion just as you have been and just as I have been.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it is a common perception that being able to choose this or that [through the reasoning process] is free will. In fact, it is anything but free. Yes, it's free of the kind of coercion that you normally think of when you imagine what constitutes an unfree circumstance (the kind that obviously is beyond our control), but that does not mean the kind of freedom you are referring to is within our control either.

"It's a common perception that having three sides is a triangle. In fact, it's anything but a triangle. Yes, it's a sort of shape, but since it doesn't have four sides it's not really a triangle."


We're all quite happy, and understand well, how 'free' our choices are. They're free enough for all our practical purposes (such as a legal system), and fussing that they're not your sort of free is something we simply don't care about. You're telling us that we should be surprised our choices are only free to a certain extent, when we all know full well that to be more free is nonsense, just as you might be telling us we should be surprised our triangles only have three sides, when we know that having more sides is nonsense.

You're not just arguing against a straw-man, you're arguing against an incoherent straw-man, and your argument is simply that it's incoherent!

Maybe there are some people out there who have never considered these issues, and do have this daft incoherent world view relying on your silly definition of free-will. But this isn't us, or anyone who has studied these things at all. Lessans' audience is, as ever, the ignorant.

It is far from irrelevant; it is life changing; it is revolutionary, it is actually a leap in our understanding of ourselves which will lead us to the very thing nothing else can; a world of peace and prosperity for all!! I don't call that irrelevant.

No, it won't. His 'observation' here is trivial and argues against an incoherent straw-man. Our justice system relies on the opposite of your definition of free-will, for instance. So nothing will change if you assert we don't have your sort of free-will, because nobody believed this in the first place. We'll ignore him, just like we ignore his ideas about vision and still manage to get along just fine, even in huge complicated tasks like launching spacecraft to other planets. His ideas are worse than wrong: they're irrelevant to getting things right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is far from irrelevant; it is life changing; it is revolutionary, it is actually a leap in our understanding of ourselves which will lead us to the very thing nothing else can; a world of peace and prosperity for all!! I don't call that irrelevant.

Argument from consequences. That agreeing with your understanding of free will and determinism might lead to desirable results says nothing about what free will is or is not.

The word "lie" is being used inappropriately. I will not engage with people who keep accusing me of this. Lie implies intent, and I have never purposely lied about anything for the purpose of deception. If I said something that sounded contradictory, I will clarity what I meant, but not when I am accused of being a liar which I believe is motivated by the desire to get people to look at me suspiciously.

Saying something that is provably false is a lie. If you don't like being called a liar stop lying.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is an okay definition, which is just another variation of all the others. But Lessans whole thesis is that doing what one wants to do based on one's desires and goals does not make his will free. Why do you think he writes this in the first few pages of the book?

p. 44 We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

Lessans has made several errors in this short paragraph. He calims that determinism is the opposite of free will, and while they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, they are not absolute opposites, in that one will prove or disprove the other. It is possible to have a degree of free will and determinism at the same time, or one or the other at different times. For example I could walk to the ice cream store and then choose which flavor to get. Going might have been determined by several factors, but the choice of flavors may be more random as there are several that I like, and none really more than the other.

Lessans has failed to "Prove" determinism, his claimed proof is conditional on not being able to go back in time, and that once chosen one cannot choose differently. But this is not proof that the choice could not have been different, it only illustrates that time travel is impossible. In the end there is no undeniable proof of anything.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The word "lie" is being used inappropriately. I will not engage with people who keep accusing me of this. Lie implies intent, and I have never purposely lied about anything for the purpose of deception. If I said something that sounded contradictory, I will clarity what I meant, but not when I am accused of being a liar which I believe is motivated by the desire to get people to look at me suspiciously.

When your lying is this blatant I can only conclude that you are deliberately lying so as to use the resulting accusations as an excuse for ignoring people. Or it may just be that you've become addicted to the attention you get when you lie like this.