A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by But

Somehow the whole community of astronomers has overlooked that Jupiter's orientation is off by 20 to 30 degrees.

NASA is able to track the position of its space probes to within a few meters when they are in orbit around Saturn or Jupiter. They perform slingshot maneuvers where they fly by planets at extremely short distance and it miraculously works even though they think the planet's tens of thousands of kilometers away!

Now that is what I call spooky action at a distance.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, that you continue to defend a failed idea is just astounding. You have been presented with overwhelming evidence that your ideas are wrong and yet you continue to defend them.

That she is not convinced by the evidence, overwhelming as it is, is not at all strange. Her overwhelming lack of understanding necessarily renders her immune to evidence. It is almost as if she has been vaccinated against understanding evidence.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yeah - they were only able to pick the right one 81% of the time. Hardly statistically significant really.

I find it very suspicious that the video, which purports to be a record of the experiment, failed to show the levers that must have been used.

[peacegirl]

Bad Free Will Logic #1: “Responsibility Therefore Free Will” by Trick Slattery

I am going to start a “Bad Free Will Logic” series of articles, this first starting with a sort of “responsibility therefore free will” argument.

For each article I am going to point to either part of an argument that has been made by some free will proponents, or an entire argument. A single “Bad Free Will Logic” post may only address one part and why it is illogical, or if the argument is condensed enough I may be able to complete the entire criticism in one post. There also may be different versions of a similar argument that will be addressed in individual posts.

For many people the bad logic will be obvious, but for others it needs to be pointed out. The point in doing this is to create a sort of repository of bad arguments that, when someone brings up a specific bad argument, can be pointed or referred to, or used to address the poor reasoning inherent within the argument.

We will start with this one, what I call the “responsibility therefore free will” argument:

Premise 1: Free will is incompatible with determinism
Premise 2: Moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism
Premise 3: We have moral responsibility
Conclusion 1: Since we have moral responsibility, determinism is false
Conclusion 2: Since determinism is false and we are morally responsible, we have free will

This is a libertarian (person who thinks indeterminism helps with free will) argument that makes a few different errors. Also keep in mind that the “moral responsibility” that is used is in the strong sense, not merely the idea that we need to hold people accountable for the sake of utility, but the idea that they are really, truly morally responsible. To understand this distinction see this infographic:

cont. at: Bad Free Will Logic #1: "Responsibility Therefore Free Will" -

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, did you really contact Slattery, as you either stated or implied? Was he really, as you suggested, looking in at this thread? Or was that just another one of your lies?

Easy enough to find out. I think I'll email him and ask.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]Bad Free Will Logic #1: “Responsibility Therefore Free Will” by Trick Slattery

I am going to start a “Bad Free Will Logic” series of articles, this first starting with a sort of “responsibility therefore free will” argument.

For each article I am going to point to either part of an argument that has been made by some free will proponents, or an entire argument. A single “Bad Free Will Logic” post may only address one part and why it is illogical, or if the argument is condensed enough I may be able to complete the entire criticism in one post. There also may be different versions of a similar argument that will be addressed in individual posts.

For many people the bad logic will be obvious, but for others it needs to be pointed out. The point in doing this is to create a sort of repository of bad arguments that, when someone brings up a specific bad argument, can be pointed or referred to, or used to address the poor reasoning inherent within the argument.

We will start with this one, what I call the “responsibility therefore free will” argument:

Premise 1: Free will is incompatible with determinism
Premise 2: Moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism
Premise 3: We have moral responsibility
Conclusion 1: Since we have moral responsibility, determinism is false
Conclusion 2: Since determinism is false and we are morally responsible, we have free will

Since no competent defender of either compatibilist or libertarian free will makes such a stupid and obviously flawed argument, (see: question begging, of which peacegirl of course is wholly ignorant) this is nothing more than a strawman of the positions of free will defenders. I guess your Trick is living up to

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, did you really contact Slattery, as you either stated or implied? Was he really, as you suggested, looking in at this thread? Or was that just another one of your lies?

Easy enough to find out. I think I'll email him and ask.

Since no competent defender of either compatibilist or libertarian free will makes such a stupid and obviously flawed argument, (see: question begging, of which peacegirl of course is wholly ignorant) this is nothing more than a strawman of the positions of free will defenders. I guess your Trick is living up to

He knows so much more than you do on this subject, it's humorous. I bet you didn't read his article.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He knows so much more than you do on this subject, it's humorous. I bet you didn't read his article.

You are so stupid it never ceases to amuse and amaze. As I said -- move your lips while reading this, if that will help you to retain the information -- I said that I agree with him that that is a bad argument for free will; it's just that I doubt anyone in their right mind actually uses that argument.

And what's so bad about it? Specifically -- as I said, dummo -- the argument is question-begging; specifically at Premise 3. (Of course you don't know what "begging the question means," so you are in no position to comment on any of this anyway.)

So what does say? I just looked just now, and -- voila!

Premise 3, however, is a question begging premise.

The question now arises, did you read his article? Maybe you did, but of course I'm sure that if you did, you understood none of it.

So it looks like and I in perfect agreement. I'll congratulate him for that when I email him to ask whether you ever contacted him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You are so stupid it never ceases to amuse and amaze. As I said -- move your lips while reading this, if that will help you to retain the information -- I said that I agree with him that that is a bad argument for free will; it's just that I doubt anyone in their right mind actually uses that argument.

And what's so bad about it? Specifically -- as I said, dummo -- the argument is question-begging; specifically at Premise 3. (Of course you don't know what "begging the question means," so you are in no position to comment on any of this anyway.)

So what does say? I just looked just now, and -- voila!

The question now arises, did you read his article? Maybe you did, but of course I'm sure that if you did, you understood none of it.

So it looks like and I in perfect agreement. I'll congratulate him for that when I email him to ask whether you ever contacted him.

He states that compatibilism is false. How do you get out of this one David? I will post his refutation. He is so spot on, anyone who is truly objective will be able to see this. You won't be able to because you want to believe that free will and determinism can co-exist.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]
We will start with this one, what I call the “responsibility therefore free will” argument:

Premise 1: Free will is incompatible with determinism
Premise 2: Moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism
Premise 3: We have moral responsibility
Conclusion 1: Since we have moral responsibility, determinism is false
Conclusion 2: Since determinism is false and we are morally responsible, we have free will

None of the 3 premises have been settled, there is some argument about these, but nothing has really been settled, for sane people.
As a result the conclusions are not supported and must be treated with much skepticism.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is so spot on, anyone who is truly objective will be able to see this.

show spoiler

We've established that you're wholly unqualified to make such assessments.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is so spot on, anyone who is truly objective will be able to see this.

And you are totally susceptible to any snake oil salesman that comes down the pike, the Music Man would have taken all your money and ran with it. Now we know where all your money went, you wasted it on your fathers book. Those publishers probably saw you coming a mile away, money in one hand and the manuscript in the other.

[thedoc]

Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, or as Peacegirl would say "something else is going on".
We Found Gravitational Waves...AGAIN!!! - YouTube

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He states that compatibilism is false. How do you get out of this one David? I will post his refutation.

Still waiting...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is so spot on, anyone who is truly objective will be able to see this.

Should this impress somebody? Is this supposed to be an argument? Let me see... Ah, yes!

Dennett is so spot on, everybody with a bit of intelligence sees that he is right about compatibilism. And he has written 2 books about free will, so he is better than

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won't be able to because you want to believe that free will and determinism can co-exist.

Your use of the word 'co-exist' already shows you don't know what is compatibilism is about. There is nothing co-existing: if you see the world right, then you will see that a coherent concept of free will needs determinism. Without determinism free will could not exist. On this point is correct: some indeterminism in nature, like we have in quantum mechanics, does not 'make room' for free will: it obstructs free will.

And believe it or not, I bought 'Trick's book. As a first impression I can already say to you that it does not reach the quality of most (not all...) books from academic philosophers. It just simplifies too much. One example is that when he discusses ideas of others, he does not mention exactly whose ideas he is discussing, and especially, he does not give the strongest arguments for his opponents position, so he has an easy task to attack this position.

An example: he discusses the ideas about 'a compatibilist' who, in a Youtube talk (yes, not in a book!) reflects about the meaning of the word 'inevitable', and why the word 'evitable' does not exist. I happen to know this talk, and it is of Daniel Dennett. His analysis shows that he did not even understand what Dennett is saying here.
Say, we see a river: assuming the water is everywhere free floating, then branches, logs and all pieces of wood inevitably float with the stream. But for some fish, this is 'evitable': they can swim against the stream. But 'Trick would say that this has no meaning, because the fish is determined. But this is just stating what must be proven: that under determinism everything is inevitable. But there is definitely a meaning in which 'floating with the stream' is not inevitable. The question is not if this means that we say the fish is not determined (we know it is), but to flesh out the meaning of inevitable. If we have the correct meaning, then we can see if this meaning can be a basis for some aspects of morality, e.g. if a defendant can defend himself by saying that it was inevitable that he robbed the old lady, because he is determined.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by GdB

Still waiting...

It should be noted, of course, that the argument presented and shot down was an argument for libertarianism and not compatibilism. I don't think even now peacegirl knows the difference between the two; she sure doesn't seem to understand what is writing about, at least in that passage. Basically, lacking reasoning skills of her own, she supports only because she likes his conclusions, without any understanding of his arguments.

[davidm]

I’m sure I have linked this page before, but it’s worth reiterating. (This is not for peacegirl’s benefit, as she is not able to follow or evaluate an argument. It’s for others who might be interested.)

Causal determinism and free will.


In it, the author, the philosopher Norman Swartz, presents two arguments, which he notes are in logical tension. Both cannot be right. One or the other must be wrong. The first argument is that there is no moral responsibility (because every act is either caused or uncaused). The second argument is that causal determinism is a necessary condition for moral responsibility.

Swartz concludes that both arguments are valid, but only the second argument is sound. The first argument is valid but unsound because of the falsity of its premise 2: “If an action is caused … then that action was not chosen freely and the person who performed that action is not morally responsible for what he/she has done.”

Swartz then goes on to explain his reasoning, which involves clearing up a long-standing confusion over the nature of the “laws of nature.” P2 of the first argument treats these laws as prescriptive, whereas in fact they are descriptive.

I’m linking directly to his discussion on causal determinism, but the whole paper is worth reading. The first two sections explore logical determinism — Aristotle’s sea battle argument — which is the idea that if there are true propositions today about what will happen tomorrow, then no one has free will; and epistemic determinism — the idea that God’s foreknowledge of what you will do precludes you from having free will. In this excellent short work, Swartz shows why all three forms of determinism — logical, epistemic and causal — fail to preclude free will and hence fail to nullify moral responsibility.

Yay, Prof. Swartz! Excellent work.

Sorry,

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It should be noted, of course, that the argument presented and shot down was an argument for libertarianism and not compatibilism. I don't think even now peacegirl knows the difference between the two; she sure doesn't seem to understand what is writing about, at least in that passage. Basically, lacking reasoning skills of her own, she supports only because she likes his conclusions, without any understanding of his arguments.

The Problem with Compatibilist Qualifiers by Trick Slattery

It is interesting the hoops compatibilists will jump through in order to qualify their definition of free will in an attempt to make it coherent given any number of counter-points. These qualifiers almost always miss the point entirely.

If you are unfamiliar with the term compatibilist, it’s just someone who thinks “free will” is compatible with determinism. In other words, regardless if the universe is entirely deterministic, or has some indeterminism, free will is something that is entirely compatible with causal processes. Compatibilists build this compatibility by a semantic shift, meaning they change the definition of free will to something that is actually compatible with determinism. Some compatibilists might argue that they have the “true” version of free will, but when they do this, it is done ignoring the abilities the common layperson actually thinks they and others have.

cont. at: The Problem with Compatibilist Qualifiers -

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Problem with Compatibilist Qualifiers by Trick Slattery

It is interesting the hoops compatibilists will jump through in order to qualify their definition of free will in an attempt to make it coherent given any number of counter-points. These qualifiers almost always miss the point entirely.

If you are unfamiliar with the term compatibilist, it’s just someone who thinks “free will” is compatible with determinism. In other words, regardless if the universe is entirely deterministic, or has some indeterminism, free will is something that is entirely compatible with causal processes. Compatibilists build this compatibility by a semantic shift, meaning they change the definition of free will to something that is actually compatible with determinism. Some compatibilists might argue that they have the “true” version of free will, but when they do this, it is done ignoring the abilities the common layperson actually thinks they and others have.

cont. at: The Problem with Compatibilist Qualifiers -

Unfortunately, that's not what we were talking about. (I use air quotes because you have no idea what you are talking about, so we really weren't talking at all.) I was responding to a deconstruction of a strawman of a libertarian argument for free will; and you responded by switching to compatibilism -- proving, again, that you are clueless about all of this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Unfortunately, that's not what we were talking about. (I use air quotes because you have no idea what you are talking about, so we really weren't talking at all.) I was responding to a deconstruction of a strawman of a libertarian argument for free will; and you responded by switching to compatibilism -- proving, again, that you are clueless about all of this.

His entire book and website show that libertarianism is total nonsense. There is no argument that actually grants free will.

[Angakuk]

Since no one here has been arguing in favor of libertarian free will, his arguments against that idea are irrelevent to this discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Since no one here has been arguing in favor of libertarian free will, his arguments against that idea are irrelevent to this discussion.

Not according to David. He believes in free will.

[Angakuk]

But not in libertarian free will. You persist in failing to acknowledge or even recognize the difference no matter how often it is pointed out to you.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, why do you blindly copy paste anything you thinks supports your conclusion without reading it first? You come across, like now, as a bumbling idiot when it becomes quite clear you haven't even bothered to read the arguments you blindly paste into the forum reply windows.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, why do you blindly copy paste anything you thinks supports your conclusion without reading it first?

In all fairness to peacegirl, her penchant for blindly copy-pasting anything she thinks supports her conclusion is the reason we now know that the Holocaust was a hoax.

[Vivisectus]

This thread is closed, people. Move along, nothing to see here. Please take your translucent robes and sexy jackets when leaving the thread.