A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're nuts David. You're blinded by your own prejudices! So go away. Shoo fly, don't bother me!

You yourself stated that the judgment of your father's argument depends on whether it is found to be both valid and sound.

I seriously doubt you know what this means. They are just some terms you glommed on to, and pretend to use correctly.

I'll tell you what they mean. They mean that to test an argument for validity and soundness, the argument must be presented as a series of premises, followed by a conclusion.

If the conclusion follows from the premises, it is valid.

However, an argument can be valid, with one or more of the premises false. For an argument to be sound, it must both be valid, and it also must be the case that all the premises are actually true.

Since you are such an expert in your father's argument, it should be no problem at all for you to lay it out as a series of premises followed by a conclusion. I did this for you, and you whined that it was no good. Fine!

Now you do it.

Of course, you can't.

You've had more than five years to do this simple thing, and have never once even attempted it. This shows you have no idea what Lessans' argument actually is.

[davidm]

Blasts From the Past

Wherein peacegirl is described as “a cross between a howler monkey and a bag of hammers.”

Maturin nails it … again!

I think at one point we had a nice "blasts from the past" section itt; perhaps it's time to revive it?

I mean, assuming the thrad isn't closed again, that is!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

This shows you have no idea what Lessans' argument actually is.

How could she? Lessans didn't know what his arguments were.

Scratch that, Lessans didn't know what arguments were.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your summary was incomplete. You are an idiot!

Once again our resident dingbat demonstrates that she is too fucking stupid to understand what a summary is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Translation: I can't give these criteria, because I don't know any.

Yes, I did. And I think that you did not. And you did not read it. I am reading it, and I can say it is pretty superficial, until now (I've read about one third of it). Maybe he comes with better arguments later, but until now he is mainly saying that because everything is determined or not determined, we have no free will. Against compatibilism this is a very weak argument!

I am discussing with you here, not with 'Trick. If you are not capable of an argument yourself, how are you then able to evaluate the arguments of others? You are just avoiding to get really into the discussion.

The point is, compatibilism can give the criteria for making people responsible for their actions, because they are determined. I gave (my version of) these criteria. If you say that in your vision you can say that people can be made accountable, then I will know how your criteria differ from those I gave, which are also valid in a determined world. So if you want to deepen the discussion, then give these criteria.

The statement that people are responsible for their actions because they are determined doesn't come close to being a sound argument. If someone is compelled to do something considered wrong by others (knowing the consequences if he should get caught) because it looks like the best possible choice to him at that moment (based on all of the environmental and genetic factors leading up to that decision), then to use the rationale that because his choice was not coerced (didn't have a gun to his head) and he had no mental illness (like OCD), he was free to have chosen otherwise, is completely false.

I think it's important to go over Trick's refutation because he nails it, as far as I'm concerned. If you don't want to do this, I think it's because you know you're going to have a hard time coming back with a convincing rebuttal.

[Vivisectus]

Look, it is perfectly simple, and we can simply refer to yet another blast from the past:

Post "Compatibilism is correct" on the internet.

If it isn't, the internet checkers will simply correct it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's important to go over Trick's refutation because he nails it, as far as I'm concerned.

You have yet to demonstrate even the most rudimentary understanding of anything Slattery has written. If you could provide such a demonstration, then you might just get some takers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have cooties too!

Also, my dad could beat up your dad.

Now we have that out of the way, You still do not seem to have found any facts that were wrong. So explain to me again what I have misconstrued?

You have misconstrued EVERYTHING!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Still waiting...

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

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.

You do not have a full understanding of where determinism leads. You are assuming that a person could use the excuse that he was not morally responsible for robbing the old lady in a court of law. This is why compatibilists try to fit free will in somewhere so as not to make the mistake of letting people off the hook of responsibility. I understand the reason why people cannot accept this line of thinking, but you are being fooled due to a lack of clear analysis. If you take your reasoning to its conclusion, holding people accountable (because of the belief that they could have done otherwise) does nothing more than offer just desert or payback for what was done. It does very little to improve a person's outlook unless there is an effort to rehabilitate the person or his circumstances. You can't expect a person who has no chance for opportunity and lives in abject poverty not to think of ways to get ahead, even if it involves the selling of drugs, for example, if this is the only option he sees.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The statement that people are responsible for their actions because they are determined doesn't come close to being a sound argument.

Just stating that an argument is wrong doesn't make it wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone is compelled to do something considered wrong by others (knowing the consequences if he should get caught) because it looks like the best possible choice to him at that moment (based on all of the environmental and genetic factors leading up to that decision), then to use the rationale that because his choice was not coerced (didn't have a gun to his head) and he had no mental illness (like OCD), he was free to have chosen otherwise, is completely false.

Again, stating that something is false doesn't make it false. And, btw, in your summary you contradict yourself: you say 'If someone is compelled to do...', but later on you say '...because his choice was not coerced (didn't have a gun to his head)...'. So you say he was compelled, but not coerced???

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's important to go over Trick's refutation because he nails it, as far as I'm concerned. If you don't want to do this, I think it's because you know you're going to have a hard time coming back with a convincing rebuttal.

Listen peacegirl, I am reading 'Trick's book. So it would be fair if you start reading a book of Daniel Dennett, e.g. 'Freedom evolves', or 'Elbow room'. And then you come here with a convincing rebuttal of Dennett. That would be a hard time for you.

And if you want me to read just an article of 'Trick, then you start reading the article of Norman Swartz that DavidM linked to, a few postings ago, and write a convincing rebuttal of it.

If you think that is not fair of me, then please look in the mirror...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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,

No one is arguing with Aristotle's sea battle. There is no way a person can know with certainty whether a sea battle will or will not occur tomorrow, but this inability to predict what will happen tomorrow does not mean that some future event will occur freely. All it means is that we may not have all of the information that is necessary to make an accurate prediction, but again, this has nothing to do with the causal determinants that lead up a particular outcome.

Newbie Defense of Free Will #1 – “Unpredictability” by Trick Slattery

I’ve had lots and lots of online debates on the free will topic. I can often tell how new someone is to the topic when I see their initial defense of free will. If they take a compatibilist view with a nuanced semantic, I know that these people are not new to the topic and that we will probably just be debating semantics.

There are a few give-aways, however, of someone being a newbie. I’d like to point them out because it is helpful if you are a free will skeptic who is talking or debating with people who still believe in free will to know where you might need to start.

The first “newbie defense of free will” I’d like to address is an argument from “unpredictability”. A “red flag” goes up as soon as I see someone make the claim that “we cannot predict the future” when they are arguing for “free will”. This is a red flag because, for anyone who has spent any real time learning about the topic, most recognize that “unpredictability” has little to do about anything for this topic.

It is also often driven by the most simplistic of “no free will” points which explain that if everything is 100% predictable, there is no room to do differently that what is absolutely certain to occur. Anyone, however, who has spent just a little bit of time in the free will debate arena would know that this point is not to say that “if things are not predictable, there is free will”. The point is only to show a fact about a predictable type of causality, in hopes that people will extrapolate on that fact even if we were unable to predict the outcome of the same causality in reality.

Often, this type of argument comes along with words such as “random” being addressed in the most ambiguous way that could imply pseudo-randomness or, on the other end, non-causal. Sometimes the “uncertainty principle” or “quantum mechanics” will be invoked without assigning it to a specific quantum interpretation.

Needless to say, when I see the words “but things are unpredictable”, it is obvious that the person has spent very little time looking into the subject matter. That, however, is fine. It presents an opportunity to supply information in hopes that the information will prompt the person to look deeper into the issue than they have. It must be noted that, if you are a free will skeptic like me, and you run across someone using the “unpredictability” idea, there is a good chance that your discussion with them will not lead to a concession.

This is the nature of these types of discussions, they hardly ever lead to someone saying they have been mistaken. This is okay, because if informed properly in the discussion, internally there is a good chance that the person will recognize they need to do more research, and cognitive dissonance will eventually take hold which leads them to do so.

Here are some posts that will serve as a good starting point to get others to recognize that the “unpredictability” point does not help the case for free will:

cont. at: Newbie Defense of Free Will #1 - "Unpredictability" -

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The statement that people are responsible for their actions because they are determined doesn't come close to being a sound argument.

Originally Posted by GdB

Just stating that an argument is wrong doesn't make it wrong.

Obviously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone is compelled to do something considered wrong by others (knowing the consequences if he should get caught) because it looks like the best possible choice to him at that moment (based on all of the environmental and genetic factors leading up to that decision), then to use the rationale that because his choice was not coerced (didn't have a gun to his head) and he had no mental illness (like OCD), he was free to have chosen otherwise, is completely false.

Originally Posted by GdB

Again, stating that something is false doesn't make it false. And, btw, in your summary you contradict yourself: you say 'If someone is compelled to do...', but later on you say '...because his choice was not coerced (didn't have a gun to his head)...'. So you say he was compelled, but not coerced???

You are right. I was making a distinction for argument's sake between being coerced at gunpoint (which is not true coercion unless someone, for example, is being held down physically and forced by someone else's hand to swallow poison) and a person who is compelled to choose that which he believes is better for himself in less serious circumstances. Obviously, a person being held at gunpoint and a person who is free to choose without being held at gunpoint are two different scenarios. It is much easier to see why a person would feel that he has no choice in a situation where he is being told to talk, or else be shot) versus a person who is not being pressured at gunpoint, but they are only different in terms of degree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's important to go over Trick's refutation because he nails it, as far as I'm concerned. If you don't want to do this, I think it's because you know you're going to have a hard time coming back with a convincing rebuttal.

Originally Posted by GdB

Listen peacegirl, I am reading 'Trick's book. So it would be fair if you start reading a book of Daniel Dennett, e.g. 'Freedom evolves', or 'Elbow room'. And then you come here with a convincing rebuttal of Dennett. That would be a hard time for you.

And if you want me to read just an article of 'Trick, then you start reading the article of Norman Swartz that DavidM linked to, a few postings ago, and write a convincing rebuttal of it.

If you think that is not fair of me, then please look in the mirror...

Stop deflecting GdB. I did answer David's post. Natural laws are descriptions, not prescriptions. I agree with that. Nature does not force or cause us to act a certain way, it just presents the conditions that compel us to choose one alternative over another based on our experiences up to that point in time. Let's first discuss Slattery's rebuttal. I will look at Dennet's book also, but please don't weasel out of the argument so that you don't have to give a response.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop deflecting GdB.

One of your favorite tactics Peacegirl, dodge the question or comment and turn it back on the other person by demanding something from them, when you have nothing to offer. You can't just admit that you have nothing but you pretend to have something, but will only reveal it after the other person, then you deflect again by simply disagreeing and claiming that the response was not good enough. You are a real hypocrite.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

One of your favorite tactics Peacegirl, dodge the question or comment and turn it back on the other person by demanding something from them, when you have nothing to offer. You can't just admit that you have nothing but you pretend to have something, but will only reveal it after the other person, then you deflect again by simply disagreeing and claiming that the response was not good enough. You are a real hypocrite.

You, on the other hand, have nothing (and I mean nothing, no actual refutation because you have none) to say other than "you're wrong" Lessans was wrong, you're wrong, Lessans was wrong, you're wrong, Lessans was wrong. What a real hypocrite.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Natural laws are descriptions, not prescriptions. I agree with that. Nature does not force or cause us to act a certain way, it just presents the conditions that compel us to choose one alternative over another based on our experiences up to that point in time.

Now you are confusing "natural laws" and "nature" they are not the same. Natural laws are man's description of the way nature works. Nature is the conditions that force us into certain actions. Nature creates the conditions in which the agent operates, but the agent still has to choose which option to pursue, and the agent is free to choose which ever is the agents preference. Free will, greater satisfaction does not negate free will, because there is nothing compelling the agent to make that choice.

[thedoc]

[-+
=-[-[oloijqASSQUOTE=peacegirl;1263660]
You, on the other hand, have nothing (and I mean nothing, no actual refutation because you have none) to say other than "you're wrong" Lessans was wrong, you're wrong, Lessans was wrong, you're wrong, Lessans was wrong. What a real hypocrite.[/QUOTE]

I have made comments in the past, that you have ignored or not understood, and I have seen you do it to others and their comments and rebuttals, you have not provided any adequate response to anyone. You have even stated that you are not here to learn from others, but to teach others about your father's non-discoveries. There is no reason to expect you to change after 5 years, so I choose to not bang my head against a stupid brick wall that is you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have made comments in the past, that you have ignored or not understood, and I have seen you do it to others and their comments and rebuttals, you have not provided any adequate response to anyone. You have even stated that you are not here to learn from others, but to teach others about your father's non-discoveries. There is no reason to expect you to change after 5 years, so I choose to not bang my head against a stupid brick wall that is you.

You have accused him of all kinds of things that he hasn't done like create non-sequiturs. You never showed me one. That's just one of many. You are a hypocrite.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now you are confusing "natural laws" and "nature" they are not the same. Natural laws are man's description of the way nature works. Nature is the conditions that force us into certain actions. Nature creates the conditions in which the agent operates, but the agent still has to choose which option to pursue, and the agent is free to choose which ever is the agents preference. Free will, greater satisfaction does not negate free will, because there is nothing compelling the agent to make that choice.

The agent can choose between alternatives, but after weighing them he is COMPELLED to choose the option that gives him greater, not less, satisfaction, so the choice is not free at all. If a person is compelled to choose B because this is his preference in favor of A, he is not free to choose A. You are so stupid. You understand nothing at all after 5 years. Not a thing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The agent can choose this or that alternative but he is not free to choose that which gives him less satisfaction. You are so stupid. You understand nothing at all after 5 years. Not a thing.

Actually the agent is free to choose that which is less satisfying, Lessans only defined any choice as one of greater satisfaction, without actually proving that it is, he only claimed that it was the choice of greater satisfaction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have accused him of all kinds of things that he hasn't done like create non-sequiturs. You never showed me one. That's just one of many. You are a hypocrite.

I have not accused Lessans of creating non-sequiturs, that was another poster, and they did provide examples that you had no reply to, you only claimed that they were not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have not accused Lessans of creating non-sequiturs, that was another poster, and they did provide examples that you had no reply to, you only claimed that they were not.

Just stop it! You can't show me any nonsequiturs, so now you're trying to say it was someone else. You're so busted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually the agent is free to choose that which is less satisfying, Lessans only defined any choice as one of greater satisfaction, without actually proving that it is, he only claimed that it was the choice of greater satisfaction.

Once again, your ignorance is showing exquisitely! You have no idea what you're talking about. Your capacity for understanding his work is the size of an ant.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by But

We've been over this. According to Jupiter, the planets act as they do because they resent Seymour Lessans and are trying to discredit him.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that a person could use the excuse that he was not morally responsible for robbing the old lady in a court of law.

Robbing an old lady in court would be kinda dumb considering all the cops and security personnel hanging around those places.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Robbing an old lady in court would be kinda dumb considering all the cops and security personnel hanging around those places.

I knew it didn't sound right. Thanks.

You are assuming that a person could use the excuse in court that he was not morally responsible for robbing the old lady.