A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are doing it wrong Spacemonkey. You are supposed to ask the questions to which she has answers and then you are supposed to accept that those answers are correct.

Peacegirl, Angaguk's above insightful post has led me to see that my entire approach here may be flawed. It seems I am asking the wrong questions. So let me start afresh...

Do you think we should ignore the epistemic status of Lessans' satisfaction principle and forget about trying to work our whether it is a tautology or a falsifiable law of nature?

Should we all adopt his idiosyncratic redefinition of previously well-understood terms (like 'mathematical' and 'scientific')?

Should we forget all about compatibilism, and assume like Lessans that it just isn't relevant or worth mentioning or trying to understand?

Should we stop asking for support for what he said about conscience, and just assume that everything he said about it was an accurate description based on astute observation?

Should we not bother trying to understand the location and movement of photons in an efferent model of vision, and should we accept that his offered evidence for efferent vision (dogs and babies, etc.) is compelling even if based on further claims and theories which we don't presently have evidence for?

Should we ignore any apparent contradictions that result from his claims?

Should we put aside all of our critical faculties and give Lessans the benefit of the doubt by agreeing that his ideas are impressive and worthy of further consideration, even if we don't personally see any reason to agree with him or believe a word he says?

Should we believe you when you say he was the intellectual equivalent of Einstein?

Should we just believe everything he says even if we don't see any reason to think he was right?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. What is it?

This,

WFF 'N PROOF: The Game of Modern Logic: GamesforThinkers

I had a copy from about 1970, but couldn't find anyone else interested in playing it with me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This,

WFF 'N PROOF: The Game of Modern Logic: GamesforThinkers

I had a copy from about 1970, but couldn't find anyone else interested in playing it with me.

Thanks. That looks awesome. Would the basic levels be appropriate for 7~8yr olds? Could you describe the gameplay and structure for such levels in a way that would allow me to borrow the idea?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, Angaguk's above insightful post has led me to see that my entire approach here may be flawed. It seems I am asking the wrong questions. So let me start afresh...

Do you think we should ignore the epistemic status of Lessans' satisfaction principle and forget about trying to work our whether it is a tautology or a falsifiable law of nature?

Should we all adopt his idiosyncratic redefinition of previously well-understood terms (like 'mathematical' and 'scientific')?

Should we forget all about compatibilism, and assume like Lessans that it just isn't relevant or worth mentioning or trying to understand?

Should we stop asking for support for what he said about conscience, and just assume that everything he said about it was an accurate description based on astute observation?

Should we not bother trying to understand the location and movement of photons in an efferent model of vision, and should we accept that his offered evidence for efferent vision (dogs and babies, etc.) is compelling even if based on further claims and theories which we don't presently have evidence for?

Should we ignore any apparent contradictions that result from his claims?

Should we put aside all of our critical faculties and give Lessans the benefit of the doubt by agreeing that his ideas are impressive and worthy of further consideration, even if we don't personally see any reason to agree with him or believe a word he says?

Should we believe you when you say he was the intellectual equivalent of Einstein?

Should we just believe everything he says even if we don't see any reason to think he was right?

Yes to all, TIC.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thanks. That looks awesome. Would the basic levels be appropriate for 7~8yr olds? Could you describe the gameplay and structure for such levels in a way that would allow me to borrow the idea?

You really have unrealistic expectations, it was 40 + years ago that I played with the game, and I lost it in our old house. I have toyed with the idea of reacquiring the game but would still have no-one interested in playing it with me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you have thrown words around such as modal fallacy, immaterial, tautology, appeal to consequences, etc. is indicative of a problem.

Yes, I have been telling you there are problems with Lessans book. These are some of them

You have become a self-appointed "expert" at judging truth from fiction, which you are anything but. You are not even close.

I don't need to call myself an expert to offer critiques of a piece of writing or call someone on their poor arguments.

Lessans was just as knowledgeable as Einstein in his area of expertise. Just because you can't point to something and say this is what determinism looks like (as opposed to free will) does not mean his observations are inaccurate or flawed.

Nope, it doesn't. His explanation does show poor reasoning skills, however

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you thanking Butt? He hasn't done anything to help you. The standard definition of determinism still doesn't imply that we are ever forced to do anything against our will.

He most certainly has done something to help me. He's helped me to tolerate this place by challenging your answers because you have become a person who thinks your logic is infallible. After all, you've asserted more than once that these are non-discoveries and you've used your false logic to support that claim. If no one challenged you, you would leave here thinking you proved Lessans wrong, which you never came close to doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You

No I'm not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that is the implication. Philosophers believe it could be used as an excuse. "I didn't want to kill that person but my nature made me do it." This implies that we did something against our will. Free will, on the other hand, implies that we did something because we wanted to do it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you still not know what 'implication' means? Determinism does not imply that we are caused to do things against our will. That people have used this excuse does not make them right. They are wrongly implying something that is not in fact an implication of determinism.

But it can actually be used as an excuse (the impasse of which philosophers could not get beyond) that would allow someone to justify his wrongdoing. He could just say that he was compelled to do what he did, even though he didn't want to do it. Don't you see the confusion here? It implies that something other than him made him do what he did, which would get him off the hook of moral responsibility. This is the big conundrum which philosophers continue to be confounded by.

Decline and Fall of All Evil

p. 57 Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will.

What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Based on present day understanding (which is incomplete) determinism would release everyone of responsibility since they couldn't do otherwise.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this what compatibilists believe? Is this their present day understanding?

Yes. Without the justification that would allow compatibilists to charge someone with blameworthiness, they could not blame and punish those who they believe are free according to their made-up definition of freedom. This is really no different than the free will position. The only real difference is that libertarians believe that choice is independently made regardless of antecedent events, and compatibilists try to reconcile determinism with some kind of free will (the kind that isn't constrained by a strong obsession), so they can still use punishment as a deterrent without there being an obvious contradiction. This way they can have their cake (the belief in determinism) and eat it too (use blame and punishment as a deterrent).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Admit that you could be wrong, and I might answer your questions...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean, like I already did?

Well then act a little more humble, please. You are way too overconfident like LadyShea is, and it's ruining it for you. You're going to miss out on a discovery because you think you've proven him wrong when you've done no such thing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He most certainly has done something to help me. He's has helped me to tolerate this place by challenging your answers because you have become a person who thinks your logic is infallible. After all, you've asserted more than once that these are non-discoveries and you've used your false logic to support that claim. If no one challenged you, you would leave here thinking you proved Lessans wrong, which you never came close to doing.

Which of my answers did Butt challenge?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, I have been telling you there are problems with Lessans book. These are some of them

I don't need to call myself an expert to offer critiques of a piece of writing or call someone on their poor arguments.

Nope, it doesn't. His explanation does show poor reasoning skills, however

You are looking more and more foolish by the things you say. His reasoning skills are anything but poor LadyShea. I hope you can admit to yourself that it could be YOU who is lacking the necessary skills to even understand what he's saying. His reasoning is not a modal fallacy or an appeal to consequences (which is so completely off the wall thinking on your part). You are obviously using a very narrow epistomologic way of determining truth from fiction. This is so funny to me; you say "nope", and, according to you, it's a done deal. You're right, and Lessans is wrong. Your word is not the last word by any stretch of the imagination.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it can actually be used as an excuse (which impasse philosophers could not get beyond) that would allow someone to justify his wrongdoing. He could just say that he was compelled to do what he did, even though he didn't want to do it. Don't you see the confusion here? It implies that something other than him made him do what he did, which would get him off the hook of moral responsibility. This is the big conundrum which philosophers continue to be confounded by.

Philosophers are not confounded by this. It is not an impasse they cannot get beyond. Being caused does not equate to being caused against one's will. Distal causes beyond one's control remain compatible with proximate causes that constitute one's control. The ball still broke the window, even if the bat caused the movement of the ball. You have a very poor and outmoded understanding of the free will debate, which you are insisting upon because it was also your father's understanding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

Really? So you believe that compatibilists think determinism would release everyone of moral responsibility due to their not being able to do otherwise? Would it come as a shock to you to learn that compatibilists actually believe the complete opposite of this? Do you think it might be better to learn about a position before trying to tell those who endorse it what that position is?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without the justification that would allow compatibilists to charge someone with blameworthiness, they need to believe this person could do otherwise knowing that they will be blamed and punished. This is really no different than the libertarian position when it comes to the justification to blame and punish. The only real difference is that libertarians believe that choice is independently made regardless of antecedent events, and compatibilists try to reconcile determinism with some kind of free will so they can still use punishment as a deterrent without there being a contradiction. This way they can have their cake (the belief in determinism) and eat it too (use blame and punishment as a deterrent).

Are you capable of actually refuting the position of compatibilists instead of fallaciously attacking their alleged motives?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then act a little more humble, please. You are way too overconfident like LadyShea is, and it's ruining it for you. You're going to miss out on a discovery because you think you've proven him wrong when you've done no such thing.

More humble? Like your father? I've already admitted more than once that I could be wrong. When you admit that your father could be wrong, then you can lecture me about the need to be more humble.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which of my answers did Butt challenge?

Scroll back. The fact that he questioned your logic and your perceptions was enough for me. Even if you don't think his rebuttal was a fair representation of your position, this was less important than the fact that I was being supported. It's very difficult to have no support whatsoever in a very one-sided thread. This gives the appearance that I've lost the debate when I've done no such thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Philosophers are not confounded by this. It is not an impasse they cannot get beyond. Being caused does not equate to being caused against one's will. Distal causes beyond one's control remain compatible with proximate causes that constitute one's control. The ball still broke the window, even if the bat caused the movement of the ball. You have a very poor and outmoded understanding of the free will debate, which you are insisting upon because it was also your father's understanding.

Really? So you believe that compatibilists think determinism would release everyone of moral responsibility due to their not being able to do otherwise? Would it come as a shock to you to learn that compatibilists actually believe the complete opposite of this? Do you think it might be better to learn about a position before trying to tell those who endorse it what that position is?

Are you capable of actually refuting the position of compatibilists instead of fallaciously attacking their alleged motives?

More humble? Like your father? I've already admitted more than once that I could be wrong. When you admit that your father could be wrong, then you can lecture me about the need to be more humble.

Why I can't get through to you that these observations are without flaw because they are based on an immutable law, is beyond me. I believe you are unable to see these mathematical relations because your mind is so crammed with opposing theories that are based on logical constructs (not mathematical perceptions) that you will fight me tooth and nail to defend your worldview even if it's flawed. You believe the definitions compatibilists have provided are useful. It is perfectly fine to hold people morally accountable according to their definition of "free". What I'm trying to tell you is that there is a much better way, but you won't listen. I've said this all along: if you are so bent on defending your position, you won't be able to understand why his perceptions are accurate and why compatibilism (although it came into being as a stepping stone toward the understanding of determinism) is a contradiction. This is messing you up.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scroll back. The fact that he questioned your logic and your perceptions was enough for me. Even if you don't think his rebuttal was a fair representation of your position, this was less important than the fact that I was being supported. It's very difficult to have no support whatsoever in a very one-sided thread. This gives the appearance that I've lost the debate when I've done no such thing.

What logic or perceptions of mine do you think Butt challenged? What did he rebut and where did he even try to represent my position? Where did he say or do anything to support you? Did you read this all into his merely insulting me?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why I can't get through to you that these observations are without flaw because they are based on an immutable law, is beyond me. I believe you are unable to see these mathematical relations because your mind is so crammed with opposing theories that are based on logical constructs (not mathematical perceptions) that you will fight me tooth and nail to defend your worldview even if it's flawed. You believe the definitions compatibilists have provided are useful. It is perfectly fine to hold people morally accountable according to their definition of "free". What I'm trying to tell you is that there is a much better way, but you won't listen. I've said this all along: if you are so bent on defending your position, you won't be able to understand why his perceptions are accurate and why compatibilism (although it came into being as a stepping stone toward the understanding of determinism) is a contradiction. This is messing you up.

Should I believe that his observations are without flaw and based upon an immutable law just because he and you say they are? Or should I expect you to support these claims?

Should I agree that my logic is flawed because you say that it is? Or should I continue to defend my logic until you can show me how and where it is flawed?

Should I agree that compatibilism is a contradiction just because you say so, or should I expect you to also show me the alleged contradiction before I believe you?

[Vivisectus]

I think the appearance of you having lost the debate was caused by something else, namely you losing the debate when you admitted that the only reason to believe that conscience works as described in the book is the fact that your father said it worked that way, and nothing else.

But I see you feel that that, too, was somehow caused by bias. Amazing. Apparently bias is so powerful it was able to travel back in time in order to prevent your father from including any reason to believe he was right in his book.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have a very poor and outmoded understanding of the free will debate, which you are insisting upon because it was also your father's understanding.

Ah, but this is where you have it all wrong again, Spacemonkey. All thought after the book has been superfluous. All thinkers - from the early greeks to Jesus, the Buddha, Spinoza and, for some reason I still do not quite understand, Durant, where mere steps on the way to the final culmination, the pinnacle of human thought: Lessans.

He actually says as much, in his book, about himself. But it cannot be arrogant, because he was not arrogant, so if anything he says seems arrogant, then that is your fault.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should I believe that his observations are without flaw and based upon an immutable law just because he and you say they are? Or should I expect you to support these claims?

Should I agree that my logic is flawed because you say that it is? Or should I continue to defend my logic until you can show me how and where it is flawed?

Should I agree that compatibilism is a contradiction just because you say so, or should I expect you to also show me the alleged contradiction before I believe you?

I already did, many times. This is not just on my say so. You are blind Spacemonkey. This just shows how blocked you really are in hearing anything that contravenes your established ideas, which have gotten a tremendous hold on you. Your defensiveness is not based on any semblence of thorough investigation, so don't tell me it is. You are out to prove him wrong without justification (by the way), just so you can hold onto your established worldview, which you believe is immune to any serious refutation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already did, many times. This is not just on my say so. You are blind Spacemonkey. This just shows how blocked you really are in hearing anything that contravenes your established ideas, which have gotten a tremendous hold on you. Your defensiveness is not based on any semblence of thorough investigation, so don't tell me it is. You are out to prove him wrong without justification (by the way), just so you can hold onto your established worldview, which you believe is immune to any serious refutation.

Should I or anybody else believe that you've shown me a contradiction in compatibilism just because you say you have? Or should we expect you to actually show us where you did so?

Should anyone believe that I am blocked to hearing things contrary to my beliefs, that I am being defensive, or that I believe my worldview is immune to refutation? Or should we expect you to support these charges first?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, Angaguk's above insightful post has led me to see that my entire approach here may be flawed. It seems I am asking the wrong questions. So let me start afresh...

Do you think we should ignore the epistemic status of Lessans' satisfaction principle and forget about trying to work our whether it is a tautology or a falsifiable law of nature?

Should we all adopt his idiosyncratic redefinition of previously well-understood terms (like 'mathematical' and 'scientific')?

Should we forget all about compatibilism, and assume like Lessans that it just isn't relevant or worth mentioning or trying to understand?

Should we stop asking for support for what he said about conscience, and just assume that everything he said about it was an accurate description based on astute observation?

Should we not bother trying to understand the location and movement of photons in an efferent model of vision, and should we accept that his offered evidence for efferent vision (dogs and babies, etc.) is compelling even if based on further claims and theories which we don't presently have evidence for?

Should we ignore any apparent contradictions that result from his claims?

Should we put aside all of our critical faculties and give Lessans the benefit of the doubt by agreeing that his ideas are impressive and worthy of further consideration, even if we don't personally see any reason to agree with him or believe a word he says?

Should we believe you when you say he was the intellectual equivalent of Einstein?

Should we just believe everything he says even if we don't see any reason to think he was right?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, Angaguk's above insightful post has led me to see that my entire approach here may be flawed. It seems I am asking the wrong questions. So let me start afresh...

Do you think we should ignore the epistemic status of Lessans' satisfaction principle and forget about trying to work our whether it is a tautology or a falsifiable law of nature?

I don't have to work together Spacemonkey. I know this is not a tautology.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we all adopt his idiosyncratic redefinition of previously well-understood terms (like 'mathematical' and 'scientific')?

Yes, you need to hear him, and you're not doing that. He spelled it out in the introduction so he would be on the same page, but you won't let this go. This is mathematical in terms of precise observation, which has nothing to do with theory, assertions, ideas, conjectures, hypotheses, or the like.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we forget all about compatibilism, and assume like Lessans that it just isn't relevant or worth mentioning or trying to understand?

Whoever said it wasn't worth discussing? I am discussing it over and over again with you. You can't have freedom of the will and determinism without there being a contradiction. The only way you can reconcile this is to fudge the definition to make it useful even though it's not accurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we stop asking for support for what he said about conscience, and just assume that everything he said about it was an accurate description based on astute observation?

He describes to a t how conscience functions, but you keep telling me it is a presupposition. It is not. This is exactly how conscience works. It is an accurate description.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we not bother trying to understand the location and movement of photons in an efferent model of vision, and should we accept that his offered evidence for efferent vision (dogs and babies, etc.) is compelling even if based on further claims and theories which we don't presently have evidence for?

Your evidence for traveling light bringing the image through space/time is a logical theory. There is no absolute evidence to prove this, yet you're all about proof, aren't you? Appearances have fooled science this time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we ignore any apparent contradictions that result from his claims?

There are no contradictions, but the way you have analyzed this has made it appear as if there are contradictions. Major difference between the two.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we put aside all of our critical faculties and give Lessans the benefit of the doubt by agreeing that his ideas are impressive and worthy of further consideration, even if we don't personally see any reason to agree with him or believe a word he says?

I'm not saying you should do anything of the sort if you don't personally see any reason to agree with him. So don't. I am not depending on you Spacemonkey. I've already contacted other people, and I'm going to move on shortly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we believe you when you say he was the intellectual equivalent of Einstein?

No, not with your contempt for him. But he was the equivalent to Einstein in the sense that his observations are spot on. You don't know this yet, but in time you will. Hopefully, we'll still be here but even if we're not, this knowledge will be brought to light because he observed something that is part of the real world, not something he was conjuring up. That cannot be said for many philosophical theories based on words only.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we just believe everything he says even if we don't see any reason to think he was right?

Nope. If that's how you feel, I encourage you to move on. This is not healthy for you or for me. In the end, it's not up to me to bring this knowledge to light. Only God can do that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are looking more and more foolish by the things you say.

I look foolish to who? You? I think you look foolish. Yay we can insult each other. This doesn't negate or refute any points I've made though.

Originally Posted by pecegirl

His reasoning skills are anything but poor LadyShea.

That's your opinion and I've stated mine. I also showed exactly why I think his reasoning was poor. You have only asserted that it wasn't poor, merely asserted that he was spot on. If I am the fool for backing up my stated opinions, then get me a jingle bell hat.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you can admit to yourself that it could be YOU who is lacking the necessary skills to even understand what he's saying.

I hope you admit to yourself that you don't have the necessary skills to support or defend what he was saying in a coherent and convincing manner.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His reasoning is not a modal fallacy or an appeal to consequences (which is so completely off the wall thinking on your part).

My charges stand until you can refute them, rather than just say "is not". If I am off the wall or whatever, you are free to demonstrate that. Assertions aren't a good demonstration. It seems all you are capable of though.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are obviously using a very narrow epistomologic way of determining truth from fiction.

Oh? Please demonstrate that. Show me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so funny to me; you say "nope", and, according to you, it's a done deal.

LOL did you understand what I was saying nope to?, I said "nope, it doesn't" meaning "nope it doesn't mean his observations are inaccurate or flawed."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, and Lessans is wrong.

Yes, until you show me otherwise in a manner that does not require my conceding the truth of things I don't think are true or accept premises I don't think are acceptable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your word is not the last word by any stretch of the imagination.

They are the last word to me, until you say something to make me reconsider.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to work together Spacemonkey. I know this is not a tautology.

Who asked you to work together? Should we believe you when you say his satisfaction principle is not a tautology, or should we believe you when you say that it is a tautology?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, you need to hear him, and you're not doing that. He spelled it out in the introduction so he would be on the same page, but you won't let this go. This is mathematical in terms of precise observation, which has nothing to do with theory, assertions, ideas, conjectures, hypotheses, or the like.

So we should all reject the commonly understood definitions of words and start using Lessans personal redefinitions instead?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whoever said it wasn't worth discussing? I am discussing it over and over again with you. You can't have freedom of the will and determinism without there being a contradiction. The only way you can reconcile this is to fudge the definition to make it useful even though it's not accurate.

Should we believe you, or should we instead listen to people who actually understand compatibilism?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He describes to a t how conscience functions, but you keep telling me it is a presupposition. It is not. This is exactly how conscience works. It is an accurate description.

So should we believe your claims that his descriptions of conscience are spot on and accurate, or should we remain skeptical until there is actual evidence to show that he was right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your evidence for traveling light bringing the image through space/time is a logical theory. There is no absolute evidence to prove this, yet you're all about proof, aren't you? Appearances have fooled science this time.

I haven't presented evidence for light bringing an image through space/time, nor was this what I just asked about. Should we not bother about trying to understand how efferent vision might work with respect to the known properties of the movement and location of photons?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no contradictions, but the way you have analyzed this has made it appear as if there are contradictions. Major difference between the two.

It is the latter apparent contradictions I was asking about. Do you think we should ignore them instead of trying to resolve them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying you should do anything of the sort if you don't personally see any reason to agree with him. So don't. I am not depending on you Spacemonkey. I've already contacted other people, and I'm going to move on shortly.

Should we believe you when you say you will be moving on shortly? Should anyone see any reason to agree with the things that Lessans said but didn't give supporting reasons for? Should people believe your claims that there are reasons to believe he was right, or should they expect you to be able to show us these reasons?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, not with your contempt for him. But he was the equivalent to Einstein in the sense that his observations are spot on. You don't know this yet, but in time you will. Hopefully, we'll still be here but even if we're not, this knowledge will be brought to light because he observed something that is part of the real world, not something he was conjuring up. That cannot be said for many philosophical theories based on words only.

Should anyone believe you when you assert without evidence that he was the equivalent of Einstein and that his observations were spot on? Is this something people should believe just because you say so? Or should readers be skeptical of such claims from you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope. If that's how you feel, I encourage you to move on. This is not healthy for you or for me. In the end, it's not up to me to bring this knowledge to light. Only God can do that.

Should everyone ignore you and move on? Which people should stay? Only those who are prepared to put aside all of their critical faculties and give Lessans the benefit of the doubt by accepting his descriptions and observations as spot on just because he states them?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to work together Spacemonkey. I know this is not a tautology.

You have admitted it is a tautology though. Are you backpedaling on that or did you forget?

Originally Posted by peacegirl 4/30/13

How many times do I have to repeat that whatever choice we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction so in that sense it is tautological

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Philosophers are not confounded by this. It is not an impasse they cannot get beyond. Being caused does not equate to being caused against one's will.

I said there is a stumbling block when it comes to the idea of determinism because it can be used as an excuse. All someone would have to say after killing someone is "I couldn't help because my will is not free", which would release him of all responsibility. That is a critical element in this longstanding debate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Distal causes beyond one's control remain compatible with proximate causes that constitute one's control. The ball still broke the window, even if the bat caused the movement of the ball. You have a very poor and outmoded understanding of the free will debate, which you are insisting upon because it was also your father's understanding.

Don't play this father/daughter game with me anymore. I'm sick of it because it's a lie and that's what you come back with all the time. This is not because of my father's understanding; it's because of MY understanding. We're not talking about ultimate causes. Yes, the person is responsible for breaking the window with the ball. He performed the action (we discussed this early on in this discussion), but that does not mean you can take this and transfer it to the compatibilist notion of free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Based on present day understanding (which is incomplete) determinism would release everyone of responsibility since they couldn't do otherwise.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this what compatibilists believe? Is this their present day understanding?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Really? So you believe that compatibilists think determinism would release everyone of moral responsibility due to their not being able to do otherwise? Would it come as a shock to you to learn that compatibilists actually believe the complete opposite of this? Do you think it might be better to learn about a position before trying to tell those who endorse it what that position is?

Compatibilists (according to your own definition) believe that if a person has no obsessions (a strong compulsion), then their choices are considered free, therefore, if they choose what is deemed wrong or evil by society, they can be held morally responsible and punished for their actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without the justification that would allow compatibilists to charge someone with blameworthiness, they need to believe this person could do otherwise knowing that they will be blamed and punished. This is really no different than the libertarian position when it comes to the justification to blame and punish. The only real difference is that libertarians believe that choice is independently made regardless of antecedent events, and compatibilists try to reconcile determinism with some kind of free will so they can still use punishment as a deterrent without there being a contradiction. This way they can have their cake (the belief in determinism) and eat it too (use blame and punishment as a deterrent).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you capable of actually refuting the position of compatibilists instead of fallaciously attacking their alleged motives?

I'm not attacking their motives; I can see very clearly the need for blame and punishment in a world of right and wrong, but as I said and will continue to say, there is a better way. I'm waiting for you to show any real interest because, until you do, you will never understand why his observations are without flaw.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then act a little more humble, please. You are way too overconfident like LadyShea is, and it's ruining it for you. You're going to miss out on a discovery because you think you've proven him wrong when you've done no such thing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More humble? Like your father? I've already admitted more than once that I could be wrong. When you admit that your father could be wrong, then you can lecture me about the need to be more humble.

He was wrong about many things. He was human; but he was not wrong about this discovery. Telling him he could be wrong would be like telling Einstein that he could be wrong about his discovery, or Mendel that he could be wrong about his discovery, or that Edison that he could be wrong. Do you see the absurdity of this? Just because Lessans is an unknown does not mean he was wrong. I refuse to meet your demands, and if that's what you need in order to admit that you and LadyShea need to humble yourselves, then it's going to be difficult for me to continue on.