A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not an idiot and the fact that you name call shows how insecure you really are in your supposed proof that Lessans' claims are invalid. You wouldn't have to call me names if you felt secure.

I don't believe that Spacemonkey is calling you an 'Idiot' due to insecurity, more likely it's frustration at your 'willful ignorance'.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not an idiot and the fact that you name call shows how insecure you really are in your supposed proof that Lessans' claims are invalid. You wouldn't have to call me names if you felt secure.

I agree peacegirl, you are not an idiot. You are insane. To some it looks like idiocy, but even an idiot would have given up on this thread a very long time ago.

[peacegirl]

I have no desire to defend my father's discovery in this thread, so please don't post for that reason. I will not respond. I may post articles I have found in support of determinism, which has grown exponentially. I hope that this will eventually give credit to Lessans' discovery. It's long overdue.

Exogenous Agency - Our Un Free Will | The Nature of Human Experience

[peacegirl]

The world's first, and already successful* initiative, including two TV shows, to popularize the refutation of free will *How it happened

John Searle, the13th ranked post-1900 philosopher, says that our world overcoming the free will illusion "would be a bigger revolution in our thinking than Einstein, or Copernicus, or Newton, or Galileo, or Darwin -- it would alter our whole conception of our relation with the universe."

The Washington Post, The New York Times, Psychology Today, Los Angeles Times, The Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, USA Today, The Telegraph, Time Magazine, Scientific American, NPR Radio, The Economist, and Science Magazine all affirm that free will is an illusion

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I hope the wedding goes off without a hitch. ? -

Well actually I hope the wedding has a hitch, - but I hope the ceremony doesn't.

How was the wedding?

[Spacemonkey]

How goes the marketing?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The world's first, and already successful* initiative, including two TV shows, to popularize the refutation of free will *How it happened

John Searle, the13th ranked post-1900 philosopher, says that our world overcoming the free will illusion "would be a bigger revolution in our thinking than Einstein, or Copernicus, or Newton, or Galileo, or Darwin -- it would alter our whole conception of our relation with the universe."

The Washington Post, The New York Times, Psychology Today, Los Angeles Times, The Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, USA Today, The Telegraph, Time Magazine, Scientific American, NPR Radio, The Economist, and Science Magazine all affirm that free will is an illusion

Presumably you meant to have a link in this post, peacegirl

How George Ortega Popularized the Refutation of Free Will

The Psychology Today link from that article says this:

Most philosophically uneducated people (including many psychologists) are incompatibilists.

Doesn't sound like that article supports Lessans since you are adamant that Lessans ideas are not compatibilist in nature (though they are)

In general, it looks like there is no consensus at Psychology Today, so no, they have not "affirmed that free will is an illusion"
Free Will | Psychology Today

Also, who the hell is George Ortega and why should I care what he has to say?

George Ortega is a quality-of-life researcher and promoter who in 1984 developed Profit-Donation Capitalism as a new capitalist economic system designed to channel product profits to societal needs. Between 2003 and 2006, he produced, wrote, and hosted the world's first television series about human happiness -- The Happiness Show. Since November of 2010, Ortega has been producing, writing and hosting his weekly cable television series Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, and also co-hosts the weekly Manhattan Neighborhood Network live, call-in television series, Free Will? A second cousin to renowned composer Burt Bacharach, Ortega lives in his hometown of White Plains, New York.

He talks like just another narcissistic crackpot

At the suggestion of philosopher Robert Kane, I visited The Garden of Forking Paths free will blog, and debated the academic philosophers there. Here are a few of the discussions I entered and, in my compelled and humble opinion, won -

"A Flaw in the Standard Argument Against Free Will?" by Bob Doyle June 26, 2009

"History of FW Skepticism" by Kevin Timpe June 29, 2009

Are Humans Glorified Thermostats? by Kip July 3, 2009

[LadyShea]

Looking around the 'Net, seems this Ortega guy loves to write and debate and promote his worldview. Should I invite him here, peacegirl, to discuss his views with us?

He made this assertion in a blog post comment, that I think would be a good discussion starter

Originally Posted by George Ortega

free will is an absolutely black and white proposition. Light a light is either on or off, we either have free will or we don’t

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How goes the marketing?

I'm gathering names of people who are determinists, and I am trying to contact them. I hope they will be interested in reading the book and possibly giving a review on Amazon. Also, I am going to ask them to please pass the book on to other people who they think may find the book interesting. I have to give out the book sparingly. Getting a review from someone not familiar with this difficult topic would be a waste.

I am also trying to get my website fixed. So far no luck on the audio. This is very frustrating to say the least. I hope to reach peace websites that would link my website to theirs. These are just a couple of things I'm working on. I hope to do more, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Presumably you meant to have a link in this post, peacegirl

How George Ortega Popularized the Refutation of Free Will

The Psychology Today link from that article says this:

Doesn't sound like that article supports Lessans since you are adamant that Lessans ideas are not compatibilist in nature (though they are)

In general, it looks like there is no consensus at Psychology Today, so no, they have not "affirmed that free will is an illusion"
Free Will | Psychology Today

Also, who the hell is George Ortega and why should I care what he has to say?

He talks like just another narcissistic crackpot

I have not read or listened to any of George Otega's podcasts, but I am going to research his take on determinism. There are plenty other people who are leaning toward determnism, many of them neuro-scientists. This discovery does reconcile the two opposing ideologies, which is why moral responsibility goes up even though will is not free. LadyShea, this just shows me how little you have understood this knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Looking around the 'Net, seems this Ortega guy loves to write and debate and promote his worldview. Should I invite him here, peacegirl, to discuss his views with us?

He made this assertion in a blog post comment, that I think would be a good discussion starter

That is very true, but I do not want to invite him here. I am going to try to reach people that are part of his meet up program in N.Y. I hope to send the leader of the group a book in the hope that he will pass it on to Otega. I wish I could be in the group but it's too far away. You have no idea how hard it is to reach these people. Even if I did reach him, I don't think it's productive to have a conversation in this thread. I'm sorry but that's how I feel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

How was the wedding?

It was wonderful thedoc. I gave a speech and it went well. The food and dancing were more than anyone could ask for. I am just so very happy that my daughter is loved so much by her husband, and vice versa. The rest is irrelevant. I could not have asked for more.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is very true, but I do not want to invite him here. I am going to try to reach people that are part of his meet up program in N.Y. I hope to send the leader of the group a book in the hope that he will pass it on to Otega. I wish I could be in the group but it's too far away. You have no idea how hard it is to reach these people. Even if I did reach him, I don't think it's productive to have a conversation in this thread. I'm sorry but that's how I feel.

Hard to reach? The guy has blogs, You Tube videos, and half a dozen meetups, all of which allow comments and greetings and have contact links if you are member of Meetup or Facebook. He responds to Amazon reviews of his book, which can be gotten for .99 as a KIndle edition

[LadyShea]

Anyway others might enjoy a good debate, as they had with Wayne Stewart. Just because you don't want to participate doesn't mean others might not want to.

His Two Step Refutation assumes that contra-causal free will is a universal understanding of exactly what free will is, a single definition used by all, which we know is not the case in reality.

How to disprove ANY free will argument in 2 easy steps

1. Ask the free will believer to give an example of a choice they consider to be freely willed.

2. Ask the free will believer to say whether or not that choice was caused.

Congratulations; you’ve won!

If the free will believer says the choice was caused, the causal regression makes free will impossible.

If the free will believer says the choice was uncaused, that would mean the choice was random. Random thoughts are not what we mean when we say we believe a thought is freely willed.

You can easily apply this two-step refutation to any, and all, free will arguments

[Dragar]

I don't even like the term free-will because nobody knows what it means. Far better to discuss the implications of the fact that we make choices, and choices are made for reasons, and those reasons are necessarily (at some level) not under our control. You do have to face up to this being at odds with certain types of moral responsibility, but that's an interesting an nuanced discussion to have.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hard to reach? The guy has blogs, You Tube videos, and half a dozen meetups, all of which allow comments and greetings and have contact links if you are member of Meetup or Facebook. He responds to Amazon reviews of his book, which can be gotten for .99 as a KIndle edition

There is no guarantee he is going to respond to a comment. I would hope to contact him directly, not on a facebook page or a blog which he may or may not respond to. I have to get it right the first time. That is why I want to contact the leader of the meetup group. If the leader of the group shows an interest in the book, I might have a chance getting the book to Ortega.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I don't even like the term free-will because nobody knows what it means. Far better to discuss the implications of the fact that we make choices, and choices are made for reasons, and those reasons are necessarily (at some level) not under our control. You do have to face up to this being at odds with certain types of moral responsibility, but that's an interesting an nuanced discussion to have.

Dragar, the implications are spelled out in Chapter Two. This has been a major stumbling block in this debate for if man's will is not free, we cannot blame him for what he does. And how can we not blame people for intentionally hurting others? I am shocked that you have no understanding as to why our choices are not free and, as such, are not under our control at any level. The purpose of this book is to show that moral responsibility and determinism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, moral responsibility is increased, not decreased with this new understanding, which flies in the face of contemporary thinking. I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. After three years here, people say they understand the book, which is a big joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway others might enjoy a good debate, as they had with Wayne Stewart. Just because you don't want to participate doesn't mean others might not want to.

His Two Step Refutation assumes that contra-causal free will is a universal understanding of exactly what free will is, a single definition used by all, which we know is not the case in reality.

Actually, it is a single definition. It can be broken down even further, but this is the main difference between free will and no free will. They are incompatible even though compatibilists try to make free will compatible with determinism by saying that if there was no physical or emotional constraint when making a choice, the person could have chosen otherwise and therefore is blameworthy. This goes right back to the conventional definition of what free will means; being able to freely choose something other than what was chosen. This is the underlying assumption that is being disputed by determinists. Contra-causal free will (i.e., without cause) is understood to mean independent of any preceding event or circumstance. If you notice, the argument always boils down to blame and punishment, or good and evil whether it's in the definition itself, or part of the argument. This is what makes this debate so significant, for if man is truly not to blame, it follows that we cannot blame or punish. This is the impasse that no one yet has been able to get beyond (except for my father).

How to disprove ANY free will argument in 2 easy steps

1. Ask the free will believer to give an example of a choice they consider to be freely willed.

2. Ask the free will believer to say whether or not that choice was caused.

Congratulations; you’ve won!

If the free will believer says the choice was caused, the causal regression makes free will impossible.

If the free will believer says the choice was uncaused, that would mean the choice was random. Random thoughts are not what we mean when we say we believe a thought is freely willed.

You can easily apply this two-step refutation to any, and all, free will arguments

This guy has insight into why will is not free even though he doesn't at this point know how to slay the fiery dragon. Do you remember what that means? The belief in free will is so ingrained in our culture that it's difficult to find people who are advocates of this position, although it's growing fast, just as more and more people are beginning to question the safety of vaccinations. I am not here to debate determinism. I know will is not free and I have to get the book to like-minded people who will be interested to hear what Lessans has to say in the hope that they will be instrumental in passing this knowledge along.

Obviously, you can invite him if you want to (I won't debate him because I already agree with him for different reasons), but he seems like a very busy guy. He has two radio shows and tons of videos on this subject which takes time to produce. Here is one I'm watching. I hope to watch all of them just to get an idea on where he stands so I can have an intelligent discussion if and when the time comes.

61. Why Quantum Mechanics Cannot Rescue Free Will - YouTube

[Vivisectus]

Ok - so what is the definition of free will?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I don't even like the term free-will because nobody knows what it means. Far better to discuss the implications of the fact that we make choices, and choices are made for reasons, and those reasons are necessarily (at some level) not under our control. You do have to face up to this being at odds with certain types of moral responsibility, but that's an interesting an nuanced discussion to have.

As I said at the very beginning of this thread, I find the term "free will" meaningless outside of religious discussions.

As we can add information to the system, and alter the reasons, by learning and thinking...by participating actively in causality, we can't remove our will from the process. It's an integral part of it. We don't have to be able to control everything that ever happens ever to have conscious input or control over some aspects of our existence. That's enough for me to say we have moral responsibility for our actions.

[LadyShea]

His email address is illusionfreewill@live.com

If you are not here to debate and discuss then why are you here at all?

This guy Ortega is super busy with promoting his books and radio program etc. and where do you think it's gotten him? 4 people showed up to the last meet up and his book has exactly 1 review. His blogs and websites are poorly designed and maintained. His radio and TV shows were on public access local stations. There's your future, aren't you excited?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, the implications are spelled out in Chapter Two. This has been a major stumbling block in this debate for if man's will is not free, we cannot blame him for what he does.

And honestly peacegirl, this discussion is interesting and nuanced, but you've given no indication you can possibly comprehend such concepts. If I find myself with the mental energy to delve into this discussion, and then some excess to have it with you, I'll let you know.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I said at the very beginning of this thread, I find the term "free will" meaningless outside of religious discussions.

As we can add information to the system, and alter the reasons, by learning and thinking...by participating actively in causality, we can't remove our will from the process. It's an integral part of it. We don't have to be able to control everything that ever happens ever to have conscious input or control over some aspects of our existence. That's enough for me to say we have moral responsibility for our actions.

I think it's more appropriate to say that there's a difference between engaging in a mental process of choosing, and other sorts of selecting one option from many, for reasons. But since I haven't yet solve the problem of consciousness, I don't have a good explanation for how this works.

One day, maybe someone will figure out how to resolve this. Almost every interesting discussion seems to end up at that problem. I have working approaches, but I know they are not fully appropriate. But it's better we continue this in another thread if we want to (and I can't promise time or inclination to do so!) as there's a lot of static here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok - so what is the definition of free will?

I gave a definition and it is useful. There may be variations of this definition, but it all boils down to whether we should be held morally accountable for our actions. Here is the definition again:

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary.

But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under his
particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be
wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note.

Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice, consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary
to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion
of living, are beyond control.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I said at the very beginning of this thread, I find the term "free will" meaningless outside of religious discussions.

If the answer to all war and crime lies locked behind the door of determinism, it is an extremely meaningful and important discussion for scientists, not just theologians.

Originally Posted by Dragar

As we can add information to the system, and alter the reasons, by learning and thinking...by participating actively in causality, we can't remove our will from the process. It's an integral part of it. We don't have to be able to control everything that ever happens ever to have conscious input or control over some aspects of our existence. That's enough for me to say we have moral responsibility for our actions.

That is the second part of the two-sided equation. That's why I keep saying that when blame is removed from the environment, accountability for one's actions is increased, not decreased.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I think it's more appropriate to say that there's a difference between engaging in a mental process of choosing, and other sorts of selecting one option from many, for reasons. But since I haven't yet solve the problem of consciousness, I don't have a good explanation for how this works.

Just because we are able to engage in the mental process of contemplation and reason does not alter the fact that free will is an illusion, or a realistic mirage.

Originally Posted by Dragar

One day, maybe someone will figure out how to resolve this.

Resolve what?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Almost every interesting discussion seems to end up at that problem.

I'm not sure what problem you are referring to.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I have working approaches, but I know they are not fully appropriate. But it's better we continue this in another thread if we want to (and I can't promise time or inclination to do so!) as there's a lot of static here.

I have no desire to branch off into another discussion on consciousness or mental processes (if that's what you are referring to). If you want to continue your line of reasoning, good good luck with your new thread.