A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not matter what is universally understood. What matters is whether the proposition is correct. I could easily define something that has no truth in reality. I am giving up on this thread, not because Lessans is wrong but because the argument people have doesn't hold one iota.

Lessans arguments were fallacious and poorly reasoned.

Free will means that our actions are undetermined, uncaused, and unrelated to anything that came before it; in other words, without constraint or necessity; free or independent of any causal factors.

This is a ridiculous definition that nobody here has put forth, and amounts to a strawman because it's so ridiculous.

Good luck marketing the book!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, we can't tell if the procedure works until the person is defrosted. So what? This doesn't change the fact that death is the opposite of life.

Hence that person can be considered dead and alive at the same time, and in fact makes an excellent example how the labels "death" and "alive", while considered opposite in daily use, are in fact just that: labels that we attach to states as a sort of shorthand, without them reflecting a clearly measurable state in reality.

It would also be interesting to think about if such a person would still be an "I".

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will means that our actions are undetermined, uncaused, and unrelated to anything that came before it; in other words, without constraint or necessity; free or independent of any causal factors.

If a person did have such a 'free will' as you describe it, how could we possibly hold them responsible for their actions? They don't make choices (because choices have reasons): they are just acting completely at random, unrelated to prior events. Our entire justice system is based on people not having this sort of 'free will' - and it's pretty obvious nobody does.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If a person did have such a 'free will' as you describe it, how could we possibly hold them responsible for their actions? They don't make choices (because choices have reasons): they are just acting completely at random, unrelated to prior events. Our entire justice system is based on people not having this sort of 'free will' - and it's pretty obvious nobody does.

Random choices, or choices that are unrelated to prior events, cannot be judged blameworthy either, as George Ortega demonstrates in his video. So you are right. But when most people think of free will, they think that a person could have acted otherwise because nothing was forcing him to choose what he did (e.g., to shoot someone), which then becomes punishable by law. Let's look at it this way: What if it were true that the choice to hurt another, based on a person's prior events and circumstances along with his genetic make-up, was beyond his control; how could he be considered culpable for his actions? Obviously, we cannot hold him responsible, but there is a problem which no one has been able to get beyond. How can we not blame and punish those who have hurt us? This is why the compatibilists have tried to fit in a workable definition of free will in order to justify the punishment that has become a necessary deterrent. So far, we have no other choice but to put a person away and lock him up since this is the only deterrent we have available. But as we have seen, holding someone responsible by blaming and punishing him, does not produce the kind of change that our justice system hopes to achieve. Punishment may deter some people, but it will not deter those whose circumstances and attitudes have not changed. It will only delay them from going back to their previous activities if they are unafraid of the consequences.

When you look deeply into this issue, the idea of free will is absurd since a choice as to what to do next is always based on what came before it, even if it's just scratching one's nose. The scratching of one's nose comes from an itch that came right before the scratch. We have no free will, and all the definitions given are just variations of the same theme, that is, being able to choose without any kind of constraint or necessity. What I think you are saying is that a choice that is reasoned through, but is the wrong choice according to societal standards, is punishable, which is the very basis of our justice system up to now. But its a system that is cracking under the seams. There is a better way and that's why I am so passionate about this knowledge.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If a person did have such a 'free will' as you describe it, how could we possibly hold them responsible for their actions? They don't make choices (because choices have reasons): they are just acting completely at random, unrelated to prior events. Our entire justice system is based on people not having this sort of 'free will' - and it's pretty obvious nobody does.

Exactly. Motive and Intent are the cornerstones of the criminal justice system.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hence that person can be considered dead and alive at the same time, and in fact makes an excellent example how the labels "death" and "alive", while considered opposite in daily use, are in fact just that: labels that we attach to states as a sort of shorthand, without them reflecting a clearly measurable state in reality.

It would also be interesting to think about if such a person would still be an "I".

A person in a coma is not dead. A person in suspended animation is not dead. They are not conscious but they are not dead. There is a clear distinction between death and life, and there is no confusion whatsoever with this definition.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the idea of free will is absurd since a choice as to what to do next is always based on what came before it, even if it's just scratching one's nose. The scratching of one's nose comes from an itch that came right before the scratch. We have no free will, and all the definitions given are just variations of the same theme, that is, being able to choose without any kind of constraint or necessity.

Free will is the ability to choose, in accordance with our own personal values, mental states, and preferences, that action which is thought to lead to greater satisfaction. This definition does not negate causation in any way.

You are arguing against contra-causal free will as a type of strawman, which means you are arguing for hard determinism. Is that what you mean to do?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Random choices, or choices that are unrelated to prior events, cannot be judged blameworthy either, as George Ortega demonstrates in his video. So you are right. But when most people think of free will, they think that a person could have acted otherwise because nothing was forcing him to choose what he did....

We're not talking about most people. Most people think things very differently to you. We can see what you think by what you said (right?):

"Free will means that our actions are undetermined, uncaused, and unrelated to anything that came before it."

So, random. And we don't have that sort of free-will. Which is why we can justify locking people up, etc. And you even acknowledge this, as you flip-flop between objecting on practical or theoretical grounds the current approach to crime and punishnment.

There is a better way and that's why I am so passionate about this knowledge.

Your arguments are both wrong and irrelevant. Plenty of people already campaign for greater emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment or imprisonment, precisely because people make choices for reasons, and not randomly. You don't need a rubbish argument about free-will for change here, what you need is good evidence about the cost of imprisonment versus rehabilitation, rates of reoffending, etc.

What you call this sort of decision making ('determined', or 'free' or 'not free') is irrelevant, and the case is not helped by your weird claims and definitions regarding human nature. But you don't actually care about this: you care about vindicating your Dad's silly book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Free will is the ability to choose, in accordance with our own personal values, mental states, and preferences, that action which is thought to lead to greater satisfaction. This definition does not negate causation in any way.

You are arguing against contra-causal free will as a type of strawman, which means you are arguing for hard determinism. Is that what you mean to do?

LadyShea, please soften how you speak, which comes off very accusatory. No, I am not arguing for hard determinism or soft determinism. I am arguing for determinism. You are an active participant and that is a good thing, but the way you talk puts you on a level of understanding that you have not attained. Lessans knew a lot more than you on this subject, so stop telling me what this knowledge is, and what it isn't. The definitions you are using are confusing you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

We're not talking about most people. Most people think things very differently to you. We can see what you think by what you said (right?):

"Free will means that our actions are undetermined, uncaused, and unrelated to anything that came before it."

So, random. And we don't have that sort of free-will. Which is why we can justify locking people up, etc. And you even acknowledge this, as you flip-flop between objecting on practical or theoretical grounds the current approach to crime and punishnment.

Your arguments are both wrong and irrelevant. Plenty of people already campaign for greater emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment or imprisonment, precisely because people make choices for reasons, and not randomly. You don't need a rubbish argument about free-will for change here, what you need is good evidence about the cost of imprisonment versus rehabilitation, rates of reoffending, etc.

What you call this sort of decision making ('determined', or 'free' or 'not free') is irrelevant, and the case is not helped by your weird claims and definitions regarding human nature. But you don't actually care about this: you care about vindicating your Dad's silly book.

Dragar, until you admit that you are tainted by Lessans' claim on the eyes, and try to separate his discoveries so that you can be objective, which you are anything but, this conversation is over. There are no weird claims or definitions, only accurate explanations as to what is going on in reality. If you can't handle that, then don't post anymore. You will not have any impact on the truth being exposed, just because you're pissed.

[thedoc]

Well! If you can't refute other's statements with reasoned arguments, call them all meanies and throw a Hissey Fit.

Be nice or I'll take my marbles and go home, - now just where did I put them?

[thedoc]

Ah! The mystery is solved, I can now tell you why Peacegirl is still here, she's looking for the marbles that she lost, - all of them.

[peacegirl]

added to post #33784:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are arguing against contra-causal free will as a type of strawman, which means you are arguing for hard determinism. Is that what you mean to do?

Any definition of free will, whether it's contra-causal or compatible, contains within it the justification to hold people accountable for their wrongdoing. Contra-causal free will and compatibilist free will are slightly different versions of the same thing. That is why definitions such as soft determinism, hard determinism, psychological determinism, economic determinism, compatibilism, contra-causal free will, compatibilist free will, libertarian free will, etc., do nothing to change the fundamental differences between these two positions and only serve to confuse the issue. Compatibilism seems to satisfy both positions which cannot be done in reality, because they are mutually exclusive. It's almost like this definition becomes a smokescreen so they don't have to see the inconsistency. The fact that compatibilists offer a definition they find useful because they can attribute moral responsibility to certain individuals who appear unshackled by overt emotional or physical constraints, does not take into account the fact that all individuals are constrained by the laws of their nature which compel them to choose the most preferable alternative at any given moment in time, rendering none of their choices free. If you can't get that, you will continue to use these meaningless definitions to defend your illusion of free will.

[peacegirl]

This is an interesting commentary from the New York Times.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...ree-will/?_r=0

[ceptimus]

Look who's posted in this thread!

[Stephen Maturin]

Damn. I gotta step up my game. Here I thought I'd posted in this thread way too much, but in fact I'm just even-up with Doctor X, who last posted at in April 2012.

[Adam]

Damn, I thought I'd at least make the graph! Time to step it up, I guess.

Uh...peacegirl's dad was wrong about stuff... Fight!

Oh, and also at peacegirl's new definition of free will as uncaused action that 1) obviously differs from the definition Lessans uses in his book but 2) peacegirl will swear up and down does not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Look who's posted in this thread!

In my defense, my posts are usually a lot shorter that others, so I should be a lot farther down on the graph.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A person in a coma is not dead. A person in suspended animation is not dead. They are not conscious but they are not dead. There is a clear distinction between death and life, and there is no confusion whatsoever with this definition.

There actually is. A person in suspended animation such a clinical death is. If they recover, they were not dead. If they do not, they were. But in the period in between, they are neither dead or alive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Look who's posted in this thread!

Wow, that's a cool graph. Thank you Ceptimus! It makes me see the time and effort I've put into this thread [with nothing to show for it].

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There actually is. A person in suspended animation such a clinical death is. If they recover, they were not dead. If they do not, they were. But in the period in between, they are neither dead or alive.

If they're dead but frozen, they're still dead; we just don't know that they're dead until we see that they are not recovering. If they have the potential of recovering, they are not dead . By definition, dead means beyond the point of no return.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Damn, I thought I'd at least make the graph! Time to step it up, I guess.

Uh...peacegirl's dad was wrong about stuff... Fight!

Oh, and also at peacegirl's new definition of free will as uncaused action that 1) obviously differs from the definition Lessans uses in his book but 2) peacegirl will swear up and down does not.

The only difference is that the definition in the book says free will is the ability to choose good and evil without compulsion. Speaking of good and evil is the reason this debate has taken on such significance. Here is the definition again and it does not conflict with any other definition of free will. These are just variations of the same thing.

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, that's a cool graph. Thank you Ceptimus! It makes me see the time and effort I've put into this thread [with nothing to show for it].

Quite understandable, as you had nothing to start with.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that the definition in the book says free will is the ability to choose good and evil without compulsion. Speaking of good and evil is the reason this debate has taken on such significance. Here is the definition again and it does not conflict with any other definition of free will. These are just variations of the same thing.

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.

The extremes do not prove the mean, choosing good or evil are the extremes where most choices are somewhere in the middle and that is where free will reins supreme. Absurd examples prove nothing except a lack of understanding of the real world.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, you should go peddle your papers where people have no sense of reality and are easily influenced by hysteria.