A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not presented a definition of free will. I have only repeated what others believe free will to be; i.e., the ability to choose what one prefers.

No, you've gone way beyond that. It's obvious we can choose, because to choose is for one option from many, for reasons. And we can obviously do that, you admitted as such! What you demand is the ability to choose for no reason: a four-sided triangle. You've twisted this definition beyond all recognition.

One day he won't be ignored.

Of course he will. This thread is the most attention he's probably ever had. That's why you keep coming back.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not disputing that what we see needs to be corrected due to stellar aberration...

Good, but irrelevant as we are discussing planetary aberration. Why can't you read?

but this does not rule out the [theory; using this term so you won't get bent out of shape] that we see in real time.

What a weasel! You originally complained this wasn't discussed anywhere:

"I don't see it discussed anywhere, not even on the Nasa website where there are tons of articles."

That's why we're talking about this, not to disprove your (already thoroughly disproved) ideas of vision. Why won't you argue honestly? Instead you should say "Oh, I guess NASA does discuss this somewhere," not try and move the goalposts.

The speed of light measurement plays an important role in many important calculations but this does not prove that we actually see in delayed time. It only proves that we need the speed of light to accurately predict where something is located in reference to velocity and distance which obviously has to be accounted for to get an accurate position.

Weasel! Read the text:

"...the resulting position vector indicates where the target "appears to be" from the observer's location. "

Appears to be. As in: it's not really where we see it. NASA agrees with us, not you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not my personal definition. That is the standard definition in philosophical argumentation. And please stop calling me a liar or I won't talk to you either.

It is not really possible to discuss undefined terms, so you must have a "personal" definition in mind when using any term. You have stated you are using the definition for contra-causal aka libertarian free will in your arguments. You have dismissed all other understandings and used definitions.

That is textbook strawman argumentation.

There is one main definition LadyShea.

No, there is not.

There is no free will that is not contra-causal.

There are definitions and understandings of free will that are not contra-causal, such as the compatibilist conception of free will.

free will implies that we could have done otherwise under the exact same circumstances.

Only according to some definitions and understandings, not all.

No LadyShea. Choosing what we prefer does not mean we have free will.

It does if free will is understood to mean "the ability to choose what is preferred"

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing any of this, just as I don't dispute special relativity. I just don't think frame of reference indicators exclude the possibility of real time vision.

Liar. That we do not -- and cannot -- see in "real time" is pretty-much the entire point of special relativity. And this has been explained to you in detail. By definition, if you believe that we see in "real time," you dispute SR.

Saying that you believe in real-time seeing but don't dispute special relativity is exactly like saying that you don't believe atoms exist, but you don't dispute the atomic theory of matter.

[Vivisectus]

Ah the standard Peacegirl comedy routine: grasp at some straw to make an idiotic idea seem plausible, say something quite stunningly ignorant as a result, then make herself look even more ridiculous by completely failing to admit to the galactic stupidity of the initial statement by transparent weaseling, goalpost-moving or plain old lying, followed by histrionics, claims of persecution and other humorous flailing.

It is like being in a discussion forum with a slightly less intelligent Archie Bunker on a religious trip.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, you've gone way beyond that. It's obvious we can choose, because to choose is for one option from many, for reasons. And we can obviously do that, you admitted as such! What you demand is the ability to choose for no reason: a four-sided triangle. You've twisted this definition beyond all recognition.

Of course we can choose based on reason Dragar, but this does not give us free will. And I am not demanding the ability to choose for no reason. In fact, the mental process that allows us to come up with reasons gives us the necessary information to decide which choice to make, but, once again, this ability does not mean we have free will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah the standard Peacegirl comedy routine: grasp at some straw to make an idiotic idea seem plausible, say something quite stunningly ignorant as a result, then make herself look even more ridiculous by completely failing to admit to the galactic stupidity of the initial statement by transparent weaseling, goalpost-moving or plain old lying, followed by histrionics, claims of persecution and other humorous flailing.

It is like being in a discussion forum with a slightly less intelligent Archie Bunker on a religious trip.

Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known.
Francis Jeffrey
Scottish critic & jurist (1773 - 1850).

Rebelling Against Voodoo Science

This site is an alternative to voodoo science, the sort of science that coats itself with a veneer of legitimacy while being not much more valid than the crackpot science that its practitioners love to disparage. Truth is, voodoo science is much more detrimental to our understanding of nature than crackpot science because society is easily fooled by its authoritative mask and may, as a result, spend huge sums of money and decades (if not centuries) chasing after fantasies. Voodoo science regularly gets sold as legitimate science because its champions are adept at making a name for themselves through careful propaganda. They are very skilled at convincing the public (who ultimately pays for it all) that it is too stupid to know the difference between good science and bad science.

There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else. Voodoo science is not about understanding nature but about working at being so incomprehensible or so arcane to one's fellow human beings as to be regarded as brilliant. The weapon of choice of a voodoo scientist is mathematics. The truth is that a scientist's understanding of a phenomenon is inversely proportional to the number of math equations he uses to describe it. Neither Newton's gravity equation nor the equations of General Relativity explain why things fall. But what better way is there to hide one's cluelessness while presenting a façade of erudition than to use obscure equations to erect an impregnable mountain of obfuscation? Voodoo science is guru science.

A voodoo scientist can always count on other voodoo scientists to jump on his bandwagon and act as if they do understand his theory even though they are equally clueless. Vanity is not to be underrated. This creates a sort of tacit collusion among a group of voodoo scientists who may decide to specialize in the theory and build their careers around it. The idea seems to be to spend a great deal of time to learn the complex and carefully constructed rules of the game and hang in there long enough until one can be safely retired. I must say that many do sincerely believe in the importance and correctness of the theories they espouse but sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a true believer and a hanger-on who merely decides to go along for the ride.

Examples of voodoo science masquerading as legitimate science are all around us: time travel, wormholes, black holes, dimensions curled up into little balls so tiny as to be undetectable, parallel universes, continuum physics, quantum computing, symbolic intelligence, machine consciousness, etc... It is all worthless crackpottery. Yet a few voodoo scientists have managed to amass small fortunes selling some of this stuff to an unsuspecting public, a public that continually thirsts for mysterious things to worship. Hopefully this site will wake a few people up.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course we can choose based on reason Dragar, but this does not give us free will.

Not your kind of free-will. But it's all we want out of free-will, and is exactly what our justice system assumes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar. That we do not -- and cannot -- see in "real time" is pretty-much the entire point of special relativity. And this has been explained to you in detail. By definition, if you believe that we see in "real time," you dispute SR.

Saying that you believe in real-time seeing but don't dispute special relativity is exactly like saying that you don't believe atoms exist, but you don't dispute the atomic theory of matter.

I don't see where SR negates real time vision. You can repeat the train experiment to explain SR, but I don't think this rules out seeing in real time just because what we see is relative to our inertial frame of reference.

What Exactly Is Time?

Lip Service

Theoretical physicists pride themselves in that their science is firmly based on empirical evidence but pay only lip service to empiricism when it suits their agenda. In an essay titled "Objective Knowledge", Karl Popper wrote "... this is a field from which the observer was exorcised, slowly but steadily, by Einstein himself." The observation of change is not empirical evidence for a time axis. It is evidence for, well, change.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

Rebel Science

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I know that is not the only definition.

Then please explain that to this person:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is the standard definition in philosophical argumentation.

There is one main definition LadyShea. Even Spacemonkey understands that. There is no free will that is not contra-causal. If I have to repeat this a thousand times I may need to: free will implies that we could have done otherwise under the exact same circumstances.

The above individual still clearly still thinks there is only one definition of free will and that it is the incompatibilist contra-causal one. Maybe you can talk some sense into her?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is most important is whether the definitions hold any weight, and the definition compatibilists use to attribute blameworthiness to some and not to others does not hold up up to logical scrutiny.

How so? It is internally consistent, so there cannot be any logical problem with it. Do you still think definitions can be true or false? Or do you just object to this definition because it is not the libertarian one?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Not your kind of free-will. But it's all we want out of free-will, and is exactly what our justice system assumes.

This is not what we want out of free will because this "useful" definition is extremely limited and will never help us to achieve permanent peace. We all know that the justice system uses this "free will" definition as a justification to punish. This was necessary as part of our development. We've been over this before.

p. 27 In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of
development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to
control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the
reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense
of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of
everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However,
in order to reach this stage of development so God could reveal
Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it
was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he
believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a
dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all
civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop.

The belief
in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not
only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate
crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his
problems without blame and punishment which required the
justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience.
Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did
because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to
choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon
to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you
would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative
than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled
by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but
to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the
principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and why my
discovery was never found.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not what we want out of free will...

Speak for yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I know that is not the only definition.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then please explain that to this person:

I said that there is one definition of free will that is used in philosophical discussion which is the opposite of the definition of determinism. Caused versus uncaused. All the other definitions are variations. Compatibilists use the same definition the justice system uses, but if you look deeper the person who was believed to be free (according to the definition used), and therefore seen as morally responsible and worthy of punishment, was not really free at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is most important is whether the definitions hold any weight, and the definition compatibilists use to attribute blameworthiness to some and not to others does not hold up up to logical scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How so? It is internally consistent, so there cannot be any logical problem with it.

It may follow a logical consistency, but it's not sound because laws stay the same across the board.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you still think definitions can be true or false? Or do you just object to this definition because it is not the libertarian one?

It is a definition that allows certain actions to be blameworthy (the actions we don't like) while others are not judged in the same way. Special privilege does not exist in the real world when we're dealing with universal laws of nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Speak for yourself.

If this belief system is preventing progress toward a safer world, most people would give up free will in a heartbeat. They just don't know any better, including you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that there is one definition of free will that is used in philosophical discussion which is the opposite of the definition of determinism.

And you are wrong, for there are multiple definitions used in philosophical discussion, and not all of them are opposed to determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All the other definitions are variations.

And some are variations that are not opposed to determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compatibilists use the same definition the justice system uses, but if you look deeper the person who was believed to be free (according to the definition used), and therefore seen as morally responsible and worthy of punishment, was not really free at all.

That's not looking deeper. That's simply you reverting to the libertarian definition of free will again, as if that's the only one. It isn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It may follow a logical consistency, but it's not sound.

Definitions cannot be sound or unsound.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a definition that allows certain actions to be blameworthy (the actions we don't like) while others are not judged in the same way. That is a false dichotomy that does not exist in the real world.

Blameworthy vs. not blameworthy is not a false dichotomy. Compatibilist free will exists in the real world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this belief system is preventing progress toward a safer world...

It isn't. Your arguments to the contrary require stupid moves, such as insisting upon a single definition of free will that no-one cares about.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where SR negates real time vision.

That's the point. You don't understand what you're talking about. At all.

Which is why you keep saying stunningly ignorant and stupid things.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The belief
in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not
only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate
crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his
problems without blame and punishment which required the
justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience.
Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did
because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to
choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon
to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you
would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative
than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled
by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but
to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the
principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and why my
discovery was never found.[/I]

Actually, if a person was compelled to commit certain acts that would be harmful to another person, I would have no reservations about removing him from society. That that person committed those acts and was not free to choose otherwise is even more reason to remove him, because there would be no possibility for reformation. Set him free and he will do it again because he would be compelled to do so. Death is just one means to accomplish this goal, but a very permanent solution.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"This site is an alternative to voodoo science, the sort of science that coats itself with a veneer of legitimacy while being not much more valid than the crackpot science that its practitioners love to disparage. Truth is, voodoo science is much more detrimental to our understanding of nature than crackpot science because society is easily fooled by its authoritative mask...

There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist..."

Oh, the irony of quoting Louis Savain, the crackpot who "As a Christian, I had long suspected that some of the metaphorical passages in several Old and New Testament books were scientific in nature", (1) and then proceeds to base his "scientific" theories on the books of Zechariah and Revelations, and opines that "Anybody with more than two neurons between their ears knows that evolution is a religion of cretins, created by cretins for cretins." (2)

(1) Rebel Science News: Secrets of the Holy Grail, Part V
(2) http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.au/2...36280150191616

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Oh, the irony of quoting Louis Savain, the crackpot who "As a Christian, I had long suspected that some of the metaphorical passages in several Old and New Testament books were scientific in nature", (1) and then proceeds to base his "scientific" theories on the books of Zechariah and Revelations, and opines that "Anybody with more than two neurons between their ears knows that evolution is a religion of cretins, created by cretins for cretins." (2)

(1) Rebel Science News: Secrets of the Holy Grail, Part V
(2) http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.au/2...36280150191616

If I might suggest Louis Savain's method of spotting VooDoo science is that if he doesn't understand it, it must be BS. I have actually known people like that, (but not for long), that is something was outside their narrow experience it had to be wrong, "I've never heard of anything like that, so it's nonsense." Once in HS I mentioned to another student about tuning a kettle drum to a particular pitch, and since he was not at all familiar with musical instruments, he said I was full of it, and he would never believe anything I said again.

The other point is that if you follow the 2nd link and scroll down you find that LS has a potty mouth almost as bad as Satyr's, and that's pretty bad.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known.
Francis Jeffrey
Scottish critic & jurist (1773 - 1850).

Rebelling Against Voodoo Science

This site is an alternative to voodoo science, the sort of science that coats itself with a veneer of legitimacy while being not much more valid than the crackpot science that its practitioners love to disparage. Truth is, voodoo science is much more detrimental to our understanding of nature than crackpot science because society is easily fooled by its authoritative mask and may, as a result, spend huge sums of money and decades (if not centuries) chasing after fantasies. Voodoo science regularly gets sold as legitimate science because its champions are adept at making a name for themselves through careful propaganda. They are very skilled at convincing the public (who ultimately pays for it all) that it is too stupid to know the difference between good science and bad science.

There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else. Voodoo science is not about understanding nature but about working at being so incomprehensible or so arcane to one's fellow human beings as to be regarded as brilliant. The weapon of choice of a voodoo scientist is mathematics. The truth is that a scientist's understanding of a phenomenon is inversely proportional to the number of math equations he uses to describe it. Neither Newton's gravity equation nor the equations of General Relativity explain why things fall. But what better way is there to hide one's cluelessness while presenting a façade of erudition than to use obscure equations to erect an impregnable mountain of obfuscation? Voodoo science is guru science.

A voodoo scientist can always count on other voodoo scientists to jump on his bandwagon and act as if they do understand his theory even though they are equally clueless. Vanity is not to be underrated. This creates a sort of tacit collusion among a group of voodoo scientists who may decide to specialize in the theory and build their careers around it. The idea seems to be to spend a great deal of time to learn the complex and carefully constructed rules of the game and hang in there long enough until one can be safely retired. I must say that many do sincerely believe in the importance and correctness of the theories they espouse but sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a true believer and a hanger-on who merely decides to go along for the ride.

Examples of voodoo science masquerading as legitimate science are all around us: time travel, wormholes, black holes, dimensions curled up into little balls so tiny as to be undetectable, parallel universes, continuum physics, quantum computing, symbolic intelligence, machine consciousness, etc... It is all worthless crackpottery. Yet a few voodoo scientists have managed to amass small fortunes selling some of this stuff to an unsuspecting public, a public that continually thirsts for mysterious things to worship. Hopefully this site will wake a few people up.

Ah yes - you are right, I forgot to add that standard response as well: calling everyone else biased and closed-minded despite the fact that you are the one maintaining a pre-conceived idea in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I like your quote by the way. It is written by someone who also gets upset when science and his holy book do not agree. This is from page 2 of that site:

What is it exactly that I am trying to accomplish with the rebel science site? My agenda is simple. I am a Christian and I work to promote the God of the old and the new testaments. I hasten to say that I am not a Christian fundamentalist since I don't believe that every part of the Bible must be interpreted literally. I certainly don't believe that the universe was created six thousand years ago or that the heavens and the earth were created in six days of twenty-four hours each. But I do find it rather distressing that many in the scientific community have monopolized science as their own exclusive playground and turned it into an anti-Christianity and anti-God crusade. I blame both scientists and many so-called Christians for this state of affairs.

My plan is to demonstrate over the coming months and years that, not only is it false that Biblical teachings are anti-science, but that the most revolutionary scientific advances in this century will come straight from the Bible. I perfectly realize that this is not going to win me a lot of friends in the scientific community but I will be very blunt about it: I don't care. As can be garnered from my work on software reliability, I am not normally given to flights of fancy. Those of you who have followed my work over the years already know about my research in Biblical AI. What you may not know is that my current writings regarding the Star-Trek voodoo science that is endemic in the spacetime physics community are just a prelude of much greater things to come. Artificial intelligence is just the tip of the Biblical iceberg because, as it turns out, the Bible has many more secrets hidden behind clever metaphors. The Biblical symbolism related to the fundamental principles and the underlying structure of the physical universe will turn out to be just as amazing and upsetting as the advent of intelligent machines, if not more so. We are living in interesting times. Stay tuned.
Addendum, 3-24-2007

Glorious

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Good, but irrelevant as we are discussing planetary aberration. Why can't you read?

Why are you being so rude? I am not being rude to you. I do not believe that this adjustment in light correction is a game changer. I know you are trying to make me look foolish because I am not an astrophysicist, and you think that you will catch me in a contradiction, or worse, an ignorant response. All I can tell you is that I do not believe this correction has the kind of impact on the claim of efferent vision that you think it does. If you want to explain the following in more detail, be my guest.

Planetary aberration

Planetary aberration is the combination of the aberration of light (due to Earth's velocity) and light-time correction (due to the object's motion and distance), as calculated in the rest frame of the Solar System. Both are determined at the instant when the moving object's light reaches the moving observer on Earth. It is so called because it is usually applied to planets and other objects in the solar system whose motion and distance are accurately known.

Aberration of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but this does not rule out the [theory; using this term so you won't get bent out of shape] that we see in real time.

Originally Posted by Dragar

What a weasel! You originally complained this wasn't discussed anywhere:

"I don't see it discussed anywhere, not even on the Nasa website where there are tons of articles."

That's why we're talking about this, not to disprove your (already thoroughly disproved) ideas of vision. Why won't you argue honestly? Instead you should say "Oh, I guess NASA does discuss this somewhere," not try and move the goalposts.

I didn't see it discussed. Maybe I didn't look in the right places.

The speed of light measurement plays an important role in many important calculations but this does not prove that we actually see in delayed time. It only proves that we need the speed of light to accurately predict where something is located in reference to velocity and distance which obviously has to be accounted for to get an accurate position.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Weasel! Read the text:

"...the resulting position vector indicates where the target "appears to be" from the observer's location. "

Appears to be. As in: it's not really where we see it. NASA agrees with us, not you.

This goes back to the basic dispute as to whether matter is interpreted from light afferently, or whether we can see matter in real time. I know NASA agrees with you, not me. If their disagreement proved that Lessans was wrong, I wouldn't be discussing this, but disagreement is not proof that they are right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not really possible to discuss undefined terms, so you must have a "personal" definition in mind when using any term. You have stated you are using the definition for contra-causal aka libertarian free will in your arguments. You have dismissed all other understandings and used definitions.

I told you that in philosophical terms, the phrase "free will" has an explicit meaning. If compatibilists say that we have a certain kind of free will, what kind of free will are they talking about? Are they saying that the person was free to choose something other than what they did, but they were determined at the same time? That is a conflict and if you really look close, the argument for compatibilism is not sound.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is textbook strawman argumentation.

There is no strawman argumentation. There is only a clear analysis of the facts.

There is one main definition LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there is not.

As I said, there may be thousands of definitions, but when it comes to philosophical debate, there is a core definition of what freedom of the will is, a core definition of determinism is, and they are mutually exclusive. You cannot be compelled to do what you do, and be free to do what you do.

There is no free will that is not contra-causal.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are definitions and understandings of free will that are not contra-causal, such as the compatibilist conception of free will.

You are not listening at all. Maybe you are doing this to try to draw out in me a better way to explain what I'm trying to say, I'm not sure.

free will implies that we could have done otherwise under the exact same circumstances.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Only according to some definitions and understandings, not all.

Definitions mean nothing if they do not reflect true reality. One of them is right and one of them is not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have not posted any arguments against other definitions, you've simply dismissed them and maintained your assertion that we don't have it.

You can't disprove free will with such poor reasoning. We can be directly observed to choose what we prefer, and even Lessans stated we always choose what we prefer, therefore we absolutely have free will as you, yourself, just defined it.

No LadyShea. Choosing what we prefer does not mean we have free will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does if free will is understood to mean "the ability to choose what is preferred"

Oh my gosh, I don't know what to say. I'm dumbfounded by your response. The ability to choose what is preferred is the very reason our will is not free because we cannot choose what is not preferred, rendering all other choices under those same exact conditions, IMPOSSIBLE. P.S. It's your reasoning that is poor, not mine.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this belief system is preventing progress toward a safer world, most people would give up free will in a heartbeat. They just don't know any better, including you.

And once again, desirable or undesirable results do not speak to the veracity of the claim.

Free will is a philosophical concept with no set definition and no objective, observable thing it describes. You cannot prove or disprove it. You can only have opinions about it.

Your opinion is that we do not have free will. Others disagree.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that in philosophical terms, the phrase "free will" has an explicit meaning.

And we've shown you that this is bollocks. There are multiple definitions of free will employed in the philosophical literature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If compatibilists say that we have a certain kind of free will, what kind of free will are they talking about?

Compatibilist free will, which we have defined and explained to you several times now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, there may be thousands of definitions, but when it comes to philosophical debate, there is a core definition of what freedom of the will is, a core definition of determinism is, and they are mutually exclusive.

You're again just insisting upon the contra-causal definition as the only legitimate one. That's just plain stupid.