A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a consensus on what freedom of the will and determinism mean. They don't have the knowledge on how to reconcile these two opposing worldviews without it being contradictory. Moreover, it is believed that if we instituted a no free will environment, people would become irresponsible (do whatever they want and use the excuse that they couldn't help themselves because their will was not free to do otherwise), and less motivated (because their life has already been planned for them [fatalism]). This is the opposite of what would occur. The debate goes on, but that does not mean there isn't an answer just because it's been argued for centuries. We didn't know the true shape of the earth either, but eventually we learned, and now it isn't debated anymore.

And you have repeatedly stated that what the majority of the people believe, does not necessarily make it true. The majority view has often been wrong. So instituting a "No free will", "No blame" society will not necessarily bring about the results you claim, because those concepts might be wrong, even if you can get everyone to believe them.

Oh, the shape of the Earth, and free will vs. determinism, is a bad analogy. One is a physical fact that can be verified by observation, and the others are subjective concepts that cannot be observed or empirically verified.

[peacegirl]

This shows the strength of the human spirit!

They Called Her "The World's Ugliest Girl" & Her Response is Unbelievably Beautiful. I literally cried. - shockable

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I do, and....?

Okay, how many times then?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This shows the strength of the human spirit!

They Called Her "The World's Ugliest Girl" & Her Response is Unbelievably Beautiful. I literally cried. - shockable

On a website that exists to revel in some of humanity's most deplorable traits. Ironic!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Okay, how many times then?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

On a website that exists to revel in some of humanity's most deplorable traits. Ironic!

I did not get this from the original sight. I got it from the sight "stargazing". This girl is giving a Ted talk, which is pretty impressive even by your standards.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you lie again? Do you have any idea how many times you've already told me we're done and you have nothing more to say to me?

(Hint: Don't answer Yes if you don't actually know.)

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't Angakuk. All this is is a conjecture, an appeal to folk psychology intuition which doesn't tell us anything except what we subjectively perceive is the case. This is not proof that he could have actually done that which he never did do.

Woooosh - straight over her head. Pearls before swine.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It hurts me to think that his contribution to humanity is being taken so lightly. I know this is just one little corner of the internet. That's why I am not worried.

Just as well that A Revolution in Thought is so enthusiastically acclaimed, applauded, accepted and implemented everywhere else.

Yes, Peacegirl, there are many instances of theories that have been ignored or rejected at one time and become mainstream later on, but there are many others that never were because basically they were crap. Lessans' is one of the latter.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't Angakuk. All this is is a conjecture, an appeal to folk psychology intuition which doesn't tell us anything except what we subjectively perceive is the case. This is not proof that he could have actually done that which he never did do.

Hold it right there Sparky! You are the one who claimed that Lessans could have done otherwise than what he actually did. That makes you the one who is implicitly appealing to free will on Lessans' behalf.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not get this from the original sight. I got it from the sight "stargazing". This girl is giving a Ted talk, which is pretty impressive even by your standards.

The word is "site" not "sight". Do you know the difference?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are the one who claimed that Lessans could have done otherwise than what he actually did. That makes you the one who is implicitly appealing to free will on Lessans' behalf.

Unfair. She is not, and you know it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Unfair. She is not, and you know it.

I am not so sure. The circumstances could not have been otherwise: at least in this universe, he could not have been right.

So the circumstances remain the same, and claiming that he could have done otherwise in the same circumstances is tantamount to claiming that he had free will. She may not have done so intentionally, but she seems to have done so nonetheless.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not so sure. The circumstances could not have been otherwise: at least in this universe, he could not have been right.

So the circumstances remain the same, and claiming that he could have done otherwise in the same circumstances is tantamount to claiming that he had free will. She may not have done so intentionally, but she seems to have done so nonetheless.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is all that matters. Lessans himself would have admitted if he was wrong.

Look at that from peacegirl's perspective for a moment: If circumstances were different, that is to say if the truth Lessans turned out not to be the truth after all, Lessans would have conceded as much.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Look at that from peacegirl's perspective for a moment: If circumstances were different, that is to say if the truth Lessans turned out not to be the truth after all, Lessans would have conceded as much.

But that's worse. It's effectively an appeal to the same kind of considerations as compatibilist free will - what her father would have been able to do in relevantly similar situations but with different antecedent conditions.

[peacegirl]

Woooosh - straight over her head. Pearls before swine.

added: Claiming that he could have done that which he never did do IS a rather blatant appeal to free will, but it doesn't mean that he actually could have done differently. That is the entire point of this debate; to prove that he could not have done that which he never did do because the comparison gave him less satisfaction under the circumstances. If he could act differently and do what hadn't been done previously, they are setting up a new set of antecedent conditions which does not prove free will at all, as I already explained in a previous post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Just as well that A Revolution in Thought is so enthusiastically acclaimed, applauded, accepted and implemented everywhere else.

Yes, Peacegirl, there are many instances of theories that have been ignored or rejected at one time and become mainstream later on, but there are many others that never were because basically they were crap. Lessans' is one of the latter.

How do you know Seraph? Have you read the first chapter? Have you read anything? When did you get involved in this thread? What do you really know about this discovery other than the junk people are saying about it in this tiny part of the internet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't Angakuk. All this is is a conjecture, an appeal to folk psychology intuition which doesn't tell us anything except what we subjectively perceive is the case. This is not proof that he could have actually done that which he never did do.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Hold it right there Sparky! You are the one who claimed that Lessans could have done otherwise than what he actually did. That makes you the one who is implicitly appealing to free will on Lessans' behalf.

What? I never made a claim like that. I said most people appeal to the intuition that we have free will when we are not constrained by physical force or some strong addiction. Nevertheless, it is an illusion that we have free will of any kind and until we know why it doesn't exist, the folk psychological intuition that we do will continue to exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not get this from the original sight. I got it from the sight "stargazing". This girl is giving a Ted talk, which is pretty impressive even by your standards.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The word is "site" not "sight". Do you know the difference?

I wasn't consciously thinking about it, so I spelled it wrong. Yes, I do know the difference. Why are you being so mean? Why is everyone picking on for most mundane things just to get a cheap thrill?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Unfair. She is not, and you know it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not so sure.

At least you admit you're not sure. That's a start.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The circumstances could not have been otherwise: at least in this universe, he could not have been right.

You just said the circumstances could not have been otherwise, so how could he not have been right when this is what he was claiming? Thank you Seraph for pointing out his mistake.

Originally Posted by So the circumstances remain the same, and claiming that he could have done otherwise in the same circumstances

Why are you not getting this? The circumstances do not remain the same and cannot remain the same because it's a different moment in time The circumstances may look the same; they may be similar, but they are not the same. We cannot go back to the same circumstance to prove that he could have done otherwise under those exact same conditions.

[quote="Vivisectus

is tantamount to claiming that he had free will. She may not have done so intentionally, but she seems to have done so nonetheless.

I'm claiming nothing of the sort. I have not claimed that we have free will (unintentionally or otherwise) in any of my posts because we don't have it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But that's worse. It's effectively an appeal to the same kind of considerations as compatibilist free will - what her father would have been able to do in relevantly similar situations but with different antecedent conditions.

Everyone, this is not effectively an appeal to compatibilist free will because we are not discussing " relevant similar situations". Spacemonkey is very very confused.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone, this is not effectively an appeal to compatibilist free will because we are not discussing " relevant similar situations". Spacemonkey is very very confused.

[LadyShea]

Why is Keith Lehrer "junk" but Gregg Caruso, whom you posted, is not? Is there any reason other than that you agree with Caruso and not with Lehrer?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Amazing how people can come up with the junk science that they do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

What a dumb post. It just shows how committed you are to keeping your belief that it's all lulz. You have nothing else to say. No support for your comments. There is no "the pot calling the kettle black" here. At the very least Cynthia, give me an example instead of just spouting off that this is what it is when you have no clue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why is Keith Lehrer "junk" but Gregg Caruso, whom you posted, is not? Is there any reason other than that you agree with Caruso and not with Lehrer?

I told you why. He gives no examples to back up his argument. All he does is says that there are problems with Caruso's argument and lists what he believes can be contested but does not give one bit of support to the contrary. That is not evidence that he is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Amazing how people can come up with the junk science that they do.

[/QUOTE]

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know Seraph? Have you read the first chapter? Have you read anything? When did you get involved in this thread? What do you really know about this discovery other than the junk people are saying about it in this tiny part of the internet?

The answers to these questions, and more, are easily found by clicking on <replies>, holding down the control key while pressing "f", then typing in "Seraph" and finally hit <Enter>. Do you think you are capable of that?

I love how you ignored the first paragraph of my previous post. Well, not love. Let me rephrase: I am not surprised that you ignored the first paragraph of my previous thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

The answers to these questions, and more, are easily found by clicking on <replies>, holding down the control key while pressing "f", then typing in "Seraph" and finally hit <Enter>. Do you think you are capable of that?

I love how you ignored the first paragraph of my previous thread.

I did not intentionally miss the first paragraph of your previous thread, so instead of accusing me of doing this purposely, why not repeat it? Why are you jumping on the anti-Lessans bandwagon when you haven't even studied his work?

Originally Posted by Seraph

Well, not love. Let me rephrase: I am not surprised that you ignored the first paragraph of my previous thread.

If this is going to be the trajectory you take, you better not start because I will ignore you. You cannot just criticize Lessans without giving a damn good reason. So far you are like all the rest, and it won't keep me here. I wanted new people to come in but not if they just imitate everyone else. Monkey see, monkey does, will not work. P.S. Your sarcasm as to whether I can push the control key is not going to motivate me to talk to you. So keep it up if that is your intention.