A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it isn't. It's completely stupid and you have no support for it whatsoever.

The fuck? How stupid are you? Do you even understand what hard determinism is yet?

You're attacking my alleged motivations instead of my arguments. That is a FALLACY. Moron.

Oh be quiet Spacemonkey. I was only pointing out what I believe your motivation to be. That does not make my argument flawed because I wasn't using it as part of my argument. Now stop talking to me because you can't control your yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh be quiet Spacemonkey. I was only pointing out what I believe your motivation to be. That does not make my argument flawed because I wasn't using it as part of my argument. Now stop talking to me because you can't control your yourself.

Fuck off. You were attacking my motivations INSTEAD of addressing my arguments. That is a FALLACY. Why do you keep saying completely STUPID things (like saying determinism and hard determinism aren't really different) which you could easily have corrected had you paid even the TINIEST amount of attention to what people have already told you? Why do you insist on such idiocy?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it isn't. It's completely stupid and you have no support for it whatsoever.

That is because you have no understanding of how conscience works universally. If there is no way to justify an action that is harmful to another, conscience will not allow the individual to perform said action. This is an observation that does not need anymore support than that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no real difference between the two.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The fuck? How stupid are you? Do you even understand what hard determinism is yet?

Yes I do. It is that all the causes of behavior go back to the Big Bang, and that one's immediate deliberations and desires (which is thought of by compatibilists to be the only thing that is necessary to judge behavior) are only one aspect of a larger picture of causation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, I believe this is true. I'm not attacking you, I just believe that you are afraid to step out of your comfort zone to even consider the possibility that Lessans was right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're attacking my alleged motivations instead of my arguments. That is a FALLACY. Moron.

I am analyzing your motives (not attacking them) because I cannot understand why you are so blocked. I can share my thoughts if I want to, which is not a fallacy because it has nothing to do with the actual argument, as I already said. Now leave me alone, will you? Of course not because I think you really love me.

I think I love you by the Partridge Family with lyrics - YouTube

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is because you have no understanding of how conscience works universally. If there is no way to justify an action that is harmful to another, conscience will not allow the individual to perform said action. This is an observation that does not need anymore support than that.

It needs far more support than such mindless assertions. Conscience can justify harmful actions in the absence of blame. Conscience also has no innate potential level of perfection.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I do. It is that all the causes of behavior go back to the Big Bang, and that one's immediate deliberations and desires (which is thought of by compatibilists to be the only thing that is necessary to judge behavior) are only one aspect of a larger picture of causation.

No, retard. That isn't hard determinism at all. You really haven't been paying any attention at all, have you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am analyzing your motives (not attacking them) because I cannot understand why you are so blocked.

That's the fallacy, you halfwit. You routinely turn to speculating about people's alleged motives, talking shit like this about them as a result of being completely unable to meet their actual arguments. That is fallacious.

[Vivisectus]

What does it matter whether it is a psychology or philosophy journal in so far as my worry about people trying to sabotage my efforts?

The active part is "journal". As opposed to a forum, message board or other such open messaging system.

In a proper journal there won't even be any room for comments.

Although god knows what kind of emporium of advanced crackpottery you have found this time

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, lol@ thinking it was not the contents of the book itself that made people reject it at project reason. For someone who thinks blame is useless, you sure do a lot of blaming. Nothing is ever the fault of your precious book, it is always someone else's fault!

Vivisectus, I am not in the new world so you cannot look at my responses (including blame when I feel justified) any differently than anyone else living in the world of free will. The thread in Project Reason was so far removed from reason I could not stay there. Spacemonkey, thedoc and NA made it unbearable for me by not even allowing me to share this discovery without their negative and biased input. I should have never let them know where I was.

But aren't you supposed to know better? And are you not justifying other people's bad decisions by doing so according to your own philosophy? It sounds like you don't use your own brand of dogfood!

It seems to me that your idea only works as long as no-one criticizes it. It seems to be one of those ideas that requires belief in order to become convinced by it in the first place, like most religions and new-age beliefs. They too can only be convincing in an environment where people are already convinced, and need people who are "open-minded", "spiritual", "in tune with the universe" in order for their ideas to seem convincing.

[Vivisectus]

I cannot understand why you are so blocked.

As I said: like all woo-woo beliefs, it cannot be that the ideas just make no sense. It is that people who criticize it are somehow unable to get in tune with the ideas. Criticism is never valid, but is merely caused by a fault in the critic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It needs far more support than such mindless assertions. Conscience can justify harmful actions in the absence of blame. Conscience also has no innate potential level of perfection.

No, retard. That isn't hard determinism at all. You really haven't been paying any attention at all, have you?

That's the fallacy, you halfwit. You routinely turn to speculating about people's alleged motives, talking shit like this about them as a result of being completely unable to meet their actual arguments. That is fallacious.

The more you talk like this, the more it implicates you as having no proof of anything. You can't even appreciate my youtube video. You have no humor in your heart, and that's not good for your health.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As I said: like all woo-woo beliefs, it cannot be that the ideas just make no sense. It is that people who criticize it are somehow unable to get in tune with the ideas. Criticism is never valid, but is merely caused by a fault in the critic.

The observation that determinism is true is not a woo-woo concept. Are you kidding me? Talk to all the philosophers, psychologists, and neuro-scientists who are supporting this worldview and tell me it's woo-woo. You can't do it because you will not be taken seriously, especially as more testing proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that we don't have free will.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The observation that determinism is true is not a woo-woo concept. Are you kidding me? Talk to all the philosophers, psychologists, and neuro-scientists who are supporting this worldview and tell me it's woo-woo. You can't do it because you will not be taken seriously, especially as more testing proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that we don't have free will.

Just by saying "determinism is true", you demonstrate a stunning amount of ignorance about the subject.

The universe may or may not be deterministic in nature. Quantum mechanics seems to suggest that it isn't, at least if we consider things at the quantum level. Some argue that this means that the universe is not (fully) deterministic on larger levels either. These discussions are too technical for me: I am not a physicist.

What we can say for sure is that the question if everything is determined from the big bang onward has not been settled yet, and may never be. Perhaps it is one of those questions that is made up of poorly defined, intuitive concepts that hide internal contradictions.

But really, all that is neither here nor there. The fact is that what I said was not a criticism of determinism, which you suddenly pretend to represent (lol) but a criticism of your style of arguing. When people point out how contradictory and silly your ideas are, there has to be something wrong with them: they have to be biased, "blocked", closed-minded, mean-spirited... you blame other people for being unconvinced by your shoddy arguments.

This despite the fact that you have no answers to their objections: when confronted by clear evidence that your book is wrong, you pretend it does not matter anyway and simply ignore it.

This is typical woo-behavior. In order to retain your beliefs, you simply pretend there is something wrong with people who do not share them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The active part is "journal". As opposed to a forum, message board or other such open messaging system.

In a proper journal there won't even be any room for comments.

Although god knows what kind of emporium of advanced crackpottery you have found this time

No crackpottery. A legitimate journal. And, btw, the reason I am going to other avenues is because I have learned so much from this thread what not to do again because it is too subjective for my taste.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, lol@ thinking it was not the contents of the book itself that made people reject it at project reason. For someone who thinks blame is useless, you sure do a lot of blaming. Nothing is ever the fault of your precious book, it is always someone else's fault!

Vivisectus, I am not in the new world so you cannot look at my responses (including blame when I feel justified) any differently than anyone else living in the world of free will. The thread in Project Reason was so far removed from reason I could not stay there. Spacemonkey, thedoc and NA made it unbearable for me by not even allowing me to share this discovery without their negative and biased input. I should have never let them know where I was.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But aren't you supposed to know better? And are you not justifying other people's bad decisions by doing so according to your own philosophy? It sounds like you don't use your own brand of dogfood!

It seems to me that your idea only works as long as no-one criticizes it.

People have criticized the book based on their present knowledge. It is true that if people continue to use their knowledge to judge this book, mankind won't get very far. But I believe there are people who will not criticize it, in spite of the little imperfections, typos, and dialogue format, that certain people in here are making too much out of.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It seems to be one of those ideas that requires belief in order to become convinced by it in the first place, like most religions and new-age beliefs.

If you understood why man's will is not free, and why nothing can make you do what you make up your mind not to do, you would see that these two principles are not new-age beliefs. They've been here for centuries, but no one put these two concepts together in a way that my father did.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They too can only be convincing in an environment where people are already convinced, and need people who are "open-minded", "spiritual", "in tune with the universe" in order for their ideas to seem convincing.

No, it's not that at all. I am not looking for "spiritual" types. I am looking for people who have analyzed this debate and side with determinism, otherwise, I will never make any progress whatsoever. Do you realize we have been stuck on page 50 for 3 years and counting?

[LadyShea]

I do side with determinism, for certain understandings of the word, as I've said since the first week you were here. Someone leaning towards determinism isn't really helpful to you.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No crackpottery. A legitimate journal. And, btw, the reason I am going to other avenues is because I have learned so much from this thread what not to do again because it is too subjective for my taste.

Like I said - god knows what you ahve selected. You have used Whale.to as a source before, sso your judegement is clearly not to be trusted.

It seems to me that your idea only works as long as no-one criticizes it.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

People have criticized the book based on their present knowledge. It is true that if people continue to use their knowledge to judge this book, mankind won't get very far.

I see you realize that in order for the book to seem convincing, you must already believe it to be true.

But I believe there are people who will not criticize it, in spite of the little imperfections, typos, and dialogue format, that certain people in here are making too much out of.

Little imperfections? Typos? Dialogue format? Those are the very least of it's problems. What about the huge whopping errors?

(then again, that dialogue DOES still make me shudder. It is truly awful.)

If you understood why man's will is not free,

Translation: If you already agreed with the book...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and why nothing can make you do what you make up your mind not to do,

..which involves agreeing with the book...

you would see that these two principles are not new-age beliefs. They've been here for centuries, but no one put these two concepts together in a way that my father did.

...then you would agree with the book!

No, it's not that at all. I am not looking for "spiritual" types. I am looking for people who have analyzed this debate and side with determinism, otherwise, I will never make any progress whatsoever. Do you realize we have been stuck on page 50 for 3 years and counting?

No, you are looking for people who will uncritically accept everything in the book. These people you label "open-minded". I compare that label to the one new-agers call "spiritual" or "in tune".

Personally, I would label people who agree with your book as "Bloody stupid" and possibly as a pretty compelling argument against democracy, if they reside outside of a home for the mentally disabled.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do side with determinism, for certain understandings of the word, as I've said since the first week you were here. Someone leaning towards determinism isn't really helpful to you.

When I said I will try to find people who lean toward determinism, I meant people who hold the position that man does not have free will of any kind. You do not hold that position.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Points well taken? So now you think the book review is not poorly written junk? Of course that means you finally read it, rather than dismissing it based on my snippets.

They are points well taken regarding Caruso's attempt to show that compatibilism is not the ordinary folk psychological intuition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, what do you think of Lehrer? Still junk? If so why? What criteria are you using to analyze these writings? Do you have any reason other than you disagree with him?

Yes I do. Lehrer's whole experiment is meant to prove that a new set of conditions (even if they are nearly identical) proves that this experiment counts as being able to do otherwise. This is far from correct.

The argument is very simple. Set up a simple experiment with a subject. Repeat the experiment with conditions as nearly identical as possible. It is of course impossible to have exactly the same conditions.
----------------------------------------
Moreover, the fact that he is of the mindset that the statement "a person could have done what he did not do" lacks the proper epistemic credentials, does not say anything other than the belief that there may be another way to prove that he could have chosen A instead of B. In other words, what epistemic credentials is he talking about that would allow us to conclude anything different? The fact that the retrospective statement, "I could have done otherwise" proves nothing and is meaningless, according to some philosophers, does not offer us another way to prove that we could have chosen something else. Therefore this must remain a theory. The only thing that can be done is to try to approximate a similar situation in order to show that another choice could be made. But in reality it is impossible to prove that we could have chosen otherwise under the exact same conditions because we cannot undo what was already done. No matter what logic is employed, absolute proof requires doing something that is impossible to do, which is to go back in time with the conditions being exactly the same to prove that we could have chosen another alternative. What other epistemic credentials would allow us to prove that which cannot be proven? According to compatibilists, the ability to choose A instead of B in a similar situation is enough to attribute moral responsibility, but is it? Making a different choice based on a new but similar situation already changes the antecedent conditions upon which our new choice is based. Just because some people are not constrained by compulsions that make it more difficult to change behavior does not do anything to support the freedom compatibilists are using to defend their position. The question remains: Is it enough to attribute blameworthiness to someone who is not constrained by addictions when we cannot prove that this person could have chosen otherwise? It is also understood that threats of punishment may change the antecedent conditions such that in a similar situation a person capable of change may think twice about doing the same thing again. No one is denying this. But does this prove that he could have chosen otherwise under the same exact conditions? Any true determinist would answer a resounding "no". Determinism means that everything comes from a causal chain of events (obviously we're not talking about cause and effect sans the agent), therefore no choice is free, not even the kind that compatibilists use to justify punishment. We all know that we need to attribute moral responsibility to those who break the law, for this is the only deterrent available to us. But now there is a better way.

Excerpts from An Empirical Disproof of Determinism
(from Freedom and Determinism, ed. K. Lehrer, Random House, New York, 1966, p. 175)
According to certain philosophers, the statement that a person could have done what he did not do lacks the proper epistemic credentials. The reason why this statement has been the bone of philosophical contention is its connection with the problem of free will and determinism. It is usually held that a person acts of his own free will only if he could have acted otherwise. However, both libertarians and determinists have had their doubts about the epistemic qualifications of such statements. For example, Ledger Wood, a determinist, maintains that the statement that a person could have done otherwise is empirically meaningless. He says,
a careful analysis of the import of the retrospective judgement, "I could have acted otherwise than I did," will, I believe, disclose it to be an empirically meaningless statement.

[LadyShea]

John Horgan's take on Sam Harris

Harris seems to be advancing a reductio ad absurdum, except that he wants us to accept the absurdum: there is no fundamental difference between me and a man compelled to kill by a brain tumor. Or between me and someone who can’t help washing his hands every 20 minutes, or someone who’s schizophrenic, or a babbling baby, or a newt, or a worm. I mean, if I’m not different from a guy who kills because a tumor provokes him into murderous rages, how am I different from anyone or anything with a brain, no matter how damaged or tiny?

Here’s the difference. The man with a tumor has no choice but to do what he does. I do have choices, which I make all the time. Yes, my choices are constrained, by the laws of physics, my genetic inheritance, upbringing and education, the social, cultural, political, and intellectual context of my existence. And as Harris keeps pointing out, I didn’t choose to be born into this universe, to my parents, in this nation, at this time. I don’t choose to grow old and die.

But just because my choices are limited doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Just because I don’t have absolute freedom doesn’t mean I have no freedom at all. Saying that free will doesn’t exist because it isn’t absolutely free is like saying truth doesn’t exist because we can’t achieve absolute, perfect knowledge.

-snip-

But the strange and wonderful thing about all organisms, and especially our species, is that mechanistic physical processes somehow give rise to phenomena that are not reducible to or determined by those physical processes. Human brains, in particular, generate human minds, which while subject to physical laws are influenced by non-physical factors, including ideas produced by other minds. These ideas may cause us to change our minds and make decisions that alter the trajectory of our world.

Some of us have a greater capacity to perceive and act on choices than others. The killer with a brain tumor, the schizophrenic, the sociopath, the obsessive-compulsive do not and cannot make decisions–or change their minds–in the way that I do. When I weigh the pros and cons of writing about Harris, my chain of reasoning is determined by the substance of my thoughts, not their physical instantiation. -John Horgan Will This Post Make Sam Harris Change His Mind About Free Will? | Cross-Check, Scientific American Blog Network

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said I will try to find people who lean toward determinism, I meant people who hold the position that man does not have free will of any kind. You do not hold that position.

Um, that's not "leaning toward determinism", that's holding to hard determinism. Since a large percentage of people you come across in philosophy are are going to be some form of compatibilist, you better ready yourself to defend hard determinism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, that's not "leaning toward determinism", that's holding to hard determinism. Since a large percentage of people you come across in philosophy are are going to be some form of compatibilist, you better ready yourself to defend hard determinism.

I'm not worried. I have a list of philosophers who are determinists, the kind that believe free will is an illusion. I will try to reach them.

[LadyShea]

Just because some people are not constrained by compulsions that make it more difficult to change behavior does not do anything to support the freedom compatibilists are using to defend their position. The question remains: Is it enough to attribute blameworthiness to someone who is not constrained by addictions when we cannot prove that this person could have chosen otherwise?

Can you choose, right now, to lift your arm, or refrain from lifting your arm? If you can choose (meaning your arm is not paralyzed or strapped down), please do so. Either lift your arm, or do not lift your arm. Now count to five.
One
Two
Three
Four
Five


Now, was it in your power a few seconds ago to lift your arm, or not lift you arm? Was your action constrained by anything other than your will to perform the action or not perform the action? Can you choose the opposite now?

If you have the ability to act or not act now, it stands to reason that you had the ability to act or not act 20 seconds ago, and therefore could have done otherwise. You didn't do otherwise, but you certainly could have.

There, proven.

I posit that "couldn't have done otherwise" would be more precisely communicated by changing could to would as in "wouldn't have done otherwise". Can/could/could have speak to physical ability while will/would/would have speak to mental states which is more appropriate for the topic under discussion. In fact, I think using "can" is fallacious (equivocation maybe?).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am looking for people who have analyzed this debate and side with determinism, otherwise, I will never make any progress whatsoever.

Do you realize we have been stuck on page 50 for 3 years and counting?

you are looking for people that agree with the book before they even read it.

No, only YOU have been stuck on page 50, because everyone does not agree with what is written in the book. Everyone else has moved on through the rest of the book, and discussed most parts of the book, even the silliest parts, and especially your stupid responses.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not worried. I have a list of philosophers who are determinists, the kind that believe free will is an illusion. I will try to reach them.

Will try? What have you been doing all this time?

[LadyShea]

bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not a for sure thing at all. That's certainly the outcome you hope for, but it's not the one that you are "for sure" going to get.

It is not an idiosyncratic definition, because it is neither peculiar nor individual. Many, many people are compatibilists and the idea has been around for many, many years...Thomas Hobbes was writing about it in the mid 17th century! Hell, Aristotle wrote about it...it's not new, or peculiar, or unheard of.

You are trying to diminish compatibilist theory, by deeming it "idiosyncratic" because Lessans inexplicably ignored it, so you feel it is not relevant. It is relevant and you should spend a few minutes reading the literature so you don't sound quite so ignorant.

Using mathematical to mean undeniable is idiosyncratic. It is both peculiar and individual, because nobody except you uses that definition.


Are you aware that there are over 200 different views of the word free, yet you insist there is one single "true" definition of free will? You think others are the closed minded and confused?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism means that everything comes from a causal chain of events (obviously we're not talking about cause and effect sans the agent), therefore no choice is free, not even the kind that compatibilists use to justify punishment.

What if one considers the will a causal agent in the chain?


will2
wil/
noun
noun: will; plural noun: wills
1. the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.
2. control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses.
3. a deliberate or fixed desire or intention.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, that's not "leaning toward determinism", that's holding to hard determinism. Since a large percentage of people you come across in philosophy are are going to be some form of compatibilist, you better ready yourself to defend hard determinism.

It would help if she knew what hard determinism was.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It would help if she knew what hard determinism was.

I'm sure you could explain it, if you were inclined to waste the time, on Peacegirl. However I'm also sure that there are others who could benefit from a clear and concise explanation of 'hard determinism'. There may be a few of us who are not as well versed in these things as you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you choose, right now, to lift your arm, or refrain from lifting your arm? If you can choose (meaning your arm is not paralyzed or strapped down), please do so. Either lift your arm, or do not lift your arm. Now count to five.
One
Two
Three
Four
Five


Now, was it in your power a few seconds ago to lift your arm, or not lift you arm? Was your action constrained by anything other than your will to perform the action or not perform the action? Can you choose the opposite now?

If you have the ability to act or not act now, it stands to reason that you had the ability to act or not act 20 seconds ago, and therefore could have done otherwise. You didn't do otherwise, but you certainly could have.

There, proven.

Noooooo, it is not possible that you could have have chosen to keep your arm down, even though it is true that the ability to move your arm in different directions is part of your physical make-up. You're analysis that says "See, I had the ability to lift my arm but I didn't have to; I could have left it down, is a false perception. We're right back to the illusion of free will; that you could have chosen that which you did not. The bottom line is you cannot prove this; it will always remain a theory.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I posit that "couldn't have done otherwise" would be more precisely communicated by changing could to would as in "wouldn't have done otherwise". Can/could/could have speak to physical ability while will/would/would have speak to mental states which is more appropriate for the topic under discussion. In fact, I think using "can" is fallacious (equivocation maybe?).

You can say I would have chosen otherwise IF the conditions were such that I had preferred to choose other than what I chose, but under the conditions that prevailed I did not choose to keep my arm down because I was reaching for my breakfast cereal which was in a cabinet that needed me to stretch my arm in order to get it. The conditions that compelled me to lift my arm could not have been any different, or they would have been different due to a different set of antecedent factors. Do you get what I'm saying?