A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also notice there is a bit if strawmanning going on:

I do not believe that this is the point made in the book. The point, in fact, is that you act according to your preferences, and that nevertheless your actions remain determined: precisely the "deeper problem" he alludes to. You are compelled to choose what you prefer, of your own free will: despite the fact you choose whatever you prefer, you do not get to determine the things that trigger your preference.

I am very confused. Please elaborate on your explanation that he is wrong!

Originally Posted by GdB

It may be true that the book goes this one step deeper. But peacegirl in her postings kept hammering that acting according to your preferences (principle of satisfaction) already means you have no free will. This would mean that she herself does not understand what the real point is that Lessans makes.

Really? Then explain why I, in your estimation, have no understanding of the real point Lessans made. which I've been accused of. So go for it and tell me how wrong I am. I'm waiting Gdb.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also note that despite the fact that the guaranteed wage is taken seriously enough to already be on the verge of being implemented nation-wide in Switzerland, and being implemented experimentally in cities in the Netherlands...

All of these ideas that are being implemented in other countries are supportive of Lessans' ideas. They just don't know how powerful these advances really are.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really? Then explain why I, in your estimation, have no understanding of the real point Lessans made. which I've been accused of. So go for it and tell me how wrong I am. I'm waiting Gdb.

Read back carefully. I just retracted from my proposition that the book is wrong in this case, because Vivisectus said so. That means that, if Vivisectus is right, your interpretation of the book is wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hmm, if that happens that would cause a dent in the hypothesis. Let's try to determine if that's true.

Ehh? What causes a dent in which hypothesis? Is the reason that we have no free will that I am Dutch and live in Switzerland?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't that what scientific investigation is all about? Vivisectus is trying to put two and two together to see if what you say actually matches the conclusions (based on observation) that other small countries are coming to. Are they all wrong? Why don't you be still for a moment before talking bullshit. I know I am not being very polite, but that doesn't change the facts.

I am not talking bullshit. You simply do not understand what I am saying.

In fact it is quite easy:

1. There are more people then just Lessans who say we have no free will because we are determined.
2. You forget that compatibilism is also determinism: so compatibilists are also not the biggest fans of retribution. In fact Dennett is a strong critic of the punitive system as practised in the USA.

To add to the last point: if it rains, the streets become wet. But from that does not follow that if the streets are wet, it has rained. There could be a big leakage, or a flood, or children playing with water, etc etc.

So the changes in the judiciary praxis can be defended in several ways:

1. By hard determinists that still do not agree with everything Lessans has to say about free will.
2. By compatibilists who nearly not agree with Lessans at all.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by GDB

It may be true that the book goes this one step deeper. But peacegirl in her postings kept hammering that acting according to your preferences (principle of satisfaction) already means you have no free will. This would mean that she herself does not understand what the real point is that Lessans makes.

Perhaps you misunderstood her.

Imagine how lucky I feel reading these lines: I am Dutch, but I live in Switzerland.

[/QUOTE]

Hallo Landgenoot

I too am a dutch expat, though not in Switzerland. When is the referendum taking place?

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

British Skeptics Lead the Charge against Contra-Causal Free Will | Naturalism.org

On the list it goes. See? A growing body of evidence and support. It is growing all the time.

Land sake's alive, you really are a silly little moron, aren't you, dear?

I'm just a professor emeritus of home economics at Chester Alan Arthur Junior High, but even poor old Flo knows, from a quick scan of this train-wreck thread, that people here are not objecting to your papa's poo-poo by defending contra-causal free will. They are objecting to papa's poo-poo by defending compatibilist free will.

It looks like that dear Spacemonkey spent about three years explaining this to you, to no avail. Do you have bubblegum between your ears, dear?

My goodness, what a silly billy you are!

Your friend Flo

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really? Then explain why I, in your estimation, have no understanding of the real point Lessans made. which I've been accused of. So go for it and tell me how wrong I am. I'm waiting Gdb.

Originally Posted by GdB

Read back carefully. I just retracted from my proposition that the book is wrong in this case, because Vivisectus said so. That means that, if Vivisectus is right, your interpretation of the book is wrong.

How so?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hmm, if that happens that would cause a dent in the hypothesis. Let's try to determine if that's true.

Originally Posted by GdB

Ehh? What causes a dent in which hypothesis? Is the reason that we have no free will that I am Dutch and live in Switzerland?

What's that supposed to mean? There is a point to my argument.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't that what scientific investigation is all about? Vivisectus is trying to put two and two together to see if what you say actually matches the conclusions (based on observation) that other small countries are coming to. Are they all wrong? Why don't you be still for a moment before talking bullshit. I know I am not being very polite, but that doesn't change the facts.

Originally Posted by GdB

I am not talking bullshit. You simply do not understand what I am saying.

In fact it is quite easy:[LIST=1][*]There are more people then just Lessans who say we have no free will because we are determined.[*]You forget that compatibilism is also determinism: so compatibilists are also not the biggest fans of retribution. In fact Dennett is a strong critic of the punitive system as practised in the USA.

Lessans isn't talking about not being a big fan of retribution. He is talking about eliminating all blame and punishment which, paradoxically, creates the kind of world where retribution will be unnecessary because no acts of crime will be committed. That's why this discovery is not what Dennis is saying, and it's not what you're saying. Compatibilism DOES NOT hold the key to world peace.

5 Straw-man Fallacies by Compatibilists (When Addressing Free Will Skeptics)

5-compatibilist-straw-man-fallaciesStraw-man fallacies are interesting because they are almost always intentional, though sometimes they can be unintentional. I tend to think, when a compatibilist (a person who thinks free will is compatible with determinism) uses a straw-man fallacy, that most of the time they don’t do them intentionally – or at least I give the compatibilist the benefit of the doubt. Rather, I think it often comes from a profound misunderstanding or assumption of the free will skeptics position.

So what is a straw-man fallacy? Basically it’s a way of giving the impression that one is refuting another person’s position, all while actually refuting a point or argument that was never given by their opponent. The term “straw-man” most often points to building a person out of straw and easily knocking down or burning that “straw-man” as if it was knocking down or burning the real person. The analogy is that when a person takes down a point that was never made by their opponent but suggests or insinuates that they have taken such down, they are basically building a “straw-man” and knocking it down. They aren’t actually addressing an actual point made by their opponent, but they are pretending or giving the impression that they are.

Or perhaps, in the case of ignorance, they actually think they are making a point that they imagine the other person made, but in actuality such a point never was made. In other words, they actually think the straw-man they just built is not made out of straw, but is the actual man.

It’s this second type of straw-man, the unintentional kind, that I see frequently by some (not all) compatibilists. In this post I’d like to go over just 5 straw-man fallacies that I’ve come across (though there are many others).

*****

straw-man-1STRAW MAN: The free will skeptic is suggesting that the compatibilists definition of free will doesn’t exist.
The first straw-man that I’ve noticed happens is not to address the free will skeptics definition of free will when they say “free will doesn’t exist”, and simply bypass such definition with a different definition that the free will skeptic isn’t using. They then show how their own definition of free will does indeed “exist” (or is possible) in order to disprove the free will skeptics claim that “free will does not exist”. And even when the free will skeptic clarifies their definition, points to things such as common intuitions about the free will ability most people “feel” they possess, and explains the reasons why such a semantic is important for so many other topics, the compatibilist simply ignores such and keep on with the use of their own semantic in order to “disprove” the free will skeptic.

It’s also important to note that such can happen in the reverse! A straw-man fallacy might be reading an article on some of the ways some compatibilists straw-man the free will skeptic, and assuming that the person who wrote the article is suggesting that straw-man fallacies cannot happen on both sides. We need to be careful about imagining things that were never argued for.

The free will skeptic, in fact, can often tell the compatibilist that they are wrong about “free will” existing, not by knocking down the compatibilists definition of free will, but their own – and assuming that’s sufficient to take out the compatibilists position. This is equally a straw-man.

Most free will skeptics, however, would agree that compatibilist semantics of free will such a Daniel Dennett’s actually do “exist”, they just disagree that such a semantic should be used. It’s better to have a semantic argument or discussion than to knock down a straw-man of their position and claim victory.

If the compatibilist agrees with the free will skeptic that their (incompatibilist) definition of free will doesn’t exist, and the free will skeptic agrees with the compatibilist that their (compatibilist) definition exists, the discussion then needs to move to the question about what definition is more appropriate – rather than talk past each other while burning straw-men.

And even if they never agree about the most appropriate definition, the discussion should then move to:

What does it mean that we don’t have the free will skeptic’s definition of free will?
What does it mean that we have the specific compatibilist definition of free will?
Both of these questions can be assessed, all without conflating the two or straw-manning each other’s position. Though I will indeed get pedantic with the compatibilist about the definition they use, if I cannot change their mind about such usage, the best thing that can be done is to try to explain to them why the ability that is displayed in the free will skeptics definition of “free will” is just so damn important (in regards to the majority of people understanding that they don’t have it and what it means) – regardless of the “free will” label. If you don’t know, I’ve written a book on why we don’t have such ability and about all of the implications of not having it: Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind.

It seems to me that there is a lot of issues that many compatibilists look to avoid by bypassing the free will skeptic’s definition. As long as they don’t do this evasion I can look past the fact that their semantic doesn’t align with the special ability that the majority of people actually do feel they possess:

Common Intuitions about Free Will (and how it needs to be defined)
Free Will Intuitions: Fred and Barney Case Study – InfoGraphic
… and I can even look past all of the reasons not to redefine such words unnecessarily:

Redefining “Free Will” is Like Redefining “Geocentric” – Except Worse
It’s when the evasions and straw-man fallacies happen that I refuse to look past these other indiscretions.

straw-man-2 STRAW MAN: The free will skeptic is knocking down “blame” and “responsibility” in the non-desert sense.

cont. at: http://breakingthefreewillillusion.c...man-fallacies/

Originally Posted by GdB

To add to the last point: if it rains, the streets become wet. But from that does not follow that if the streets are wet, it has rained. There could be a big leakage, or a flood, or children playing with water, etc etc.

Just because there could be 100 different causes as to why the street is wet doesn't change the fact that a cause exists. Who is saying that the wet street has to be due to rain?

Originally Posted by GdB

So the changes in the judiciary praxis can be defended in several ways:

1. By hard determinists that still do not agree with everything Lessans has to say about free will.
2. By compatibilists who nearly not agree with Lessans at all.

It doesn't matter that neither hard determinists or compatibilists don't agree with what Lessans has to say. Did these people read the book? Did you ever open the pages of this book to try to understand it?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Perhaps you misunderstood her.

Possible. I will ask her.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hallo Landgenoot

I too am a dutch expat, though not in Switzerland. When is the referendum taking place?

Kom je dan uit Friesland, dat je dat van Drachten wist? Hoe lang ben je al weg? Ik al 20 jaar.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How so?

I understood that you are saying that the principle of satisfaction means that you are forced by your preferences, which means you are not free.

1. Is that what you mean?
2. Is this standing in Lessans' book?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's that supposed to mean? There is a point to my argument.

Really? Then make it again, without vague references. BTW, you changed your posting after I reacted on it. That's a bad habit, it is not possible now to trace back on what I reacted.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans isn't talking about not being a big fan of retribution. He is talking about eliminating all blame and punishment which, paradoxically, creates the kind of world where retribution will be unnecessary because no acts of crime will be committed. That's why this discovery is not what Dennis is saying, and it's not what you're saying.

That is true, but that was not what I was saying. You have a really hard time reading, don't you? You even cannot read 'Dennett'; you make 'Dennis' of it...
I said that the references you found until now would also be supported by other philosophies, like hard determinism and compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter that neither hard determinists or compatibilists don't agree with what Lessans has to say. Did these people read the book?

No. And they never will, because philosophically seen it is too light to compete with any present day philosopher, and is contradicting science without any relevant empirical support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you ever open the pages of this book to try to understand it?

I will only read it when you can show me that you can paste some really good arguments from it. Until now you did not at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How so?

Originally Posted by GdB

I understood that you are saying that the principle of satisfaction means that you are forced by your preferences, which means you are not free.

1. Is that what you mean?
2. Is this standing in Lessans' book?

Not exactly. When you talk about force, it does not mean you don't have a choice. That would be a modal fallacy. What he was saying is you are compelled to choose the alternative which is the most preferential (or satisfying) among the alternatives that are at your disposal at any given moment in time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's that supposed to mean? There is a point to my argument.

Originally Posted by GdB

Really? Then make it again, without vague references. BTW, you changed your posting after I reacted on it. That's a bad habit, it is not possible now to trace back on what I reacted.

You're right. I'll try to do better. Sometimes I try to change something before anyone copies it. This time I was too late.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans isn't talking about not being a big fan of retribution. He is talking about eliminating all blame and punishment which, paradoxically, creates the kind of world where retribution will be unnecessary because no acts of crime will be committed. That's why this discovery is not what Dennis is saying, and it's not what you're saying.

Originally Posted by GdB

That is true, but that was not what I was saying. You have a really hard time reading, don't you? You even cannot read 'Dennett'; you make 'Dennis' of it...

I meant Dennett. You never make typos? So what were you saying? And what's your rebuttal to the 5 strawman fallacies?

Originally Posted by GdB

I said that the references you found until now would also be supported by other philosophies, like hard determinism and compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter that neither hard determinists or compatibilists don't agree with what Lessans has to say. Did these people read the book?

Originally Posted by GdB

No. And they never will, because philosophically seen it is too light to compete with any present day philosopher, and is contradicting science without any relevant empirical support.

How do you know this when you don't even know what his position is, and why? His foundational principles do not contradict science FYI.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you ever open the pages of this book to try to understand it?

Originally Posted by GdB

I will only read it when you can show me that you can paste some really good arguments from it. Until now you did not at all.

I don't care if you read it (I have no desire to persuade you), but don't refute a position that you have no understanding of.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not exactly. When you talk about force, it does not mean you don't have a choice. That would be a modal fallacy. What he was saying is you are compelled to choose the alternative which is the most preferential (or satisfying) among the alternatives that are at your disposal at any given moment in time.

This is what is so problematical with both your posts and the book, too much double talk. You and Lessans both say we have a choice but we don't have a choice, often in the same sentence. Lessans whole book is a modal fallacy, which is why so many people object to it, Lessans constantly used one idea to prove an unrelated idea. Having a choice is free will, not having a choice is determinism, make up your mind which it is. But then Lessans couldn't, so why should you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, if you want your fathers book to get any kind of positive recognition, you need to re-edit it cutting out everything except the parts that explain free will and determinism. You need to loose everything else, the parts about vision, young people falling in love with another persons genitals, the right of way system, the guaranteed wage and especially all of Lessans butthurt about how no-one would listen. You need to trim all that out or people will see that and conclude that your father was a crackpot. Trim it down to blame, justification, free will and determinism and you night have a chance of getting some support. I'm all for reforming the justice system, but we don't see instantly, and I don't want any part of the rest of the nonsense Lessans wrote in his book. The only idea that is getting any support is that of blame and responsability, establish those principles on a world wide basis, and the other effects will come about.

Originally Posted by GdB

I more or less agree. However, there is not much left.

The idea that we are determined, that we therefore have no free will, and so we should reform our juridical system is not specially original. 'Hard determinism', as it is usually called, is a legitimate philosophical position that is defended by a few philosophers (funny enough much more by none-philosophers like physicists and neurologists, but there also exist exceptions). As is clear, I do not agree, but I am the last to say that it is sheer nonsense. 'Hard determinists', if philosophically well equipped, sometimes are a real challenge to compatibilists, and this can sharpen compatibilists' position and help to break through the common sense feeling that determinism and free will cannot go together.

They don't, and they never will except through a strawman.

# 3 STRAW MAN: The free will skeptic suggest that the lack of “free will” implies the lack of freedom in any other sense.
Many compatibilists assume that the free will skeptic is asserting that the word” freedom” cannot be used in various other ways. For example, they will insist that people have “freedom” of speech, or that the person who doesn’t have a gun to his head is “free” to decide without coercion of another person, and so on. Most free will skeptics are not rejecting the distinctions used here. They are only suggesting that “freedom of the will” is different from social, political, or rights granted freedoms, as well as freedom from certain types of human coercion. Rather, the free will skeptic is saying the “will” isn’t free from the variables that produce it, and that those variables ultimately stem to variables that are outside of the willer’s control (they are not “free” either). The compatibilist, however, will often just ignore the type of freedom being referred to in light of their own usage, and do so as if they are knocking down the position of the free will skeptic (when in fact they aren’t addressing it at all).

No free will skeptic is saying that the word “free” can’t be used to describe someone who is not in prison, someone who is free from a gun being pointed at their head, someone who is free from drug addiction, and the numerous other ways that the word “free” can be used. Rather, for “free will” the word “free” is used to qualify “will”. When someone argues that people are “free” in some other sense, and think they are combating the “free” that the free will skeptic uses for the term “free will”, they have built a straw-man to beat upon.

5 Straw-man Fallacies by Compatibilists (When Addressing Free Will Skeptics)

Originally Posted by GdB

But the problem: Lessans has nothing meaningful to add to this position. Where he agrees with hard determinists, well, it is already said by these hard determinists, and better, with much more knowledge about all the different positions in the free will debate. And where he adds original ideas, he is wrong. No hard determinist will agree with him that simply acting according your preferences means you have no free will.

Of course it does. We already went through this. Just because a person has many choices to pick from does not mean he is free in a free will sense. This is playing with semantics, nothing more. We cannot NOT act according to our preferences and this does make our will unfree. Think about it: If we can't choose anything other than what we prefer when given a particular set of alternatives, how can we be free to choose otherwise which would be in the direction of least preference (which is impossible)? Free will indicates that we can choose one thing over another equally. Where is the equality when only one choice can ever be made?

Originally Posted by GdB

The challenge of determinism lies one step deeper, namely where and how these preferences originate.

Psychologists already know where most criminal behavior originates, but just knowing it doesn't stop it. Lessans shows how to eliminate the causal factors that lead to the worst criminal behavior.

Originally Posted by GdB

So if I would give peacegirl some advice: forget about the book(s), and if you really want to add your contribution to a better world, then keep on what you seem to have started now. Collect examples of scientific research that show that a less retributive punitive system might give better results, and jump into every discussion where people are defending prisons and hard punishments for (minor) offences. For such a project you would have my full support.

A less retributive punitive system is a step forward. In fact, the more proactive strategies that are implemented which help to prevent childhood abuse and neglect, along with giving former prisoners job opportunities, will go a long way toward ending crime. Hard punishment for minor offences we know doesn't make sense. Hard punishment for heinous crimes will keep the person off the streets which is a good thing, but it does nothing to stop the crime in the first place. How many people in court are happy when the perpetrator is found guilty but they always say, "This verdict does not bring my brother/sister/mother/father back." Wouldn't you want to live in a world where there was no need for prisons because there are no more prisoners? You have not gone one step deeper Gdb.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does. We already went through this. Just because a person has many choices to pick from does not mean he is free in a free will sense. This is all semantics, nothing more. The fact remains: we cannot NOT act according to our preferences. So if we can't choose anything other than what we prefer when given a set of alternatives, how can we be free to choose otherwise? Free will indicates that we can choose one thing over another equally. Where is the equality when only one choice can ever be made?

This is Lessans warped definition of free will that he invented so that he could disprove it. Free will does include making choices according to your preferences, that is what actual free will is. Why should you complain about semantics, Lessans corrupted meanings all the time in his book, mostly because he didn't understand the meanings in the first place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is what is so problematical with both your posts and the book, too much double talk. You and Lessans both say we have a choice but we don't have a choice, often in the same sentence. Lessans whole book is a modal fallacy, which is why so many people object to it, Lessans constantly used one idea to prove an unrelated idea. Having a choice is free will, not having a choice is determinism, make up your mind which it is. But then Lessans couldn't, so why should you?

You have absolutely no understanding of the free will/determinism debate. You know it as well as I, so just stop blathering for a change. You have a disease called motormouth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is Lessans warped definition of free will that he invented so that he could disprove it. Free will does include making choices according to your preferences, that is what actual free will is.

Actually that is not what free will is. You don't understand a thing. This IS a strawman of the worst kind because no determinist is saying that we don't have this kind of choice. But this does not grant us free will in a free will sense. You obviously did not understand the strawman fallacy in relation to compatibilism.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why should you complain about semantics, Lessans corrupted meanings all the time in his book, mostly because he didn't understand the meanings in the first place.

Oh, I didn't know you also have expert knowledge on what Lessans understood. As far as semantics goes, Lessans was very clear in his observations. These were not made up definitions. Have you already forgotten that definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality? You never remembered this in the first place, did you?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh, I didn't know you also have expert knowledge on what Lessans understood. As far as semantics goes, Lessans was very clear in his observations. These were not made up definitions. Have you already forgotten that definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality? You never remembered this in the first place, did you?

You still don't have a fucking clue what a definition is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh, I didn't know you also have expert knowledge on what Lessans understood. As far as semantics goes, Lessans was very clear in his observations. These were not made up definitions. Have you already forgotten that definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality? You never remembered this in the first place, did you?

You have stated this many times, but that doesn't make it true. You are so enamored with your own and Lessans writings that you assume that because you have written it, it must be true, but that is far from the truth of reality. What you and Lessans have written is so much meaningless rhetoric, that amounts to nothing. But please keep posting, what you post is amusing if nothing else. Lessans understanding was clearly demonstrated in the book, but you forget, I've read the book, and apparently understand it and reality better than you do.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you already forgotten that definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality?

Then everything you write is meaningless relative to reality, you can't have it both ways even though you insist that what you write is meaningful and true. But then you insist that definitions of words don't mean what everyone accepts that they mean. You really have a bad habit of contradicting your self, sometimes in the same sentence.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You never remembered this in the first place, did you?

In case you haven't noticed, I don't put much stock in what you and Lessans have written. It's just so much empty rhetoric, but entertaining.

[peacegirl]

Love this!

Semantic Shift Day

That’s right, I’m creating a much needed holiday. Today, August 31st, is officially “Semantic Shift Day“!

YAAAYE!! WOOOHOOO!!! HAPPY SEMANTIC SHIFT DAY EVERYONE!!!!
It’s the day where we change the definitions of words around for everything that doesn’t exist so that we can officially, only for one day a year, say it does exist!

So for example, on Semantic Shift Day we would define “free will” the same way that certain philosophical compatibilists, such as Daniel Dennett, do. We can simply say that free will is the ability to make conscious choices or something that in fact does exist. Never mind the free will ability that the bulk of the population intuits about such words, on semantic shift day we just don’t care about the confusions we cause! All words and terms for non-existing things get re-defined for one day.

On semantic shift day make sure to label “god” as “the universe” or “nature”. Never mind that most people think of a conscious deity when they hear the word god! On semantic shift day we just don’t care about that. If you are an atheist you can officially be labeled a theist on semantic shift day, because you believe in god!

On semantic shift day, everything exists: Santa, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, alien spaceships on earth, even square circles! It’s just a matter of changing the definition around to make such things fit in with reality! Santa is any chubby guy with a beard wearing red – so Santa exists. Unicorns are just horny horses, alien space-crafts are just airplanes that are in a country they are not from, and leprechauns are just people who wear green. Fairies I’d like to define as those little white floating dandelion florets and seeds that the wind carries away. Anyway, you get the gist.

Square-circles? No worries, all a square-circle means is that we have a boring-ly conventional or old-fashioned circle. There are lots of those that exist!

Semantic Shift Day is fun for the whole family! Any word that is currently outside of existence can be brought into existence for a single day, just by changing up the definition.

So what’s the purpose of Semantic Shift Day? It’s basically to point out the absurdity of defining things into existence that many or most people hold a different definition or intuitive feeling about. If someone wants to do this for a single term such as free will or god, then (on Semantic Shift Day) by doing so for everything else we can show the absurdities and confusions that such causes. And by displaying those absurdities and confusions, we can have a whole lot of harmless fun, and perhaps make a point in the process. Semantic Shift Day is just a day to poke a little light-hearted fun at compatibilistic (and perhaps pantheistic) mindsets – by becoming them for every other non-existent word or term.

SEMANTIC SHIFT DAY RULES

cont. at: Semantic Shift Day - August 31st

[Stephen Maturin]

I love it! On Semantic Shift Day "scientific" and "undeniable" can be synonymous!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I love it! On Semantic Shift Day "scientific" and "undeniable" can be synonymous!

And Peacegirl can copy paste from her fathers book and it could actually be correct.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I love it! On Semantic Shift Day "scientific" and "undeniable" can be synonymous!

Does this also mean that "guilty" and "not guilty" would be synonymous in court? So all the criminals would go free?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by But

You still don't have a fucking clue what a definition is.

or what an observation is,

or what an argument is,

or what a proof is,

or what a theory is,

or what a mechanism is,

Etc , Etc , Etc

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not exactly. When you talk about force, it does not mean you don't have a choice. That would be a modal fallacy.

Why would that be a modal fallacy?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What he was saying is you are compelled to choose the alternative which is the most preferential (or satisfying) among the alternatives that are at your disposal at any given moment in time.

And does that mean you are not free?
Is there in this context an essential difference between compelled and forced?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As usual you do not react on the essential parts of the argument. Do you see that hard determinism and compatibilism also support the research results you collected so far? These results do no not falsify Lessans, that is true, but they leave still plenty of other theories that explain them. You must look for results that would distinguish Lessans' ideas from those other theories.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His foundational principles do not contradict science FYI.

You have not the slightest idea what science is, you showed that extensively enough in the discussions about instantaneous sight. I did not read the book (only some parts you pasted here), you understand not even a jot of science.

[GdB]

Hmmm... Semantic shift day.... Let's try it out.

• After the prisoner was released from prison he was free to go.
  That means nobody was forcing him to stay where he was, that he could go where he wants. Agree?
  
• In democracy everybody is free to vote for who he wants.
  Again, this means nobody forces anyone to vote for some candidate.
  
• You are free to choose anything from the menu.
  Means nothing except your own will determines what you will take.

So being free means 'being free to (go where the prisoner wants, to vote what you want, to take what you want)'. It is only from actions that one can say they are free: somebody's action is free when it is caused by somebody's will.

Now we can say that a person that mostly can act according to his will is a free person. Another way of expressing this is to say that his will is free: this means that somebody's will can be expressed in his actions.

Now comes the shift! Free will means that a will has no causes. That is not the same as above! One applies a concept that is applied to the relationship between will and action on will itself. That makes no sense, it is a category error. It is like asking what the cause of causation is, or how laws of nature cause events to happen, or asking what the colour of red is. It is defining free will as 'to want what you want'. That is an absurdity.

One has shifted the meaning of free.

Now many people think that free will means that the will is uncaused. But a majority thinking something does not mean it is correct. A lot of time in philosophy is spent in tracing these kind of semantic shifts: when the same words are used it can still be that they refer different concepts. 'Free will' is such a clear case. Because a majority means with free will uncaused will does not mean this is a correct use of 'free will'.

From here:

This is a lovely book by a friend of mine named Lee Siegel, who's a professor of religion, actually, at the University of Hawaii, and he's an expert magician, and an expert on the street magic of India, which is what this book is about, "Net of Magic." And there's a passage in it which I would love to share with you. It speaks so eloquently to the problem. "'I'm writing a book on magic,' I explain, and I'm asked, 'Real magic?' By 'real magic,' people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. 'No,' I answer. 'Conjuring tricks, not real magic.' 'Real magic,' in other words, refers to the magic that is not real; while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic."

So let the semantic shift be: let's talk real free will, free will that does exist, and not this non-existing, contradictory libertarian free will. Right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Why would that be a modal fallacy?

The fact that my choice is the only necessary choice. If P, then necessarily Q.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What he was saying is you are compelled to choose the alternative which is the most preferential (or satisfying) among the alternatives that are at your disposal at any given moment in time.

Originally Posted by GdB

And does that mean you are not free?
Is there in this context an essential difference between compelled and forced?

It depends in what context. If I say I was forced to drink the poison because I was tied down and had no way of escape, that is a far cry from saying I was forced (or compelled) to do what I did because, at that moment, it gave me greater satisfaction. Both situations are not in our control.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by GdB

As usual you do not react on the essential parts of the argument. Do you see that hard determinism and compatibilism also support the research results you collected so far? These results do no not falsify Lessans, that is true, but they leave still plenty of other theories that explain them. You must look for results that would distinguish Lessans' ideas from those other theories.

I understand that, but there is more than enough to distinguish Lessans' ideas from those other theories. None of these theories will change our world in a drastic way, but they will be a stepping stone in the right direction by becoming more compassionate, by using rehabilitative techniques, and by limiting punishment to more serious offenses that will ultimately reduce the prison systems' overcrowding. This way they can focus their attention on the most dangerous offenders and use tax payer money on prevention rather than building more prisons.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His foundational principles do not contradict science FYI.

Originally Posted by GdB

You have not the slightest idea what science is, you showed that extensively enough in the discussions about instantaneous sight. I did not read the book (only some parts you pasted here), you understand not even a jot of science.

You can believe that real time seeing is impossible because you think it violates physics, but that's only because you don't understand the mechanism as to how this is possible. Please don't ask me what the mechanism is; I've already explained it. Your incredulity does not discredit Lessans. If the fact that he made this claim causes you to reject this entire book, it will be unfortunate because you will miss out, but there's nothing I can do. It's your loss, not mine. Why have you not addressed the 5 Straw-man Fallacies by Compatibilists (When Addressing Free Will Skeptics) that I posted? Please respond point by point.