A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that it can't be used. It can be used, but it can only go so far at rectifying the causes that lead people to crime. Compassion and rehabilitation can go a long way by allowing people to see the harm their actions have caused and to WANT to make changes. This is a much better approach than punishment. But rehabilitation no matter how good concentrates on a person after the crime is committed. This book shows how to prevent the crime in the first place. Which one would you choose?

Originally Posted by GdB

You make the same error as classical economists: to assume that humans always act rational. But how to deal with crime is a topic that comes after we have found what kind of free will people do have.

Wrong, 100% wrong.

Originally Posted by GdB

Our prevention strategies should amongst others be based on this fact. I think you would not like to prevent crime by cutting our free will down, so it is important to flesh out what kind of free will we have.

No, it's the exact opposite. This is a nonproductive discussion because you have no clue what this man's discovery is. You are basing your ideas on a limited understanding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not my definition; it is the standard dictionary definition.

Originally Posted by GdB

Wiktionary:

1. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.
2. (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

• the ​ability to ​decide what to do ​independently of any ​outside ​influence

Dictionary.com

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Here we see a glimpse of LFW.

Merriam-Webster

1. the ability to choose how to act
2. the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God

The free dictionary:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

Here is a clear reference to LFW.

Oxford

• The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

So: yes, there are a few references to problems with causality, but interesting enough, always in the second definition. So to say it is 'the standard dictionary definition' is definely wrong.

Free will implies free choice without any causal limitation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The libertarian notion of free will is more consistent than CFW (even though it's completely flawed) because a person's choices can't be caused and free at the same time.

Originally Posted by GdB

Again, you take your own definition as touchstone. In other words, you say here that I am wrong because I think something else than you do.

That is not true. Any hard determinist or incompatibilist can see through your definition in relation to what the term "freedom of the will" is referring to. You can easily make up any definition of freedom you want in order to justify punishment, but the truth is "freedom of the will" has but one definition and that is the libertarian kind. How can you blame someone by saying he was free to act differently when you admit that he didn't have the free will to act differently? To say you have another way of defining free will that keeps determinism intact is a sleight of hand magic trick.

*****
1 STRAW 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.

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

Of course LFW seems more consistent when you think LFW is the correct definition of free will. But I already showed that LFW is inherently incoherent, so LFW simply does not exist, cannot exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say you are a determinist; that we can't choose otherwise because every choice is based on antecedent causes, so how can any choice be free?

Originally Posted by GdB

I told you several times: you say CFW is wrong because it is not LFW.

It is wrong because the kind of free will you define as justifying punishment is not the kind of free will that is being debated. It does not give a person the right to blame and punish IF determinism is true. This definition does not negate determinism which, by definition, means that we are caused to do what we do in all of our actions, even the ones you call free acts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with this, but what if a person in a similar situation doesn't want to do otherwise, then what? Is his will free to do what he doesn't want to do?

Originally Posted by GdB

The question is nearly too stupid to answer: find for me the disctionary definition that says that having free will means that you do what you do not want to do. Good luck.

I can say it in a different way: Is his will free if he can only do that which he is compelled to do?

Originally Posted by GdB

What is the case that somebody else, in nearly the same situation, did otherwise because he wanted to do otherwise.

Then he would have done otherwise based on new information that he didn't have the first time. This is called learning from one's mistakes. Most people would choose not to hurt others not only because they have a conscience but because of the consequences if they should get caught. But these threats do not stop the worst offenders if they want something badly enough. The principles in this book do just that. Why are you so resistant?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am compelled, by my nature, to choose the most preferable (or satisfying) in my eyes.

Originally Posted by GdB

I think this is an absurdity in the eyes of LFWers, CFWers, and free will sceptics. Being compelled by what I want is misuse of the word compelled.

It certainly is not. Lessans proposition is spot on. Determinism is not about being forced by something external, which is how determinism has been defined. This has caused a split where people are compelled to take sides. Based on the definition of these two terms, we are either caused to do what we do by outside forces (we're just robots), or we have the kind free will that gives people a certain amount of freedom, and consequent responsibility. Both are inaccurate interpretations which has prevented philosophers from finding a solution.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It IS the correct definition. Free to act is contradictory if we are not free of causes.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yeaaas... It is real magic.

Whatever you say GdB.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it doesn't have to be huge. Is the Sun huge in relation to someone on Earth? No, it looks like a ball. The comparison has to do with the fact that both of these objects are within our field of view in the efferent account. As a result, both objects are seen by the observer and both objects can be compared even though a candle is within a room versus the Sun being millions of miles away. The proportionality remains the same, which removes delayed time from the equation.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What proportionality? What are the two values that you are claiming to be proportional to each other? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

The object and the observer. I have repeated this so many times. Distance is not a factor. What is a factor is the size of the object in relation to the observer. The Sun, although much farther away, is large enough to be within the observer's field of view. The candle, although smaller, is still close enough to the observer to be within the observer's field of view. They work the same way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement since it's the smallest unit of time for all intents and purposes; there's nothing mysterious about it) for the light to increase in its luminosity. Remember, it would have to be bright enough for it to be seen. I was trying to distinguish this amount of time from the 8 minutes that is believed it would take for us to see the Sun.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why bother? What would be the point? How is a nanosecond any less problematic for you than no time at all?

Only because we know light travels, even with the candle example. When I say distance is not a factor, that only means that it would not take 8 minutes for us to use the light to see the Sun. When people think of instant, they think that there is no movement of light. There absolutely is, but if it's a closed system (which means we see the real object), then it would take virtually no time (a nanosecond) for the light to be at our retina. Just as we cannot register this movement of light when a candle is first lit, the same would apply for the Sun.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Photons getting from the Sun to the retina on Earth in a nanosecond is just as impossible,

That is not what's happening. How many times do I have to say that we would see the Sun before we would see each other because the Sun would have met the requirements of brightness and size. We, on the other hand, would not have met the requirement of brightness since the light wouldn't have gotten to Earth yet. No light = no sight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

and remains just as unexplained, as photons getting there instantaneously. You still can't explain where these photons come from or how they get there. This whole nanosecond malarkey is just a huge red herring.

This has nothing to do with photons getting to earth instantaneously. They are not. It takes 8 minutes. You're on the wrong side of the highway. You keep making the same error over and over and over again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just as we cannot register how fast light travels when we light a candle, the same goes for the Sun because we are not talking about traveling light reaching Earth even though that is occurring.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it were proportional, then increasing the distance from a few meters to 90 million miles would mean that the time delay WOULD become noticeable. That is what proportional means.

But that's not what I'm comparing. It's proportional in a different sense.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if you agree that the light is traveling from the Sun to the Earth at light speed (which takes 8min), then you are still left with no explanation at all for how it can be there at the retina on Earth a nanosecond after the Sun is ignited.

Yes I can. Just picture the candle and compare this to the Sun. Like I said, it doesn't matter how far away an object is as long as it meets the requirements which would then put the Sun within optical range the instant we turned our gaze in that direction. The light would already be at our eyes or we would not be able to see the Sun at all. It would be too far away or too dim, but that is not the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are talking about efferent vision, which works just like the candle example.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't explained how the candle example works yet. If it works by relying on light traveling from the candle to the observer's eye, then having the newly ignited Sun example work the same way means there will be an 8min delay.

Not in the efferent account. It would in the afferent account. You are still thinking in terms of distance when distance and time are not factors. The time of a nanosecond is not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about time because the nanosecond does not expand into 8 minutes for us to see an object, although we know light travels.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Imagine that the Sun and the observer are in an enclosed box. The Sun is on one end and the observer is on the other. The Sun is turned on (similarly, the candle is turned on). It takes the light a nanosecond from the Sun (the candle) to reach the observer (the person on the other side of the box), which cannot be registered by the eye.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How big is this box? If it is normal box size, then it won't fit the Earth and Sun inside it. If the box is 90 million miles long, then it will take 8min rather than a nanosecond for the light to get from one end of the box to the other. If it covered the distance any faster it would require light traveling faster than the speed of light. So how is the addition of a box meant to help here?

Spacemonkey, you can't seem to extricate yourself from the afferent position. Everything you are saying is based on traveling light getting there, which takes time. The afferent account, if true, would negate everything I'm saying, but if it's wrong, then my rendition would be supported by the fact that efferent vision uses light as a bridge to the external world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter how large the box is (whether it's a few feet or a million miles away)...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it matters! See above.

No Spacemonkey. The Sun is proportional to the observer just as the candle is proportional to the observer. It's just another way of saying size and luminosity of the object are the significant factors, not how distant an object is. This only applies if the eyes work as Lessans claimed, otherwise it won't make sense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...as long as the object and the observer are within the box (a closed system). All this means is that the object is within our field of view...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then all you are doing is yet again asserting that light can do magical things, such as relocating by millions of miles in less time than it would take to travel the intervening distance. You still aren't explaining how this could possibly be achieved. The terms "closed system" and "field of view" do nothing at all to help you here.

They actually do. Looking through the eyes, as a window, changes the timing of what we see, which is the thing that is being challenged.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...which is deemed unnecessary in the afferent view because of the belief that light is bringing the information to the eye.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Red herring. It makes no difference how information is brought to the eye so long as you agree that the light has to be at the eye for vision to occur. THAT is the part you are failing to explain or address.

I told you that if the eyes are efferent, the light is already at the eye, or we wouldn't be able to see the object. We are not interpreting the light. The wavelength/frequency is already at the retina (there's no time gap) because we are not waiting for light to arrive in order to decode the image. We are seeing the actual object using light as a conduit. This knowledge, once understood, will help give us insight into ourselves and our relationship to the external world, which has never been fully understood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, yes. But was talking about real cameras that work according to the laws of physics and optics.

These are not typical cameras. They are called Direct Time-of-Flight imagers. They measure how long it takes for these laser pulses to reach the target and reflect back to the camera (it doesn't seem to take much longer than a nanosecond). But that's not how the eyes work. Our eyes don't send out single laser pulses, and neither do digital cameras.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Now, see, this would be yet another example of you deliberately lying.

A nanosecond is by no means the smallest unit of time -- "for all intents and purposes" or otherwise. We have devices that can and do measure much smaller time intervals. Indeed, much of our modern technology is dependent upon our ability to measure smaller time intervals.

This has been pointed out to you before. Repeatedly.

That you continue to make such a ludicrously false claim can only be attributed to dishonesty on your part.


Why do you continue to make such ludicrously-false and easily-disproved claims such as this? It does nothing except make you look bad.

I was quite honest when I added "for all intents and purposes". That covers me. It wasn't necessary to find the exact calculation to make the point I was making.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Just to set it straight: I saw you use exactly the same words again and again: 'Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned'. And that sentence is just bullshit as it stands.

So next time I will add: if the definition does not describe anything real.

[But]

Did you miss this?

Originally Posted by But

How do you know that? And how bright do you think the object has to be to be seen in real time? In any case, you're wrong. From the Wikipedia article: "For example, the illumination units in many of today's TOF cameras can provide an illumination level of about 1 watt."

1 watt is more than enough illumination to see everything clearly at a distance of several meters. Do you know how bright a 1 watt LED is?

Also, you are saying in effect that "afferent vision" works.

There is no pulsar in the camera. A pulsar is a star. You mean pulses of light.

Real time vision contradicts the known and tested laws of physics. Simple as that.

[peacegirl]

How do you know what I'm prone to? You aren't walking in my shoes. I can accept or reject your suggestions, but to judge me as lazy is a critical judgment that isn't valid. And what double standard are you talking about? I'm not asking anyone to do something that I'm not also doing. I told you that writing a blog sounds interesting, but you are setting up a standard for me as to the time frame I should begin. Who are you to set a standard for my life?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Who am I to set a standard for your life?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, someone who believes your book of course. As you have pointed out repeatedly, there is an objective standard for what is good and what is bad: some things constitute a harm or a hurt, others simply do not: there is no grey area here, and certainly no relative positions.

You can't call the fact that I'm not ready to act on an idea a genuine hurt. I'm sorry if I can't bring this knowledge to light as fast as you would like, but that doesn't make me responsible for the evil that exists. That's like saying Obama has hurt people because he didn't do this or that. He is doing the best he can within his human limitations, and so am I. It's very easy to say what someone should do, but that is a critical judgment which is the very thing that is coming to an end.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is dealing with these objective harms, hurts or bad things that is going to solve the problem of evil. According to the book, no-one would be able to justify amusing themselves online for their own personal entertainment when they had important work around ridding the world of evil to do because they would know they would never be blamed for doing what they are compelled to do by their own free will.

You are misusing the principle here. I have spent years and years working on the book. You cannot tell me I'm lazy just because you found an article and you want me to hurry up and work on your ideas. Why don't you work on the idea. I will allow you to use your name on my blog. I could turn on you and say now that you know this book is genuine, why aren't you doing more? Why aren't you tweeting about it, and facebooking your friends? Why aren't you writing a review? For me to say "if you don't do this I wouldn't blame you" is faulty because your not doing these things is not a genuine hurt which implies you are responsible. You are not responsible or your conscience would be bothered. Of course it makes me sad that there is knowledge out there that can put an end to war and crime. But I could literally kill myself trying to bring this knowledge to light, and it still might not happen if it's not the right timing. I can only do so much.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet here you are. So either:

1: The book is wrong. This can be rejected offhand.
2: You believe you will be blamed. Hard to see how this could be true: you and I are the only people who believe the book, and how could anyone blame you for not doing anything about something they do not believe in anyway?
3: You do not believe in the book. This leads us down a bit of a philosophical maze, i think.

I think we can agree that if a person had the cure for a disease in their pocket and did not give it to a sick person, that this constitutes a harm.The sick person could justifiable retaliate, by taking it, for instance.

That would be like keeping anti-venom from a person who was bitten by a snake. But that is not what I'm doing. I am not keeping information from people. I'm just not promoting the book as fast as you would like.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what if the person who has the medicine does not really believe it will work, and the sick person does? The person holding the medicine is doing no harm: he does not believe withholding it can do any harm. The person who is sick can still justifiable take it: he believes it will save his life.

How can we reconcile this with the book?

The medicine will be there for the taking if a person believes it could help him. No one will be standing in his way. Even now, the FDA is finally allowing very sick people to try experimental drugs that they use to withhold because the drugs didn't go through the necessary clinical testing which would take years. All drugs will be sold in drugstores if there is a market for them, but no doctor will ever tell a patient that the benefits of the medicine outweigh the risks. That will be left up to the patient to decide.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, the problem is that this means that it now seems we have not solved the problem of evil. Apparently it is perfectly possible to simply deny responsibility and just choose whatever makes you feel good, rather than what needs to happen. This is hard to reconcile with my new-found unshakable belief that the book is right: it contradicts some of what it says about what would happen if we institute a basic wage, for instance.

Absolutely not true. You are standing in judgment as to what I should be doing. My conscience would tell me if I was guilty of doing harm and I don't feel that I am guilty of anything. If I had more money and more technical skills, I could do things faster. Even with those limitations, I am always thinking of what I can do next ( I thank you for your ideas), but I have to consider my well-being too, for if I get sick from all the pressure I won't be of help to anyone. I need balance. I also wrote a book on children's safety. This book could save lives too. Should I feel guilty because I can't promote this book fast enough?

I am reluctant to begin

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That much is obvious.

, as I have other obligations and I don't want to overwhelm myself. Stress is not good for me. Yes, I could get off this thread and start to think about what I'm going to write, but I'm just not mentally there yet.

It is not my responsibility (no one put me in charge) to be the sole person to bring this knowledge to light (that's too much pressure); the fact is I feel compelled to share this knowledge any way I can.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But you only feel compelled to do so in ways you actually like.

What's wrong with that? I know I have to stretch myself to learn new ways of marketing, and then I will like those things too. Once I learn how to optimize twitter, learn how to blog, and find other forms of promotion, I will use those avenues.

I'm also happy that you are interested; all we need is a thousand more like you and we have a shot of this going viral.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Basically, all we need is a bunch of other people to do all the work.

What is that supposed to mean? If everyone does a little, this knowledge could spread like wildfire. It could take years for me to do what 50 people could do in an hour with one click of a button on their twitter or facebook page. Passing information along is what makes something go viral. We have the tools; we just need the manpower.

The other reason for not rushing to blog is that this is a marathon. It is not a sprint. I don't feel that anything I do is going to make that much difference in this short span of time. Delaying blog entries by a few months is not going to stop the new world from coming about when the time is right. After all, God is never early, but he's never late.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If more people shared your idea of what constitutes rushing, then grand prix continental drift would be an exciting spectator sport.

You're funny. lol It would be great if we could witness this book getting lots of traction. That would be enough for me since I would know, once this occurs, that there will be no stopping this new world from coming into existence, and I can die in peace.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So next time I will add: if the definition does not describe anything real.

So what is real and what is not, are physical objects real? are the stars real? especially the ones that have blown up but we still see them? Are ideas real? are theories real? Are feelings (emotions) real? or is it all in your head?

What is there that words describe that is not real?

It would be more accurate to say that what Lessans wrote in his book is not real.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are not typical cameras. They are called Direct Time-of-Flight imagers. They measure how long it takes for these laser pulses to reach the target and reflect back to the camera (it doesn't seem to take much longer than a nanosecond). But that's not how the eyes work. Our eyes don't send out single laser pulses, and neither do digital cameras.

Peacegirl, ALL cameras involve some delay before an image is formed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object and the observer. I have repeated this so many times.

But that is wrong. There is no such proportionality. We already established both that you were using this word wrongly, and that what you were trying to say had no bearing whatsoever on removing delayed time from the equation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only because we know light travels, even with the candle example. When I say distance is not a factor, that only means that it would not take 8 minutes for us to use the light to see the Sun. When people think of instant, they think that there is no movement of light. There absolutely is, but if it's a closed system (which means we see the real object), then it would take virtually no time (a nanosecond) for the light to be at our retina. Just as we cannot register this movement of light when a candle is first lit, the same would apply for the Sun.

But it only doesn't register with the candle BECAUSE the distance is very small. Light from the Sun being at the retina (which is 90 million miles away from the Sun) in a nanosecond still requires light to travel much faster than the speed of light. The candle example doesn't help you here, and won't until you can explain HOW the candle example works in a way that does not depend upon time and distance. So far you are still just asserting that they will be equally fast, without any explanation for how things actually work in either case that would make this possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what's happening.

It's exactly what you've been saying. You've said photons from the Sun will be at the retina within a nanosecond of the Sun being ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with photons getting to earth instantaneously. They are not. It takes 8 minutes.

Then you're back to claiming that we can see things even when there are no photons at the retina. The retina is on Earth. You need photons at that retina before we will be able to see anything. So far the only known means by which they can get there is by traveling, and the only known speed by which they can travel will get them there 8min too late for your model to work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not what I'm comparing. It's proportional in a different sense.

A sense completely unknown to the English language. Seriously, you need to stop using this word, as nothing you've been trying to say has anything to do with proportionality at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I can. Just picture the candle and compare this to the Sun.

We only see the candle near-instantaneously because the distance is very small, so light takes very little time to travel from the candle to the observer's eye. When extrapolated to the Sun scenario where the distance is much greater, this explanation results in an 8min time delay. Do you have any alternative explanation for the candle example that will not have this result?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not in the efferent account. It would in the afferent account. You are still thinking in terms of distance when distance and time are not factors. The time of a nanosecond is not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about time because the nanosecond does not expand into 8 minutes for us to see an object, although we know light travels.

Then you need to give us your efferent account of how and why we see the candle in the time that we do. The only explanation we have so far is one in which time and distance (despite being small) are very much factors. In the afferent account, light travels at a finite speed from the candle to the retina, resulting in a very small time delay. How does light get from the candle to the retina in the efferent account?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you can't seem to extricate yourself from the afferent position. Everything you are saying is based on traveling light getting there, which takes time.

Well, I would like to see things from the efferent position, but so far efferent vision has no explanation whatsoever for where the light at the retina comes from or how it gets there. It is very hard to understand how your account works when you have no idea either and can't explain it yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. The Sun is proportional...

Just no. No more 'proportional'. You do not get to use this word any more. Say what you are trying to say in other words, if you have any desire to be understood.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They actually do. Looking through the eyes, as a window, changes the timing of what we see...

You haven't explained how. The stuff you've made up about mirror images, closed systems, field of view, and proportionality has been complete and utter nonsense that hasn't helped you one bit. These terms have meanings which bear no resemblance to how you have tried to employ them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that if the eyes are efferent, the light is already at the eye... The wavelength/frequency is already at the retina (there's no time gap) because we are not waiting for light to arrive in order...

But you still haven't explained where this light came from or how it got to be at the retina. You still haven't answered any of my bumped questions, even after admitting that at least some of them do apply.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film/retina on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film/retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the film/retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I think I should point out that listening to this is much more productive than trying to get answers out of Peacegirl,

Cozy Cole - Topsy Part I & II - YouTube

It should be pointed out, before someone questions the relevance of this post, when sitting close to the drummer the sight of the stick hitting the drum and the sound of the drum beat arrive almost simultaneously. It is only when the distance is far enough that the sight of a drum beat arrives noticeably before the sound of the drum beat. Apparently this gave Lessans the mistaken idea that vision was instant rather than with a slight delay. If only he had the education and the equipment to measure the time that the light took to reach the eye, there may not have been his confusion on the matter. As it is, his error has given rise to over 13 years of conflict on the internet, on this subject, it makes me wounder where Peacegirl's mind was during the classes that would have explained the science behind this knowledge.

[GdB]

You said:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not my definition; it is the standard dictionary definition.

Here I list the standard definitions from the dictionaries again for you:

• A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.
• the ​ability to ​decide what to do ​independently of any ​outside ​influence
• free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will
• the ability to choose how to act
• The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
• The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion

You say:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will implies free choice without any causal limitation.

So you are wrong that your definition is the standard definition.

Now please argue why above definitions imply 'free choice without any causal limitation'. (BTW, I have no idea what a 'causal limitation' is. As causality is an active power, I only know about 'causal possibilities', i.e. events that are possible according to the laws of nature. It is funny to say of something that enables events to say it limits events that it does not enable.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. Any hard determinist or incompatibilist can see through your definition in relation to what the term "freedom of the will" is referring to. You can easily make up any definition of freedom you want in order to justify punishment, but the truth is "freedom of the will" has but one definition and that is the libertarian kind.

I've showed you above that this is not true: all definitions fit CFW. Of course they also fit LFW, because LFW is CFW plus a piece of magic: the ability to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances.

Of course compatibilists are not ready by just pointing to this piece of magic in LFW. They must show that this stripped off meaning of free will is enough to justify blame and praise. That is the point: it is not about who has the correct definition: it is about the question if our praxis of blaming and praising is supported by the capabilities humans have, and in what measure. If free sceptics say on one hand that we don't have free will, but that certain praxes of blaming and praising are justified given man's capabilities, then they are compatibilists in every respect, except in name. Sam Harris is such an example: in his book 'Free Will' he very aggressively argues against compatibilists, but then shows that people are still responsible for their actions given certain conditions. And so he turns out to be a closet compatibilist, which he of course heavily denies.

So again: these 'Straw men' evaporate if you for a moment forget about the label (LFW, CFW, free will sceptic) but analyse which of our praxes are supported by which human capabilities. Don't you like that? 'Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned'. Funny that you stick to a definition of free will and at the same time subscribe to this mantra from your father.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is wrong because the kind of free will you define as justifying punishment is not the kind of free will that is being debated.

As you see, I can debate the topic without any definition of free will. But if you want: we fully agree that LFW does not exist. Free will sceptics think this is some grant truth, compatibilists see it as a minor point, because LFW is incoherent from the beginning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can say it in a different way: Is his will free if he can only do that which he is compelled to do?

That is not the same. You cannot be compelled by you. But that is what you are saying. However, your drives, wishes and motivations are part of you, so it is a category error to apply the concept of compelling here. You are misusing language.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism is not about being forced by something external, which is how determinism has been defined. This has caused a split where people are compelled to take sides. Based on the definition of these two terms, we are either caused to do what we do by outside forces (we're just robots), or we have the kind free will that gives people a certain amount of freedom, and consequent responsibility.

No idea what you are saying here. Which two terms? What is determinism saying?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really not see the problem with the above response?

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

In case anyone has been wondering what the postman's explanation was.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What the hell am I meant to make of this, Peacegirl? What good are answers that constantly change and flip-flop from post to post?

The question is exactly the same in each case. Your answers, in the order you have given them, are: Yes; Of course not; Yes.

The last two (completely opposed) answers were less than 15min apart!

Another classic Peacegirl moment, from back when she was actually willing to try answering questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Did you miss this?

That may be true, but the camera only sends a pulsar light to the object for a split second which is then reflected back. How can a person see the object that quickly?

Originally Posted by But

Also, you are saying in effect that "afferent vision" works.

No, I'm saying that the conditions are not met in this type of experiment.

But this does not change how the eyes work. We are able to see the Time-of-Flight image on a screen, but we see this in real time just as we see everything in the external world in real time. We would be unable to see the object that the Time of Flight camera is sending pulsars to because it would not be bright enough even though it may be close enough to be within our optical range.

Originally Posted by But

There is no pulsar in the camera. A pulsar is a star. You mean pulses of light.

Not really. The only thing that is being offered is this alternate explanation as to the direction we see, which creates real time vision. That's it. My father knew this claim would cause anger, but I don't think he knew to what degree.

Originally Posted by But

Real time vision contradicts the known and tested laws of physics. Simple as that.

I don't think it's that simple.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You said:

Here I list the standard definitions from the dictionaries again for you:

• A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.
• the ​ability to ​decide what to do ​independently of any ​outside ​influence
• free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will
• the ability to choose how to act
• The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
• The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion

You say:

So you are wrong that your definition is the standard definition.

All of these definitions are useful to explain the word "free", and they can be used in a general sense. But for purposes of this conversation (free will versus determinism) it is a strawman. We are specifically talking about free will in relation to whether these choices are independent of causal factors.

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. It is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgments which apply only to actions that are freely chosen.

Free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by GdB

Now please argue why above definitions imply 'free choice without any causal limitation'. (BTW, I have no idea what a 'causal limitation' is. As causality is an active power, I only know about 'causal possibilities', i.e. events that are possible according to the laws of nature. It is funny to say of something that enables events to say it limits events that it does not enable.)

When I say causal limitations, I am saying we are limited by the events and circumstances that are influencing our choices. I'm not sure what you mean when you say causality is an active power. It's active in the sense that I am actively doing the choosing. Is that what you mean?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. Any hard determinist or incompatibilist can see through your definition in relation to what the term "freedom of the will" is referring to. You can easily make up any definition of freedom you want in order to justify punishment, but the truth is "freedom of the will" has but one definition and that is the libertarian kind.

Originally Posted by GdB

I've showed you above that this is not true: all definitions fit CFW. Of course they also fit LFW, because LFW is CFW plus a piece of magic: the ability to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances.

Of course compatibilists are not ready by just pointing to this piece of magic in LFW. They must show that this stripped off meaning of free will is enough to justify blame and praise. That is the point: it is not about who has the correct definition: it is about the question if our praxis of blaming and praising is supported by the capabilities humans have, and in what measure. If free sceptics say on one hand that we don't have free will, but that certain praxes of blaming and praising are justified given man's capabilities, then they are compatibilists in every respect, except in name. Sam Harris is such an example: in his book 'Free Will' he very aggressively argues against compatibilists, but then shows that people are still responsible for their actions given certain conditions. And so he turns out to be a closet compatibilist, which he of course heavily denies.

I agree with you. So is Tom Clark, although he claims he's a hard determinist.

Originally Posted by GdB

So again: these 'Straw men' evaporate if you for a moment forget about the label (LFW, CFW, free will sceptic) but analyse which of our praxes are supported by which human capabilities. Don't you like that? 'Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned'. Funny that you stick to a definition of free will and at the same time subscribe to this mantra from your father.

But we don't have the capability of making a "free" choice EVER so how is the praxis of blaming and praising supported by the capabilities humans have? I've already said that having choices available to us does not grant us freedom of the will. I can only will what I desire. I can't will what I don't desire. You say this doesn't matter, but it matters very much. If the threat of punishment does not override my desire to do something, I will do that something in spite of these threats because it gives me greater satisfaction to do so. So the question should be: how can we create an environment where the desire to hurt someone gives us less satisfaction than hurting them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is wrong because the kind of free will you define as justifying punishment is not the kind of free will that is being debated.

Originally Posted by GdB

As you see, I can debate the topic without any definition of free will. But if you want: we fully agree that LFW does not exist.

Right.

Originally Posted by GdB

Free will sceptics think this is some grant truth, compatibilists see it as a minor point, because LFW is incoherent from the beginning.

But don't you see that the free will (the ability to choose without any apparent constraint) does not grant us the kind of free will that justifies punishment? You will see why this is of great significance, not a minor point.

Originally Posted by GdB

The question is nearly too stupid to answer: find for me the dictionary definition that says that having free will means that you do what you do not want to do. Good luck.

That's what "free" will means. That you can choose either/or. You can choose what gives you less or greater satisfaction, which is an impossibility.

I can say it in a different way: Is his will free if he can only do that which he is compelled to do?

Originally Posted by GdB

That is not the same. You cannot be compelled by you. But that is what you are saying. However, your drives, wishes and motivations are part of you, so it is a category error to apply the concept of compelling here. You are misusing language.

It is not a category error to apply the concept of compel. We are compelled, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to make the choices we make which are based on our drives, wishes and motivations that are part of us. That's why it's important to qualify what the term "compel" means. It does not mean that something external to us forces us to do what we do (like a domino), but we are compelled, by our nature, to pick the most favorable choice any time we are comparing two or more alternatives.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism is not about being forced by something external, which is how determinism has been defined. This has caused a split where people are compelled to take sides. Based on the definition of these two terms, we are either caused to do what we do by outside forces (we're just robots), or we have the kind free will that gives people a certain amount of freedom, and consequent responsibility.

Originally Posted by GdB

No idea what you are saying here. Which two terms? What is determinism saying?

de·ter·min·ism
dəˈtərməˌnizəm/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That may be true, but the camera only sends a pulsar light to the object for a split second which is then reflected back. How can a person see the object that quickly?

Again, a pulsar is a star. You mean a pulse of light. How can someone see using pulsed light? Well, what the hell is the problem? You wouldn't even notice that the light is pulsed. 1 watt is the average power of the light source, which is what counts. If you have problems explaining that using "efferent vision", it doesn't matter, because that's complete nonsense.

No, I'm saying that the conditions are not met in this type of experiment.

Care to explain why? The object is bright enough and big enough.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can a person see the object that quickly?

Many devices do not display images continuously, but in pulses much faster than you can notice.

Really, you come in here telling us vision works completely differently and we should listen to you, but you don't know the first thing about what we can actually see!

You also still haven't answered my question about mirrors. Why can I see a reflection in a mirror, but not on a plain wall? The object I can see in the mirror is big enough and bright enough. So why can I only see it in the mirror?

[LadyShea]

the truth is "freedom of the will" has but one definition and that is the libertarian kind

That is just bullshit. LFW is used as a strawman. Remember, definitions mean nothing if they don't describe something real. Libertarian free will does not describe anything real at all, it is not even a cogent concept.

Compatibilist free will, however, is real. We have the ability to make choices. We can demonstrate this ability at any time. That is real.

[LadyShea]

we are limited by what events and circumstances have preceded our choices.

Limited how exactly? What restrictions can the past, which doesn't exist except as memories according to you, have on our ability to act in the present?

How does your past restrict you from or restrict you to eating eggs instead of oatmeal for breakfast?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is just bullshit. LFW is used as a strawman. Remember, definitions mean nothing if they don't describe something real. Libertarian free will does not describe anything real at all, it is not even a cogent concept.

Compatibilist free will, however, is real. We have the ability to make choices. We can demonstrate this ability at any time. That is real.

The ability to make choices does not mean that those choices are free. No one is disagreeing with the kind of freedom that compatibilists are using, but if you carefully analyze this definition it is a smokescreen. I can be free of control, persuasion, a gun at my head, OCD or other obsessions, etc. but this kind of freedom is just a useful definition to justify holding a particular group accountable and separates these individuals from the individuals who seem to have little or no control over their actions due to physical or emotional constraints. What I am trying to get across is that even the ones who have the kind of control that compatibilists use to justify blameworthiness, actually don't have ultimate control if their will is not free. So what compatibilists are saying is that a person who has this "special" kind of free will (which is most of us) should be able to make the "appropriate" choice in a civilized society. Although he could not have chosen otherwise (which the compatibilists agree with) punishment may help him choose more mindfully in a future situation as he learns from previous mistakes and discerns right from wrong. If he does not act responsibly, he knows he will have to face the consequences. Most people who are already embroiled in criminality know the risks they are taking and do the crime any way. We all know that threats of punishment are necessary in our society as this is the only deterrent we have, but it is only a partial deterrent. The recidivism rate is still very high, and although some people can be rehabilitated and go on to lead productive lives (especially if they are not branded "criminal" for life and are given decent job opportunities), it often comes too late for the families who now have to live with a loved one who was seriously injured or murdered. This discovery prevents the first crime from ever taking place. Wouldn't you want that? Just answer yes or no. Don't give me a big spiel as to how this could never happen.


Study: Prisons failing to deter repeat criminals in 41 states
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

Updated 4/13/2011 |

In one of the most comprehensive reports of its kind, the Pew Center on the States found that slightly more than four in 10 offenders return to prison within three years, a collective rate that has remained largely unchanged in years, despite huge increases in prison spending that now costs states $52 billion annually.
National recidivism, or return, rates are holding steady even as state officials have launched programs to help prisoners re-enter society and as the recent financial crisis has forced states to cut their budgets and re-evaluate the types of offenders who should return to prison.

“The system designed to deter (inmates) from continued criminal behavior clearly is falling short,” according to the study by Pew’s Public Safety Performance Project, an arm of the non-profit’s public policy analysis group. “That is an unhappy reality, not just for offenders but for the safety of American communities.”

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...old-steady.htm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Limited how exactly? What restrictions can the past, which doesn't exist except as memories according to you, have on our ability to act in the present?

How does your past restrict you from or restrict you to eating eggs instead of oatmeal for breakfast?

I am not restricted by my past from eating eggs instead of oatmeal in the sense that both are available to me. But just because both are available to me does not grant me free will. Every choice any of us make is based on our genetics, environment, and experiences which push us in a particular direction. For example, knowing that I'm allergic to eggs (which knowledge came from a previous experience where I developed hives) creates a meaningful difference between the two choices that are in front of me. As a result, I choose oatmeal instead of eggs, even though I love eggs. This is not a free choice. My past restricts what I choose to eat because I am weighing the pros and cons based on previous experience. Let me repeat: I am not restricted from choosing between eggs instead of oatmeal in the compatibilist sense of "free" (which no one is disputing) but I am compelled to choose the option that is the most favorable. I am restricted by the law of greater satisfaction. I cannot choose what I prefer less, even if my preference is to sacrifice my favorite dish so someone else can enjoy it, which gives me "greater satisfaction" (the only direction I can go) than eating it myself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Many devices do not display images continuously, but in pulses much faster than you can notice.

Really, you come in here telling us vision works completely differently and we should listen to you, but you don't know the first thing about what we can actually see!

You also still haven't answered my question about mirrors. Why can I see a reflection in a mirror, but not on a plain wall? The object I can see in the mirror is big enough and bright enough. So why can I only see it in the mirror?

Because of the material a mirror is made of.

The key factor is a smooth surface, because rough surfaces scatter light instead of reflecting it. When photons — rays of light — coming from an object (your smiling face, for example) strike the smooth surface of a mirror, they bounce back at the same angle. Your eyes see these reflected photons as a mirror image.

Aug 4, 2011
How Do Mirrors Work? | Wonderopolis
wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-do-mirrors-work/

When Lessans said the image is not reflected, he meant that we are not decoding the light itself into an image. We are seeing the representation of ourselves in the mirror because of how light is reflected, but we are seeing this representation in real time because it meets the requirements. Just because we are seeing the image as as result of how the mirror and light work to produce an image does not prove him wrong.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are seeing the representation of ourselves in the mirror because of how light is reflected...

What, in your idea of vision, does the light have to do with anything? Why does it matter what the light does, when all that matters is that the object is 'bright enough and big enough'?