A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

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.

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

Because the pulsar light that is sent out is reflected right back. The light would not be there long enough for us to utilize it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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'?

Because light is essential. It's the only reason we can see anything. It's just that in this account the light is not what is being turned into an image. We are using light to see the actual object using light as the bridge.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The ability to make choices does not mean that those choices are free.

It might, depending on how the word free is being defined and understood, which is the basis of the whole debate.

No one is disagreeing with the kind of freedom that compatibilists are using, but if you carefully analyze this definition it is a smokescreen.

What smokescreen? The compatibilist kind of freedom is the kind we actually have. It's the kind of freedom that exists in reality.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So the word "limited" was a poor choice, because it means restricted. You are not restricted from eating eggs. You are free to choose eggs. The consequences one might contemplate are influential but not restrictive. How does our past limit our present and future choices? Inform, yes. Influence, absolutely. Lead to, sure. Limit? Nope

Let's look closer.

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.

LOL, this is free will according to compatibilists! Choosing what is preferred based on personal reasons is the kind of freedom we actually have, so the kind of freedom that compatibilists are talking about.

I cannot choose what I prefer less

You will not choose what you prefer less.

The word cannot is fallacious in that sentence.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the pulsar light that is sent out is reflected right back. The light would not be there long enough for us to utilize it.

A pulsar is a star, for the millionth time.

And you're still talking nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

A pulsar is a star, for the millionth time.

And you're still talking nonsense.

Laser pulse.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the pulsar light that is sent out is reflected right back. The light would not be there long enough for us to utilize it.

How long do you think it needs to stay at the object?

Also, I have no problem seeing objects illuminated by nanosecond pulses.

Basically, you're making stuff up again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So the word "limited" was a poor choice, because it means restricted. You are not restricted from eating eggs. You are free to choose eggs.

I am not restricted from eating eggs in the sense you're using the term. They are available to me if I want them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The consequences one might contemplate are influential but not restrictive. How does our past limit our present and future choices? Inform, yes. Influence, absolutely. Lead to, sure. Limit? Nope

My nature restricts me from choosing that which I don't desire.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's look closer.

LOL, this is free will according to compatibilists!

Choosing what is preferred based on personal reasons is the kind of freedom we actually have, so the kind of freedom that compatibilists are talking about.

But that's a strawman because it has nothing to do with whether we have freedom of the will as used by the free will skeptic. No hard determinist disagrees with the fact that we have options open to us. You're playing with semantics.

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.

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

I cannot choose what I prefer less

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You will not choose what you prefer less.

No, you cannot choose what you prefer less. It's impossible to choose what you prefer less when something better is available. But it must be remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that affect choice. In other words, what you may desire is the most preferable choice at one moment may not be the same choice you would make at another moment due to a different set of alternatives that affect choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word cannot is fallacious in that sentence.

Nope, it's the right word.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

How long do you think it needs to stay at the object?

Also, I have no problem seeing objects illuminated by nanosecond pulses.

Basically, you're making stuff up again.

If a light flashes on an object in less than a second, how could I even register what I'm seeing in that short amount of time?

[LadyShea]

But that's a strawman because it has nothing to do with whether we have freedom of the will as used by the free will skeptic. No hard determinist disagrees with the fact that we have options open to us. You're playing with semantics.

No, I am not, YOU and the hard determinists and incompatibilists are. Stating that the only definition of free will is libertarian free will is a total strawman because it isn't anything real at all...so its very easy to knock down. Nobody I have ever seen in any of these discussions is arguing for libertarian free will, so arguing against it is fighting a strawman by definition. Why would anyone use such a definition except as a strawman? Why do you get to choose the concept you wish to argue against at all, rather than arguing the concept that is being presented to you by the claimant?

Compatibilist free will actually exists in reality so can be discussed and debated as it applies to the world.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you cannot choose what you prefer less. It's impossible to choose what you prefer less when something better is available.

Prove it. LOL...you are once again committing the modal fallacy

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Prove it. LOL...you are once again committing the modal fallacy

L.O.L. Lessans wrote it, so to Peacegirl that proves it, could anyone be more stupid than that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Right, so kindly go through my questions and answer the ones that apply. Feel free to identify any you still think don't apply, and be sure to explain why you think this.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bump.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a light flashes on an object in less than a second, how could I even register what I'm seeing in that short amount of time?

I can see and register events in much less time than a second. So can you, unless you're blind or have a severe brain disorder. People have been shown to be capable of recognizing images (we're especially good at quickly recognizing faces) in less than 0.013 second (that is, 13 milliseconds).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I can see and register events in much less time than a second. So can you, unless you're blind or have a severe brain disorder. People have been shown to be capable of recognizing images (we're especially good at quickly recognizing faces) in less than 0.013 second (that is, 13 milliseconds).

You do realize we're talking about Peacegirl here. Her S.O.P. is to make any kind of shit up, if she thinks it will help her argument.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

L.O.L. Lessans wrote it, so to Peacegirl that proves it, could anyone be more stupid than that.

Peacegirl, on second thought, don't spend time with your grandchildren, I wouldn't want them to grow up thinking that what you believed was normal.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by GdB

So again: these 'Straw men' evaporate...

I am going to have to correct you here. Straw men do not evaporate. They crumble, decompose and become compost (i.e. manure).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the pulsar light that is sent out is reflected right back.

Finally found what you must be talking about.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am going to have to correct you here. Straw men do not evaporate. They crumble, decompose and become compost (i.e. manure).

But aren't they afraid of matches, and they help to liquidate witches.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of these definitions are useful to explain the word "free", and they can be used in a general sense.

All of these were dictionary entries (so standard definitions) of free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I already said we all agree that LFW does not exist. So if that is what is all about, then we are ready. But you seem to think that because free will in your definition does not exist (i.e. means nothing concerning reality), we have to think over our praxis of praising an blaming.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Yup. That is exactly what compatibilists would say. No mentioning of being able to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I mean that when we observe changes, we conclude that these changes must have causes. So if there are no causes, nothing would change. There would not be any identifiable events. So causal powers are active elements in the course of events, per definition. The greater the variety of types of causation, the greater, the more subtle, the variations in possible changes. Humans, with their complicated brains are the top of the top.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's active in the sense that I am actively doing the choosing.

So that automaically follows, yes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

That is the confusing in the term hard determinist. Compatibilists assume exactly the same determinism as 'hard determinists'. But they differ in what you can conclude from this concerning our praxis of praising and blaming.

You see? We can talk about this topic without even struggling about free will. I am wondering why this does not go into your head, where it is you that says 'Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned'. You are sticking to a definition that does not apply to reality at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

You see? You stick to your own definition, that does not apply to reality. We must look if the definition that does apply to reality (CFW) can be a basis of our praxis of praising and blaming.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I already said: something cannot constrain itself. My preferences, that what gives me satisfaction, are part of me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 asked you to find a dictionary definition that says that 'you do what you do not want to do'. Obviously you can't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

What a useless reaction. I asked to explain what you mean. You know that I know what determinism is. But your paragraph cited above is not understandable, so please explain more clearly.

O, I changed the accentuation in the definition you copied.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am going to have to correct you here. Straw men do not evaporate. They crumble, decompose and become compost (i.e. manure).

You underestimate the heat. Above certain temperatures everything evaporates, even straw men.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light is essential.

You still haven't answered my question, because you have yet to explain the difference between a wall and a mirror. There's light at my eyes in both cases. There's light at the object in both cases. The only difference is that the light is reflected differently from a wall and a mirror. So why does this difference matter in your account?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Prove it. LOL...you are once again committing the modal fallacy

Modal fallacy? This has nothing to do with predicting what your choice will be in advance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You still haven't answered my question, because you have yet to explain the difference between a wall and a mirror. There's light at my eyes in both cases. There's light at the object in both cases. The only difference is that the light is reflected differently from a wall and a mirror. So why does this difference matter in your account?

It doesn't. It's just that one reflects light of the same scene back to me; the other doesn't. Light is still at the eye and is reflected in both cases, but the object that I am seeing is there (or I couldn't see it), although the scene the mirror is reflecting I am seeing indirectly.