A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film 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 when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film 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 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 at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

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

It's still circumventing the issue. If man does not have the kind of free will that determinists are referring to, (just follow the reasoning) how can a person be held accountable for what he has no choice in doing? I understand the problem, but think about this intellectually and not practically.

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.

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

This is the point where you have to follow the reasoning to see where it leads. You can't agree that man has no free choice because his will is not free and then insert another definition of free will that says he is now blameworthy for making the wrong choice. I mean you can do this, but it's bait and switch. If you follow me you will see why, as we extend the knowledge of no free will, a blameless environment (knowing that there will be no consequences) prevents the desire to hurt others worldwide; something threats of blame and punishment cannot achieve.

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

Originally Posted by GdB

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

I understand that, but it is still a contradiction to say man is guilty if his will is not free. The definition of "free" compatibilists use serves only to justify blameworthiness by a slick change in definition. I will continue to repeat that I understand the dilemma, but you have no understanding of this discovery which is the ultimate solution.

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.

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

I agree that humans are at the top of the top because they have the ability to contemplate, which is why we say humans have a choice and animals don't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by GdB

So that automaically follows, yes.

At least we agree on something. Maybe we can use this as a starting point since I am not of the camp that says we are not doing the choosing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

But that's exactly what follows from the truth of determinism. You need to follow the reasoning which shows that if man's will is not free, blame and praise must go. It's problematic to you because you feel that this would cause man to become irresponsible and not have any accountability, which is the exact opposite of what would happen.

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

What definition is that?

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?

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

But the definition you are using does not fix the problem. What happens if society expects you to pick a choice that you don't think is right for you? For example, society has a punishment for stealing. You are free, according to compatibilists, to choose not to steal if you have no emotional or physical constraints which they believe gives you a free pass. But what if you are starving and in need of food? You can't find anyone to help you. You know you will be judged for this and possibly punished harshly. Knowing the consequences is not enough to stop you from doing what you feel is the only option because it's better than starvation. Although we can see the mitigating circumstances that would excuse your behavior to a degree in a court of law, it shows how a person may do something that others feel is wrong when he feels it is right for him, whatever the reason. Punishment does nothing other than to keep someone confined without understanding the causes that led to the decision in the first place. Only by changing one's perspective as to why a particular choice is not in his favor will we be able to get to the root of the problem and stop him from desiring to make a choice that society deems blameworthy.

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.

Originally Posted by GdB

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

Then we're in agreement that what we desire comes from within, from the agent himself, unless he is being physically forced (e.g. like someone forcing his head under water), which IS external to him.

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.

Originally Posted by GdB

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

But that's implied in the word "free". Please read this over again.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 48 Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war
time for espionage and condemned to death, but mercifully given a
choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while
B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and
B, representing small or large differences are compared. The
comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The
difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the
compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes
one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because
it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since
B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly
possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your
decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any
way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could
you prefer the other alternative?”

“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t
given me any choice.”

You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you
should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In
other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of
alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A.
It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it
could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as
an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice you are
not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of
the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control.

Let me explain this in another way. Once it is understood that life is
compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and if two such
alternatives were presented to you as in the example above, what
choice would you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils?
Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still
worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled,
completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer
A; and since the definition of free will states that man can choose
good over evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for
the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount
of compulsion since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not
be selected in this comparison of possibilities?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point...he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

[quote=peacegirl;1237545]

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.

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

I'm trying to make a point that the standard definition of determinism implies that we are caused by something external to us that forces us to do what we do. Most people cannot accept determinism for this reason. But Lessans does not say this. He agrees with you that nothing external can force us to do what we do if we don't want to do it (not heredity, environment, or God himself) for over this we have mathematical control. This is the other side of the equation. His definition of determinism is much more accurate but there are two sides to this, which reconciles these two positions.

Originally Posted by GdB;1237658O

, I changed the accentuation in the definition you copied.

K

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't. It's just that one reflects light of the same scene back to me; the other doesn't.

Well, yes - but that's exactly what I'm asking why about. Light is reflected from the wall, too. So why can't I see reflections on a wall, and only mirror? If it doesn't matter that light is reflected differently, as you say now, what does matter?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well, yes - but that's exactly what I'm asking why about. Light is reflected from the wall, too. So why can't I see reflections on a wall, and only mirror? If it doesn't matter that light is reflected differently, as you say now, what does matter?

Of course it matters. The composition of objects and how they interact with light is of vital importance because they produce different effects in what we see. A rough surface versus a smooth surface causes light to do different things. I do not dispute any of this.

https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/mat...aging-kap2.pdf

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it matters. The composition of objects and how they interact with light is of vital importance because they produce different effects in what we see.

So before it doesn't matter, and now it does! Okay, now you've changed your mind again, so let's go back to my question:

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? Yes, light is acting differently. Why does that difference make matter to what we see in your account?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So before it doesn't matter, and now it does! Okay, now you've changed your mind again, so let's go back to my question:

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? Yes, light is acting differently. Why does that difference make matter to what we see in your account?

Let me go through this again: Whatever is seen in the afferent account is seen in the efferent account. If light scatters, it still scatters and we will see the result. If light is reflected from a mirror, it will still be reflected and we will see the result. The only difference is that we are not interpreting the light; we are seeing in real time which changes the function of light (not the properties) because the eyes work differently than previously thought.

[peacegirl]

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).

Then it should work but light has to have a nanosecond to reflect in order for light to be at the eye. I've said this all along. You can't have light at an object with no time to be at the eye. But people are assuming that the farther away something is, the longer it will take for the light to get to the eye. I'm saying that's not true in the efferent account because all that is necessary is that the object is bright enough and large enough to be within our field of view. It doesn't matter how small or large that object is. The reflected light does not have to travel large distances if the eyes work the opposite way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Because it would be like me talking English and you talking Chinese. The semantics don't work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

No it does not actually exist. To say we are free when we are not constrained by outside forces is false when we are discussing the free will/determinism debate. We are constrained by the laws of our nature to choose what we believe is in our best interest even if that choice hurts others as a result. The only way we are going to make major progress is to understand the causes that drive people to make choices that hurt, and change the environment so that those choices are no longer preferable.

I'm refuting the way compatibilists have conjured up another definition of "free" (when no one is disagreeing with this definition of "free" and why it's a strawman). I can say I was free of any influence when making a decision, or I was free to choose whatever I wanted because nothing was standing in my way. This type of free does not mean I am actually free to choose what society deems morally right if I don't find that choice preferable, for whatever reason. If man's will is not free, then this other definition does not save the argument, nor does it remove the contradiction. They use this other definition of "free" as a bait and switch tactic to justify placing blame on those who don't live up to society's standards, which is understandable. In order to punish, we need a justification which is perfect for compatibilists who believe in determinism but also believe that people should be held accountable for wrongdoing. But no one is actually free to make the ethical or moral choice if that choice gives him less satisfaction, so once again the answer is not punishment (although at the present time we need to confine people who hurt others) but to figure out how to eliminate the causes that would drive someone to harm others as the preferable choice. People don't hurt others without a justification so it is imperative that we remove the types of justification that would allow someone to behave in hurtful ways. Threats of jail time may deter some, but they certainly won't deter the most dangerous offenders who are out for revenge or who have been so badly hurt by the things that happened to them that their conscience no longer controls their behavior.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then it should work but light has to have a nanosecond to reflect in order for light to be at the eye. I've said this all along. You can't have light at an object with no time to be at the eye. But people are assuming that the farther away something is, the longer it will take for the light to get to the eye. I'm saying that's not true in the efferent account because all that is necessary is that the object is bright enough and large enough to be within our field of view. It doesn't matter how small or large that object is. The reflected light does not have to travel large distances if the eyes work the opposite way.

What bridges the distance between the eye and the object? You say light doesn't travel to the eye in efferent vision, the eye doesn't travel, and the object doesn't travel. How does the eye get an image of the object if there is a great distance between them and nothing is traveling to connect them over that distance? We have already established that the object is large enough, bright enough, and within the field of view, does the brain travel?

[thedoc]

The definition of free will is very important to the debate, if you say that any influence negates free will, then there is no free will, but if you allow some influences to be compatible with free will, then free will does exist. Where you draw the line is very important.

Lessans did not disprove free will, he only demonstrated that we make choices based on our preferences, and we do so freely.

[peacegirl]

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.

It actually does.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

I actually did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what's happening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Only if we see the actual Sun because it's within our field of view. If it's not, we won't be able to see it no matter how much light is present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

It doesn't matter that the retina is on Earth. You are missing the whole account which explains why it is possible to see the object without the light having to travel for 8 minutes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Photons are traveling, but the reversal of the way the eyes see creates this phenomenon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Okay, analogous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I don't have to have another alternative explanation. Efferent vision is enough of an explanation. You're just not following the reasoning where it makes sense.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

The same way.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

I have tried to give analogies but you don't want to hear it. You pooh pooh everything I say because you keep failing to understand that we are not interpreting the light when we see the real object, and the only way we can see the real object is if it is within our field of view and if it is bright enough. Because of the size of the object, the light is already at the retina when we gaze in that direction. That means there is no travel time except for the nanosecond that it takes to build enough luminosity for it to meet the requirements.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. The Sun is proportional...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

I have tried. I think most people understand what I'm saying even with the word proportional.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Because this is a new concept, it's difficult to find the right word to explain it. I think these words are close enough to envision what I'm talking about.

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...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

It got to be at the retina because the distance between the eye and the object is not a factor (since no time is involved) when we are not interpreting the light but are seeing the real thing. He used a faraway object to explain this phenomenon because there is no way to understand this using objects that are close to us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The definition of free will is very important to the debate, if you say that any influence negates free will, then there is no free will, but if you allow some influences to be compatible with free will, then free will does exist. Where you draw the line is very important.

Lessans did not disprove free will, he only demonstrated that we make choices based on our preferences, and we do so freely.

There is no drawing of any line. You're completely lost as usual.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does.

I actually did.

Content free responses. You're not even trying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter that the retina is on Earth. You are missing the whole account which explains why it is possible to see the object without the light having to travel for 8 minutes.

I'm missing the account because you haven't provided one. You still haven't explained where the light at the retina comes from or how it gets there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons are traveling, but the reversal of the way the eyes see creates this phenomenon.

The photons travel from where to where? And at what speed?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, analogous.

No, that doesn't fit either. All you're trying to say is that we'll see the Sun just as quickly as the candle. But the only explanation we have for the candle case is one which depends upon the travel time of light. So explaining the Sun case in an analogical way results in an 8min time delay.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to have another alternative explanation. Efferent vision is enough of an explanation. You're just not following the reasoning where it makes sense.

Yes, you do need an alternative explanation for how the candle case works. Efferent vision hasn't explained it, and you have so far offered no reasoning for us to follow. The only explanation we have is that the light travels from the candle to the observers eye, and takes a measurable amount of time to do so, resulting in a time delay corresponding to the distance traveled.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same way.

If the light gets from the candle to the observer's eye by traveling at light speed, then explaining the Sun example in "the same way" results in an 8min time delay. You can't say that efferent vision works the same as the candle example AND that the candle example works exactly the same as science already says. That would mean efferent vision is no different to the current afferent account. To explain how time and distance cease to be factors in efferent vision, you also need to explain how this is achieved in the candle case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tried to give analogies but you don't want to hear it. You pooh pooh everything I say because you keep failing to understand that we are not interpreting the light when we see the real object, and the only way we can see the real object is if it is within our field of view and if it is bright enough. Because of the size of the object, the light is already at the retina when we gaze in that direction. That means there is no travel time except for the nanosecond that it takes to build enough luminosity for it to meet the requirements.

Same question: Where did that light come from and how did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tried. I think most people understand what I'm saying even with the word proportional.

All you're saying is that the Sun case is just as fast as the candle case, but you still can't explain how time and distance aren't factors in either scenario.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It got to be at the retina because the distance between the eye and the object is not a factor (since no time is involved) when we are not interpreting the light but are seeing the real thing. He used a faraway object to explain this phenomenon because there is no way to understand this using objects that are close to us.

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. This shows you to be an incredibly dishonest person.

[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.

You spent weeks evading these questions with the bullshit excuse that they allegedly didn't apply. Now you've admitted that at least some of them do apply, but you're still evading just as before. What's your excuse now, weasel?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What's your excuse now?

She's Peacegirl, what do you expect?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Content free responses. You're not even trying.

I'm missing the account because you haven't provided one. You still haven't explained where the light at the retina comes from or how it gets there.

The photons travel from where to where? And at what speed?

No, that doesn't fit either. All you're trying to say is that we'll see the Sun just as quickly as the candle. But the only explanation we have for the candle case is one which depends upon the travel time of light. So explaining the Sun case in an analogical way results in an 8min time delay.

[

Yes, you do need an alternative explanation for how the candle case works. Efferent vision hasn't explained it, and you have so far offered no reasoning for us to follow. The only explanation we have is that the light travels from the candle to the observers eye, and takes a measurable amount of time to do so, resulting in a time delay corresponding to the distance traveled.

If the light gets from the candle to the observer's eye by traveling at light speed, then explaining the Sun example in "the same way" results in an 8min time delay. You can't say that efferent vision works the same as the candle example AND that the candle example works exactly the same as science already says. That would mean efferent vision is no different to the current afferent account. To explain how time and distance cease to be factors in efferent vision, you also need to explain how this is achieved in the candle case.

Same question: Where did that light come from and how did it get there?

All you're saying is that the Sun case is just as fast as the candle case, but you still can't explain how time and distance aren't factors in either scenario.

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. This shows you to be an incredibly dishonest person.

I am trying to answer you and this is what I get? I'm done.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to answer you and this is what I get? I'm done.

Don't lie. You're NOT trying. At all. Not even a little bit. You are quite deliberately and calculatingly avoiding the questions I have reposted well over a hundred times now. Your ONLY excuse for not answering them was that they don't apply, and you have since agreed that this excuse was bogus. So stop lying and try being honest and reasonable. If you can.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film 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 when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film 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 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 at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

THESE questions, Peacegirl. You have NOT tried to answer them, and you are utterly WITHOUT EXCUSE for still evading them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it would be like me talking English and you talking Chinese. The semantics don't work.

You didn't address my point at all. You are arguing against libertarian freewill, a position nobody here holds and which is an incoherent concept. That makes you the one fighting a strawman, that makes you the one playing semantics games.

No it does not actually exist. To say we are free when we are not constrained by outside forces is false when we are discussing the free will/determinism debate.

It's not false at all, it's just not your strawman position.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't address my point at all. You are arguing against libertarian freewill, a position nobody here holds and which is an incoherent concept. That makes you the one fighting a strawman, that makes you the one playing semantics games.

But don't you see that if libertarian free will doesn't exist because everything is caused by antecedent conditions, then to blame someone for making the wrong decision because he was "free" is a contradiction. No strawman here.

No it does not actually exist. To say we are free when we are not constrained by outside forces is false when we are discussing the free will/determinism debate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not false at all, it's just not your strawman position.

It most definitely is. It's not a strawman position because I'm not arguing against libertarian free will. I'm arguing against the compatibilist kind of free will that is not compatible with a deterministic framework. Just because we are free (there is no physical or emotional constraint) doesn't mean we are actually free of causal factors. If one is a true determinist, it is very easy to see the hole in this argument.

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)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

She's Peacegirl, what do you expect?

Exactly what we are seeing. More outright lies and evasion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

THESE questions, Peacegirl. You have NOT tried to answer them, and you are utterly WITHOUT EXCUSE for still evading them.

Give it up Spacemonkey.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Give it up Spacemonkey.

Why? Are you telling me it's a lost cause expecting you to be honest or reasonable? What's your new excuse your weaseling and evading these questions?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then it should work but light has to have a nanosecond to reflect in order for light to be at the eye. I've said this all along. You can't have light at an object with no time to be at the eye.

Light can only travel about 30cm in a nanosecond. This is still not enough time for light to be at the eye for any object more than 30cm away from the observer's eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But people are assuming that the farther away something is, the longer it will take for the light to get to the eye.

That's not an assumption. It is a straightforward fact so long as the light is getting from the object to the eye by traveling at a fixed speed. Increasing the distance increases the travel time. Can you offer any alternative means by which the light gets to the retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that's not true in the efferent account because all that is necessary is that the object is bright enough and large enough to be within our field of view.

That doesn't explain HOW the light gets to be at the retina. (Stating conditions still isn't giving an explanatory mechanism.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reflected light does not have to travel large distances if the eyes work the opposite way.

Then how does light get to be at the retina when viewing a distant object? Does the light come from the object or somewhere else? How does it get to the retina without traveling the intervening distance?

[GdB]

Peacegirl, you must stop with sticking to definitions of free will, otherwise the discussion has no meaning concerning reality. I already formulated what the discussion is about without referring to a concept of free will:

Do humans have capabilities that make them to responsible beings, i.e. they also can be made responsible for their actions, and they may or have to bear the consequences?

We can discuss this without reference to a definition of free will. As soon as you bring in the words 'free will' you are making a smoke screen, because you refer to a concept of free will of which we both agree it does not exist. Such a definition means nothing concerning reality. (Your (father's) words...).

So what capabilities can we think about?

1. Consciousness
2. Ability to observe the environment
3. Ability to communicate with others, and reflect on reasons for acting
4. Ability to recognise its own motives (desires, beliefs)
5. Evaluate alternative actions before actually acting
6. Insight in causal relationships (if I do this then as result that will happen)
7. Image of self in relationship to the world
8. Empathy, especially where suffering of happiness of others is involved
9. Morality, knowledge of what one self thinks is morally good or bad
10. Morality(2), knowledge of what others think is morally good or bad
11. Justice, as practised in society by rules that are designed to promote certain kinds of behaviour and to discourage others
12. The ability to reflect on actions done in the past and the preparedness to learn from them
13. The ability to do otherwise in situations very similar to previous actions or actions of others
14. The ability to do otherwise in exactly the same situation

Quite a list, isn't it. I might have forgotten a few.

Interesting aspect of the last point: there is no way that we can know this, because it is logically impossible to determine if it is the case. So we have to throw it out. All the others are abilities that can be analysed or empirically verified.

Now the question is: Do all these conditions suffice to make persons responsible, or declare themselves responsible? Asking the question in this way removes this stupid definition that you stick to, and that means nothing when reality is concerned.

One other thing: you wonder why we would say a man is guilty. But a man is not 'guilty' in the same way as he has black hair. If we have our empirical definitions straight, then the answer to the question of his hair's colour is a simple empirical procedure. But 'being guilty' is not a physical concept: it arises out of what we as society see as despicable actions, who did it, if he did it consciously with knowledge of the moral dimensions of his actions etc etc, i.e. in judging his action in the light of abilities like the kinds listed above. That takes the sting out of people who believe in ultimate responsibility and absolute punishments.