A revolution in thought

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Give it up Spacemonkey.

You should give up. Obviously you are not capable in answering these questions or, on a question per question basis, tell us why they do not apply. But I also noticed that in the mean time you gave answers on such questions at various places...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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?

Your approach to this entire account is off. You will not let go of the idea that light travels at a finite speed and therefore cannot be at the retina if it hasn't traveled there yet. That's your mantra and you believe that it's the only thing that makes sense. I'm not evading or weaseling, but I'm not going to beat a dead horse, as if your questions about traveling light prove him wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You should give up. Obviously you are not capable in answering these questions or, on a question per question basis, tell us why they do not apply. But I also noticed that in the mean time you gave answers on such questions at various places...

I did for a long time, but it's not gotten old. If people want to believe that he was wrong, that's fine. I don't think his claim regarding the eyes will ever be thoroughly tested for years to come. What's more important is his other discovery because it has the power to bring peace to our world. If this discovery is confirmed valid, hopefully they will give his other discoveries the attention they deserve.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your approach to this entire account is off. You will not let go of the idea that light travels at a finite speed and therefore cannot be at the retina if it hasn't traveled there yet. That's your mantra and you believe that it's the only thing that makes sense. I'm not evading or weaseling, but I'm not going to beat a dead horse, as if your questions about traveling light prove him wrong.

My approach is to ask reasonable questions that you have already agreed do in fact apply to your account. And you are most certainly weaseling and evading. You certainly aren't making any attempt to answer these questions, even after admitting that your excuse for ignoring them was bogus.

[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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did for a long time...

Serial liar strikes again. You've never once made any attempt to answer these particular questions.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Never saw somebody looking right into the eyes of a straw man and deny that it is there...

YELLING: NOBODY HERE DEFENDS LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL!!!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a strawman position because I'm not arguing against libertarian free will.

But you are! Look at this: you call it CFW, but you argue against LFW:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm arguing against the compatibilist kind of free will that is not compatible with a deterministic framework.

This sounds like photons arriving at a photographic plate without travelling...

Determinism means that all events are causally determined. It does not mean contradicting any concept of free will that people can think of.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because we are free (there is no physical or emotional constraint) doesn't mean we are actually free of causal factors.

Compatibilists don't say that we must be free from causal factors. So you are not arguing against CFW at all.

You are choking in straw all around you, and you don't even notice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

I am glad you corrected the last one because we can never test it. That's why we can never prove free will true. It requires something that is impossible to do. I agree that we can do all of these other things that you listed, and most people conform to the rules of society because they know how to be responsible, and want to be responsible. But there are problems in society that compel them to throw out these "standards of behavior". Many don't have empathy for others. You say they should. Your standard of how they should act doesn't change the behavior. Many are angry at the world and will hurt people in retaliation. You say they should act morally or there will be consequences. Your standard of morality doesn't make them more moral. Obviously, it's not enough. Although these threats work to a certain degree, they are a partial deterrent. The worst offenders could care less about how people say they should act and they are willing to take the risk of going to jail or even being put to death, so what good are the threats of punishment in these cases?

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

Stupid definition I stick to? You don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry GdB, but your list is wishful thinking. It does nothing to remove the causes that lead people to hurt others. It is a way to justify blameworthiness. Compatibilism may help those who are incarcerated to be treated with compassion, which is a step forward, but it certainly doesn't hold the key to world peace as this discovery does.

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

All this means is that there are levels of hurt and there are different motivations. Some are deemed more despicable than others. We judge these behaviors on a sliding scale to determine how monstrous the action was and consequently what kind of punishment the person is deserving of. It does very little, if anything, to change the conditions of the environment that led to the behavior in the first place.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did for a long time, but it's not gotten old.

Provide the link, please.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by GdB

Provide the link, please.

She can't. She's lying.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So if we are not interpreting the light, tell me why it matters that light is reflected differently on a wall than a mirror?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am glad you corrected the last one because we can never test it. That's why we can never prove free will true.

WHAAAAAHHHHH!!!! You are doing it again!!! You mentioned the word again!!! Stop using the words free will, because it helps you making a smoke screen.

It is not so that we just can never show that somebody could have done otherwise under exactly the same circumstances: it is a nonsensical concept because exactly the same situation never exists.

"These glasses are the same."
"Really, exactly the same?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well, exactly the same: made by the same person, at the same moment, made up of exactly the same atoms."
"No of course not!"
"You see: they are not the same."

Pretty absurd dialogue, isn't it? But you take it serious, by suggesting that it is just a question of not knowing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stupid definition I stick to? I'm sorry GdB, but your list does not remove the causes that lead to people choosing to hurt others as the preferable option.

HEEELLPPPP!!! You are doing it again!!! 'Causes that lead to people choosing to hurt others as the preferable option' is not in the list, because it presupposes the point we agree on that does not exist! Straw men, straw men everywhere, it is a nightmare!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All this means is that there are levels of hurt and there are different motivations. Some are deemed more despicable than others. We judge these behaviors on a sliding scale to determine how monstrous the action was and consequently what kind of punishment the person is deserving of.

Well in Europe (maybe not in the USA that has a third country status when it comes to their penitential system), a judge must look:

• how despicable the action is
• in how far the person is responsible for his action, according to such points I listed above

[GdB]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She can't. She's lying.

Well peacegirl, this the chance to prove you are not lying. Provide the link.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1237769]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by GdB

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.

I am not fighting a strawman. If a person can't act otherwise, how can we hold him responsible? How can I hold you responsible for being in this thread when you could not not be in this thread? Sure I can blame you for spending too much time here and not doing other things with your time, but will blame keep you out of this thread if you want to be here?

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.

Originally Posted by GdB

Never saw somebody looking right into the eyes of a straw man and deny that it is there...

YELLING: NOBODY HERE DEFENDS LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL!!!

Your yelling at me isn't changing my point. You are in denial.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a strawman position because I'm not arguing against libertarian free will.

Originally Posted by GdB

But you are! Look at this: you call it CFW, but you argue against LFW:

Originally Posted by GdB

This sounds like photons arriving at a photographic plate without travelling...

Determinism means that all events are causally determined. It does not mean contradicting any concept of free will that people can think of.

Of course it does. You are in such denial it's actually humorous. Obviously we have to confine people for causing harm to others, but to say he was free to act in accordance with your list is a joke.

You are saying that a person is free to choose the responsible choice. And that is true, IF HE WANTS TO CHOOSE THE RESPONSIBLE CHOICE. If he doesn't want to for reasons unknown to you, then we are back to square one because you haven't deterred him at all from doing what you think he should. You are just justifying that because he should have chosen to be more responsible, he can be held liable in a court of law.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because we are free (there is no physical or emotional constraint) doesn't mean we are actually free of causal factors.

Originally Posted by GdB

Compatibilists don't say that we must be free from causal factors. So you are not arguing against CFW at all.

You are choking in straw all around you, and you don't even notice.

You are blind to the incongruency of your position. I have listened to you, now it's time for you to listen to me. Isn't that only fair?

[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 Spacemonkey

Bump.

Continue on Spacemonkey. Don't expect me to answer. I will not beat a dead horse.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your approach to this entire account is off. You will not let go of the idea that light travels at a finite speed and therefore cannot be at the retina if it hasn't traveled there yet. That's your mantra and you believe that it's the only thing that makes sense. I'm not evading or weaseling, but I'm not going to beat a dead horse, as if your questions about traveling light prove him wrong.

It can't be somewhere it hasn't traveled to, so it does prove you wrong.

Physics.

[LadyShea]

Changing the environment to one where there is no poverty and all basic needs are met, where children are raised with love and empathy and compassion and taught a values system that promotes responsibility towards and cooperation with others, would absolutely lead to a more peaceful world.

Lessans ideas could bring about peace if embraced by the whole world, without the free will/determinism haggle that is useless.

The problem you will always have is that there is no practical means by which to convince all 7 billion people of anything at all. Human nature will always be against any such effort.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not fighting a strawman. If a person can't act otherwise, how can we hold him responsible?

Yes, you are. Nobody here defends that we must be able to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances.

I gave a list of 13 points that are related to being responsible:

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

'The ability to do otherwise in exactly the same situation' is left out. But you are criticising compatibilists on the basis of the idea that they think we have this ability. But no compatibilist thinks that. Therefore it is a straw man.

There is only one way you can criticise compatibilists: by arguing that above abilities are not enough to assign people responsibility, to enjoy or bear the consequences of their deeds.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does.

No. It means every event has a cause. Full stop. If somebody says that it does not matter for assigning responsibility because it is not based on magically overriding causation, then you should look at his arguments. You are just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the mantra 'determinism contradicts free will; determinism contradicts free will;determinism contradicts free will;determinism contradicts free will;determinism contradicts free will;'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are saying that a person is free to choose the responsible choice. And that is true, IF HE WANTS TO CHOOSE THE RESPONSIBLE CHOICE. If he doesn't want to for reasons unknown to you, then we are back to square one because you haven't deterred him at all from doing what you think he should. You are just justifying that because he should have chosen to be more responsible, he can be held liable in a court of law.

I nowhere have used the idea of a 'responsible choice'. If this should mean something concerning reality, you must first clearly define it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are blind to the incongruency of your position. I have listened to you, now it's time for you to listen to me. Isn't that only fair?

You have not listened at all. You still have your fingers in your ears and are repeating your mantra.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Continue on Spacemonkey. Don't expect me to answer. I will not beat a dead horse.

Provide the link, peacegirl. If you don't it is a clear confession that you were wrong all the time with your efferent vision.

And that you are a liar.

[thedoc]

It seems like everyone here is trying to convince Peacegirl of the errors of her ideas, and I realize that myself and possibly a few others are simply posting to provide counter arguments to Peacegirls posts. I would really like to know if there are any lurkers reading this thread, or are we all just talking to ourselves. If there are others reading this thread who are not posting and therefore are not known to us, I can see the value in continuing. But if it is just Peacegirl and those posting, then it is a useless exercise, as Peacegirl will never listen to rational arguments, or give up her fathers ideas. If there are any lurkers out there, please raise your hands (figuratively speaking, by posting and announcing your presence), and be counted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, you are. Nobody here defends that we must be able to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances.

I gave a list of 13 points that are related to being responsible:

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

'The ability to do otherwise in exactly the same situation' is left out. But you are criticising compatibilists on the basis of the idea that they think we have this ability. But no compatibilist thinks that. Therefore it is a straw man.

I am not criticizing compatibilists for this reason. I am criticizing compatibilists because their worldview of blame and punishment doesn't work. All it does is support the status quo which isn't working, if you haven't noticed.

Originally Posted by GdB

There is only one way you can criticise compatibilists: by arguing that above abilities are not enough to assign people responsibility, to enjoy or bear the consequences of their deeds.

Well that's what I'm doing. The list you've provided are qualities that we hope everyone holds, but if they don't, warnings that they will bear the consequences have failed to achieve the intended purpose.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does.

Originally Posted by GdB

No. It means every event has a cause. Full stop. If somebody says that it does not matter for assigning responsibility because it is not based on magically overriding causation, then you should look at his arguments. You are just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the mantra 'determinism contradicts free will; determinism contradicts free will;determinism contradicts free will;determinism contradicts free will;determinism contradicts free will;'.

Think again who is the one with fingers in their ears. You haven't heard a thing I've said. You are too busy defending your position.

Responsibility for an action (the fact that I performed the action) is not the same thing as assigning moral responsibility; the judgment as to the rightness or wrongness of said action by others. These are two different things. Paradoxically, it is the judgment by others that is partly responsible for the behavior the judgment is meant to prevent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are saying that a person is free to choose the responsible choice. And that is true, IF HE WANTS TO CHOOSE THE RESPONSIBLE CHOICE. If he doesn't want to for reasons unknown to you, then we are back to square one because you haven't deterred him at all from doing what you think he should. You are just justifying that because he should have chosen to be more responsible, he can be held liable in a court of law.

Originally Posted by GdB

I nowhere have used the idea of a 'responsible choice'.

Then how can you have standards of what a responsible choice is?

Originally Posted by GdB

If this should mean something concerning reality, you must first clearly define it.

I have defined it. You know what those choices are; you listed them and yet you say nowhere have you used the idea of a responsible choice. You are being mealy mouthed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are blind to the incongruency of your position. I have listened to you, now it's time for you to listen to me. Isn't that only fair?

Originally Posted by GdB

You have not listened at all. You still have your fingers in your ears and are repeating your mantra.

I have listened to everything you've said. I do not have fingers in my ears. You believe that compatibilism is the only way, so you refuse to even look at this book. Your way doesn't help except to justify blame and punishment by judging those whom you say should have known better. And where has it gotten us?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, so you refuse to even look at this book.

Correction he refuses to BUY the book for the excessive prices you have chosen to charge. If you really want people to read the book and implement the principles, it should be posted online for free, as it was before.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Correction he refuses to BUY the book for the excessive prices you have chosen to charge. If you really want people to read the book and implement the principles, it should be posted online for free, as it was before.

Excessive prices? The ebook is $4.95.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times: Seymour Lessans: 9781553953302: Amazon.com: Books

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Excessive prices? The ebook is $4.95.

Kindle
$4.99
Read with the Kindle App

Hardcover
from $65.25

Paperback
$41.00

$41.00 for a paperback is excessive, especially for a book that has no real value.

BTW, you can't even get the Kindle price correct, just like everything else you and your father got wrong.