A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans had the almost unique, and amusing ability to claim one thing and then argue and prove the opposite. That is just one of his charms that comes out so clearly in the book.

Hear ye hear ye, thedoc has spoken. You cannot respond to this work because you are not smart enough. I don't mean that to be mean, but it's true. People, notice how vague his answers are. Okay thedoc, give me a specific example of what you're talking about. Show me where he claims one thing and argues the opposite. You can't do it, and you know it. You're a fraud.

[But]

[Vivisectus]

I really don't have much of a problem with free or unfree will - I think it is mostly one of those questions that only seem problematical because they are rarely defined properly. It all depends on what you mean when you say "free will".

If you mean the ability to choose according to your desires, then yes, we do have it. If you mean some sort of Jovian ability that is independent of causality, then, no, probably not.

Neither do I see why he goes on and on about it as if it is some break-through discovery: it has little impact on the system as a whole, even though he seems to believe it does. The solution to evil he proposes does not hinge on determinism at all: it hinges on his proposed psychological inability for people to do bad things that are not a retaliation if they know they will never be blamed.

You do not have to believe in determinism for this at all: it has no influence on how likely it is to be true, and it is not necessary to create the kind of circumstances he proposes. A strong belief in Karma, for instance, could have the same effect.

Of course we are still waiting for any reason to suppose our collective psychology does work like that. No matter how astute his observations may or may not have been, so far we just have his say-so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I really don't have much of a problem with free or unfree will - I think it is mostly one of those questions that only seem problematical because they are rarely defined properly. It all depends on what you mean when you say "free will".

If you mean the ability to choose according to your desires, then yes, we do have it. If you mean some sort of Jovian ability that is independent of causality, then, no, probably not.

Being able to choose according to your desires does not grant you free will.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Neither do I see why he goes on and on about it as if it is some break-through discovery: it has little impact on the system as a whole, even though he seems to believe it does. The solution to evil he proposes does not hinge on determinism at all: it hinges on his proposed psychological inability for people to do bad things that are not a retaliation if they know they will never be blamed.

It has everything to do with determinism. This shows me, once again, how I wasted my time here because no one has ever made the effort to take this book seriously.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You do not have to believe in determinism for this at all: it has no influence on how likely it is to be true, and it is not necessary to create the kind of circumstances he proposes. A strong belief in Karma, for instance, could have the same effect.

The truth of determinism will have a major impact on our interactions, once we take advantage of this knowledge and apply it on a global scale. This is not any old belief.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Of course we are still waiting for any reason to suppose our collective psychology does work like that. No matter how astute his observations may or may not have been, so far we just have his say-so.

No Vivisectus, this is not just based on his say so. Why don't you take the time to read the book, and then we'll talk.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's closed as far as any further discussion from me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

There was a post related to determinism and it wasn't sarcastic, so I answered it. Shoot me!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's closed as far as any further discussion from me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're being played like a fiddle.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep making fun of him.

Okie dokie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You're being played like a fiddle.

Okie dokie.

You've completely ignored my response to your post. No questions, no refutation, no nothing. Why? Because you have none. Never mind Maturin, I know I'll only get more sarcasm from you. That's all you're good at.

[Stephen Maturin]

[Vivisectus]

Being able to choose according to your desires does not grant you free will.

That depends on how you define free will. If you define free will as something that is outside of causality, then we probably do not have it. If you define it as being able to choose according to our desires, then we do.

It has everything to do with determinism. This shows me, once again, how I wasted my time here because no one has ever made the effort to take this book seriously.

I love how you simply declare that... and then not follow it up in any way. And also missed the point of what I said.

The point is that determinism is not a necessary part of it.

The truth of determinism will have a major impact on our interactions, once we take advantage of this knowledge and apply it on a global scale. This is not any old belief.

Same here. A simple declaration that it is so... and nothing more.

No Vivisectus, this is not just based on his say so. Why don't you take the time to read the book, and then we'll talk.

I see your memory has not improved. You yourself were unable to find any reason to assume it is true except for the fact that he said so. That is why you made "astute observations" a thing, remember?

Unless you have found it by now?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hear ye hear ye, thedoc has spoken. You cannot respond to this work because you are not smart enough. I don't mean that to be mean, but it's true. People, notice how vague his answers are. Okay thedoc, give me a specific example of what you're talking about. Show me where he claims one thing and argues the opposite. You can't do it, and you know it. You're a fraud.

Your post #46324 that just precedes mine, illustrates this very nicely, as does most of the book. Anyone masochistic enough can certainly read it for themselves.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus, this is not just based on his say so. Why don't you take the time to read the book, and then we'll talk.

Lessans quotes no other source in his book other than his own say-so. There are no articles, papers or observations that others can verify.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being able to choose according to your desires does not grant you free will.

Just stating it, does not make it so, and the definition of free will depends on where you draw the line.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has everything to do with determinism.

The truth of determinism will have a major impact on our interactions, once we take advantage of this knowledge and apply it on a global scale.

Just stating it does not make it so, there is no proof presented in the book, and just like vision, determinism has little to do with not placing blame. You could eliminate vision and determinism from the book and go directly to not placing blame and achieve the same non-discovery.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's interesting. Do you think that if you ask a reasonable question you actually deserve an answer? Hmm?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

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

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

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

Bump.

[davidm]

is back.

Spacemonkey, don't you realize that peacegirl officially closed this thread? Listen up, everyone, THIS THREAD IS CLOSED!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

is back.

Spacemonkey, don't you realize that peacegirl officially closed this thread? Listen up, everyone, THIS THREAD IS CLOSED!

Yep, that means that according to Peacegirl, no-one is allowed to post. Yea like anyone listens to Peacegirl's drivel.

[thedoc]

BTW, welcome back Spacemonkey, where have you been?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just stating it, does not make it so, and the definition of free will depends on where you draw the line.

There is no drawing any line. You are so ignorant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just stating it does not make it so, there is no proof presented in the book, and just like vision, determinism has little to do with not placing blame. You could eliminate vision and determinism from the book and go directly to not placing blame and achieve the same non-discovery.

You still haven't given one example where his reasoning doesn't follow. Put up or shut up!

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being able to choose according to your desires does not grant you free will.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That depends on how you define free will. If you define free will as something that is outside of causality, then we probably do not have it. If you define it as being able to choose according to our desires, then we do.

Vivisectus is so right. But you did not even notice that he gave two different definitions of free will, did you?

The question is not if we have free will. There are in fact two questions:

1. What kind of free will do we have?
2. Is this the kind of free will we need to assign people responsibility for what they do?

It is obvious that we do not have the kind of free will that Vivisectus describes as 'something that is outside of causality'. That collides with determinism. The only alternative to determinism, quantum chance, would make my will a random process, which does not fit the idea that we have reasons for our actions.
For me it is also obvious, that we have Vivisectus' second kind: 'being able to choose according to our desires'. This is of course not always guaranteed, and that is the reason I can distinguish between actions I did from my own free will, or forced by the will of somebody else. The real discussion about free will is if this notion of free will suffices for assigning responsibility. According to combatibilists, those include me, it is.

But a yes/no discussion if we have free will, and denying that we have free will because we are determined, is absurd.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no drawing any line. You are so ignorant.

Thank you for returning to insult people some more.

When are you actually going to fuck off like you said you would?

Will it be before or after you answer my very reasonable and applicable questions?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still haven't given one example where his reasoning doesn't follow. Put up or shut up!

I don't need to, you provide all the proof needed, every time you post a quote from your fathers book. The book is full of examples, from the beginning to the end. your post #46324 is a good example, Lessans claims that we do not have free will because all our actions are determined by the events of our past, and then claims that the past does not exist. If the past does not exist then it can't influence our actions of the present. If the past does not exist then we can't look back at it to learn from our mistakes. He tries to use two contradictory ideas to confuse the reader and push his claim through that confusion, when in fact it is he who is confused. Anyone reading the book will soon realize this and begin to see where one idea does not support the next. His argument, at least in part, is based on the greater satisfaction principle, which he only proposed and never fully demonstrated to be true. Lessans was writing out of ignorance and arrogance.

[Vivisectus]

What I mean is that in the book, the position is roughly this: will is not free: we choose that which we prefer, but our preferences are shaped by causality.

So we can say that we are bound to choose what we prefer of our own free will. This was very exciting for the author.

Then he reckoned that what was wrong with people was that they did not realize this. It is psychologically impossible for us to justify doing unprovoked bad things once we realize this, the author thought - as long as we know we would never be blamed. If we knew we would never be blamed, we could never prefer to do something bad that is not provoked.

But the part about justification is not necessarily connected with the part about free will. There is nothing in it that makes the second part happen.

You could just have the bit about blame and justification by itself, or with something else.