Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46351  
Old 06-06-2016, 01:27 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
The only alternative to determinism, quantum chance, would make my will a random process
And then I wonder if that is still will? Something needs to do the willing, which requires the decision to be non-random.
Reply With Quote
  #46352  
Old 06-06-2016, 01:32 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
There is no drawing any line. You are so ignorant.
And you demonstrate your lack of understanding of free will. The definition of free will depends on what influences you claim are free and which are determined. It seems that you and Lessans are claiming that no influence is allowable and therefore there is no free will, but others claim that some influences are allowable with free will. So where do you draw the line? obviously you and Lessans take the extreme position that all influences negate free will.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016)
  #46353  
Old 06-06-2016, 01:38 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
The only alternative to determinism, quantum chance, would make my will a random process
And then I wonder if that is still will? Something needs to do the willing, which requires the decision to be non-random.
It is my understanding that Quantum Chance comes into play at the scale of the very small level, the atomic and subatomic level. as you get to larger scales the probability approaches 100% and events seem to be determined. The fly in the ointment is the agent, as it has not been demonstrated to a high degree that the human mind is driven by uncontrolled influences.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016)
  #46354  
Old 06-06-2016, 01:53 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
The only alternative to determinism, quantum chance, would make my will a random process
And then I wonder if that is still will? Something needs to do the willing, which requires the decision to be non-random.
It is my understanding that Quantum Chance comes into play at the scale of the very small level, the atomic and subatomic level. as you get to larger scales the probability approaches 100% and events seem to be determined. The fly in the ointment is the agent, as it has not been demonstrated to a high degree that the human mind is driven by uncontrolled influences.
You're just a plain old copycat. You have no original ideas. You are grabbing at anything you can to justify your extreme ignorance. You even said "it is my understanding" which shows me you have not thought this out, or given this subject any real consideration. I hope people see this.

“Realist” Quantum Probability Cannot Grant Free Will (my input: and neither can the modal fallacy)

Warning, this article will assume some education on quantum mechanics. In fact it’s specifically for people who claim that quantum probability is both real and something that can help with a notion of “free will”. I expect those people to be familiar with some things, for example, the distinction between quantum mechanics and interpretations of quantum mechanics, what a wave function is, collapse of the wave function vs decoherence, and the like.If you aren’t at least somewhat familiar you can still read this, but be forewarned that many of the terms will not be unpacked in this article, as that would bloat it.

In this article I’m going to eventually disregard the logical incoherence of probability being “real” (or in philosophical terms “ontic”) and pretend that there is this magical type of event that is neither caused nor uncaused (in any appropriate conception of being uncaused)….but rather the event itself is, in actuality, probabilistic. A special third option (probabilistic) between two dichotomous events that are in opposition to each other (caused/uncaused).

First however, I will stress up front that this type of “realist” probability is illogical nonsense. I don’t just assert that it is, rather it can be shown. To understand why, read here (or pick up a copy of my book):

Ontic Probability Doesn’t Exist: Assessing “Probability” for the Free Will Debate

Some people look at a specific indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, called the Copenhagen interpretation, and they believe that this interpretation says that where a particle ends up when the wave function collapses is probabilistic. In the sense that we can only assess a probability of where the particle will end up, they are correct.

But these people often say much more than this. For particles, they might claim, it isn’t simply that we don’t or can’t know where the particle will end up that induces the probability, but rather the probability is within the structure itself. The probability is real (ontic), rather than simply due to a lack of knowledge (epistemic).

"Realist" Quantum Probability Cannot Grant Free Will -
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #46355  
Old 06-06-2016, 01:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post

:loud:
If you think you're right, that's fine. I'm not getting into this again. It is secondary to his first discovery. If he is found correct with his first discovery, people will re-evaluate his second and third.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #46356  
Old 06-06-2016, 01:57 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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?
Yup, I am human Spacemonkey, and I've been insulted more times than I can count. To say someone is ignorant is not necessarily an insult. It is an effort to show someone that they are lacking information, but it can be used as an insult as well. There comes a point that I will strike back, which is a natural response. I am not getting into the subject of light and sight again.

ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"

synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; More
informal
discourteous or rude.
"this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist"
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-06-2016 at 03:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46357  
Old 06-06-2016, 02:57 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Peacegirl,

I think nobody here bases his understanding of free will on quantum-randomness. So it is no use to discuss this.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016)
  #46358  
Old 06-06-2016, 03:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Peacegirl,

I think nobody here bases his understanding of free will on quantum-randomness. So it is no use to discuss this.
Obviously they are because it would not have been brought up. This belief in quantum randomness is supposed to create doubt that determinism is a valid observation, so it is important to mention. Trick Slattery also crushes the compatibilist theory (which is right up your alley) that we can have both free will and determinism at the same time.

The Problem with Compatibilist Qualifiers

It is interesting the hoops compatibilists will jump through in order to qualify their definition of free will in an attempt to make it coherent given any number of counter-points. These qualifiers almost always miss the point entirely.

If you are unfamiliar with the term compatibilist, it’s just someone who thinks “free will” is compatible with determinism. In other words, regardless if the universe is entirely deterministic, or has some indeterminism, free will is something that is entirely compatible with causal processes. Compatibilists build this compatibility by a semantic shift, meaning they change the definition of free will to something that is actually compatible with determinism. Some compatibilists might argue that they have the “true” version of free will, but when they do this, it is done ignoring the abilities the common layperson actually thinks they and others have.

Regardless, the definitions usually start very basic, but then when challenged with a counter-point, qualifiers are added in. The problem, however, is that those qualifiers are almost always arbitrary distinctions when compared to the reasons incompatibilists give that people do not have free will, which this article is going to point out.

To understand what I mean by “qualifiers”, let’s look at just one out of many possible paths that a compatibilist free will definition can evolve into:

ONE EXAMPLE OF AN EVOLUTION OF COMPATIBILIST DEFINITION QUALIFIERS

The below definition is just one possible compatibilist definition. There are many other starting points, but most start out with insufficient qualifiers and then “evolve” as people point to problems with the definition.

The Problem with Compatibilist Qualifiers -
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #46359  
Old 06-06-2016, 04:45 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXCI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

:lol:

peacegirl, you have absolutely no idea what anything means in your latest copy-pasta bullshit. You don’t know what a wave function is, and you don’t know what wave-function collapse or decoherence mean. You don’t know what the Copenhagen interpretation means, and you don’t know want ontic probability means; you don’t even know what ontic means. You’re an uneducated fool, like you dad, so why do you think you are fooling anyone with your ridiculous pretenses? You have absolutely no background knowledge or intellectual standing at all to evaluate the validity of this article; all that matters to you is that it says something that you want to hear — namely, that we have no free will. Therefore, for you — presto! — the article must be true! This is exactly the same intellectually bankrupt way you assess the writings of anti-vax charlatans — they say something you want to hear, so it must be true, even though you have no idea what they are talking about!

Your intellectual fraudulence is one of (many) reasons that people here hold you in contempt.

I didn’t feel like slogging through all of that stuff by “Trick" (lol @ name) but he is saying that under Copenhagen, ontic probability is not real. He’s wrong. Not that any of this has jack all to do with free will, anyway.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016), Stephen Maturin (06-06-2016), The Man (06-11-2016), thedoc (06-06-2016)
  #46360  
Old 06-06-2016, 05:22 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
He’s wrong. Not that any of this has jack all to do with free will, anyway.
This is one of Peacegirl/Lessans favorite tactics, to bring in some unrelated concept, hoping that the reader doesn't have enough familiarity with the subject to see that it is just bluster. As the old saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit", I suppose the hope is that in their confusion you can sell them almost anything.

Just over a year ago My wife and I attended a presentation by a sales company that was founded by ex am-way pushers. throughout the presentation they kept saying that it was not a pyramid scheme, but when they put up a diagram of the company, it was pointy like a triangle, with the founder at the top and a lot of salesmen at the bottom and an ever decreasing number of associates in the middle. They also never talked about the people above you, just the people you recruited to sell for you, and how much you could make from their work. They were sure spreading the bullshit thick that evening.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer

Last edited by thedoc; 06-06-2016 at 05:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016)
  #46361  
Old 06-06-2016, 05:30 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yup, I am human Spacemonkey, and I've been insulted more times than I can count.
There is considerable doubt about both of these claims. Usually a human being has a working brain, your's appears to simply be a parroting of your fathers book, with no thought involved. And the number of times you have been insulted could be counted, if anyone is masochistic enough. Of course if you deduct the insults that were merely telling the truth, the number drops to almost 0.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #46362  
Old 06-06-2016, 05:35 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Wait is this thread still open? I heard it was closed. Did someone forget to close it?
Please see the newly created thread in the Secret Subforum.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (06-06-2016), The Man (06-11-2016)
  #46363  
Old 06-06-2016, 05:38 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Trick Slattery also crushes the compatibilist theory (which is right up your alley) that we can have both free will and determinism at the same time.
The T-shirt guy? Well, I reckon that settles that. We can safety re-close this thread.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016)
  #46364  
Old 06-06-2016, 05:47 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
It is my understanding that Quantum Chance comes into play at the scale of the very small level, the atomic and subatomic level. as you get to larger scales the probability approaches 100% and events seem to be determined. The fly in the ointment is the agent, as it has not been demonstrated to a high degree that the human mind is driven by uncontrolled influences.
[I]You're just a plain old copycat. You have no original ideas. You are grabbing at anything you can to justify your extreme ignorance. You even said "it is my understanding" which shows me you have not thought this out, or given this subject any real consideration. I hope people see this.
"It is my understanding" indicates that I am basing what I know on the work of other scientists, since I don't have the equipment to do the work myself. It should be noted that neither Peacegirl nor Lessans can make any claim like "It is my understanding" because they both have just 0 understanding of the subject, yet they are so arrogant as to criticize others who do know something about the subject.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016)
  #46365  
Old 06-06-2016, 06:21 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Peacegirl,

I think nobody here bases his understanding of free will on quantum-randomness. So it is no use to discuss this.
Obviously they are because it would not have been brought up.
I brought it up, only to say that it cannot bear the burden of free will. The reason I brought it up is that since we know the world works in a non-determinist way on quantum level, a lot of people say that determinism is not true, so we can have free will. That is wrong, and that was all I wanted to say here.

And if your Trick cannot see the difference between a coerced action and a free action, then his whole rant is worth nothing.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016), The Man (06-11-2016)
  #46366  
Old 06-06-2016, 06:24 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

But the point I am trying to make is that it really does not matter if will is free or not where it's proposed end of evil is proposed. It does not actually hinge on will being free or not. What that hinges on is us not being able to justify doing a bad thing that is not a retaliation if we know we will not be blamed. There is nothing about will being free or not that changes anything about that.

Does it really matter if the preference someone acts according to was selected in a non-caused way by them? Either way, they will act according to it. And either way, knowing you will never be blamed is what supposedly makes it impossible to prefer to do something you know causes harm.

The book does not explain why realizing will is not free is necessary for it to work. I suppose it is OK as it also does not explain why we should believe that blame has the relationship with our capacity to choose to cause harm that it proposes.

To make a long story short: why is it supposedly necessary not to believe in free will for blame (or the lack of it) to have that psychological effect?

it would also be nice to know why we are supposed to believe the lack of blame even has that effect, but that has not materialized for some considerable time now, and I expect you would have trotted it out by now if you knew it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016), But (06-06-2016), The Man (06-11-2016)
  #46367  
Old 06-06-2016, 06:38 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
and I expect you would have trotted it out by now if you knew it.
There are a lot of things she would have trotted out, if she knew them, but obviously she doesn't know anything.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #46368  
Old 06-06-2016, 09:25 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're just a plain old copycat. You have no original ideas. You are grabbing at anything you can to justify your extreme ignorance.
Could you project a little harder please?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016)
  #46369  
Old 06-06-2016, 09:26 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yup, I am human Spacemonkey, and I've been insulted more times than I can count. To say someone is ignorant is not necessarily an insult. It is an effort to show someone that they are lacking information, but it can be used as an insult as well. There comes a point that I will strike back, which is a natural response. I am not getting into the subject of light and sight again.

ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"

synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; More
informal
discourteous or rude.
"this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist"
Thank you for quoting the dictionary at me. That was tremendously useful.

Will you be fucking off now?

Or perhaps answering my questions which you have rudely and dishonestly been evading for years now?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016), The Man (06-11-2016)
  #46370  
Old 06-06-2016, 09:27 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
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.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #46371  
Old 06-06-2016, 09:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
:lol:

peacegirl, you have absolutely no idea what anything means in your latest copy-pasta bullshit. You don’t know what a wave function is, and you don’t know what wave-function collapse or decoherence mean. You don’t know what the Copenhagen interpretation means, and you don’t know want ontic probability means; you don’t even know what ontic means. You’re an uneducated fool, like you dad, so why do you think you are fooling anyone with your ridiculous pretenses? You have absolutely no background knowledge or intellectual standing at all to evaluate the validity of this article; all that matters to you is that it says something that you want to hear — namely, that we have no free will. Therefore, for you — presto! — the article must be true! This is exactly the same intellectually bankrupt way you assess the writings of anti-vax charlatans — they say something you want to hear, so it must be true, even though you have no idea what they are talking about!

Your intellectual fraudulence is one of (many) reasons that people here hold you in contempt.

I didn’t feel like slogging through all of that stuff by “Trick" (lol @ name) but he is saying that under Copenhagen, ontic probability is not real. He’s wrong. Not that any of this has jack all to do with free will, anyway.
You didn't slog through all that stuff because you know that you will have met your match. Show me where he is wrong. You can't do it.

http://breakingthefreewillillusion.c...l-blog/page/2/

__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-07-2016 at 02:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46372  
Old 06-06-2016, 10:01 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
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.
Bump.
No bump. I am not getting into this discussion again. If this proves to you Lessans was wrong, great. Live in your fantasy world. :biglaugh:
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #46373  
Old 06-06-2016, 10:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
But the point I am trying to make is that it really does not matter if will is free or not where it's proposed end of evil is proposed. It does not actually hinge on will being free or not. What that hinges on is us not being able to justify doing a bad thing that is not a retaliation if we know we will not be blamed. There is nothing about will being free or not that changes anything about that.

Does it really matter if the preference someone acts according to was selected in a non-caused way by them? Either way, they will act according to it. And either way, knowing you will never be blamed is what supposedly makes it impossible to prefer to do something you know causes harm.
That's not true Vivisectus. There are conditions that must be put into place before this principle will work otherwise it will be disastrous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The book does not explain why realizing will is not free is necessary for it to work. I suppose it is OK as it also does not explain why we should believe that blame has the relationship with our capacity to choose to cause harm that it proposes.
It's not the only thing that gives the capacity to do harm, but it is one of the things. He explains this very clearly. This again shows me that you have not STUDIED the book, and that is what is required. Is there any philosopher who has a place in history who was not carefully studied? Nooooooo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
To make a long story short: why is it supposedly necessary not to believe in free will for blame (or the lack of it) to have that psychological effect?
Because not being blamed changes a person's psychological response. But there are limits to this. If you hurt me, it is demanded by my nature to retaliate, therefore the conditions must be such that the first blow is removed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
it would also be nice to know why we are supposed to believe the lack of blame even has that effect, but that has not materialized for some considerable time now, and I expect you would have trotted it out by now if you knew it.
He explains exactly why the removal of blame has the desired psychological effect which cannot be achieved through blame and punishment. If you're not going to read the first three chapters, you will never understand what he's talking about and you will continue to ask the same questions over and over again.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-07-2016 at 02:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46374  
Old 06-06-2016, 10:17 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
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.
Bump.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #46375  
Old 06-06-2016, 11:06 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No bump. I am not getting into this discussion again. If this proves to you Lessans was wrong, great. Live in your fantasy world. :biglaugh:
:lol: The fantasy world where eyes are sense organs?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-08-2016), ChuckF (06-06-2016), Dragar (06-07-2016), Spacemonkey (06-06-2016), Stephen Maturin (06-06-2016), The Man (06-11-2016)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 14 (0 members and 14 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.21999 seconds with 14 queries