A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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 -

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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"

[GdB]

Peacegirl,

I think nobody here bases his understanding of free will on quantum-randomness. So it is no use to discuss this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

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 -

[davidm]

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

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.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[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.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[Vivisectus]

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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/

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No bump. I am not getting into this discussion again. If this proves to you Lessans was wrong, great. Live in your fantasy world.

The fantasy world where eyes are sense organs?