A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Still waiting...

Should this impress somebody? Is this supposed to be an argument? Let me see... Ah, yes!

Dennett is so spot on, everybody with a bit of intelligence sees that he is right about compatibilism. And he has written 2 books about free will, so he is better than

Your use of the word 'co-exist' already shows you don't know what is compatibilism is about. There is nothing co-existing: if you see the world right, then you will see that a coherent concept of free will needs determinism. Without determinism free will could not exist. On this point is correct: some indeterminism in nature, like we have in quantum mechanics, does not 'make room' for free will: it obstructs free will.

And believe it or not, I bought 'Trick's book. As a first impression I can already say to you that it does not reach the quality of most (not all...) books from academic philosophers. It just simplifies too much. One example is that when he discusses ideas of others, he does not mention exactly whose ideas he is discussing, and especially, he does not give the strongest arguments for his opponents position, so he has an easy task to attack this position.

An example: he discusses the ideas about 'a compatibilist' who, in a Youtube talk (yes, not in a book!) reflects about the meaning of the word 'inevitable', and why the word 'evitable' does not exist. I happen to know this talk, and it is of Daniel Dennett. His analysis shows that he did not even understand what Dennett is saying here.
Say, we see a river: assuming the water is everywhere free floating, then branches, logs and all pieces of wood inevitably float with the stream. But for some fish, this is 'evitable': they can swim against the stream. But 'Trick would say that this has no meaning, because the fish is determined. But this is just stating what must be proven: that under determinism everything is inevitable. But there is definitely a meaning in which 'floating with the stream' is not inevitable. The question is not if this means that we say the fish is not determined (we know it is), but to flesh out the meaning of inevitable. If we have the correct meaning, then we can see if this meaning can be a basis for some aspects of morality, e.g. if a defendant can defend himself by saying that it was inevitable that he robbed the old lady, because he is determined.

Determinism without free will (not even the kind you are defining as "free" [ you are using a definition of "free will" that is one of the disqualifiers in Trick's argument]), does not mean we will end up with no moral responsibility. In fact, we don't need free will at all (we don't even need the illusion that we have free will) to be morally responsible human beings.

[Vivisectus]

Translation: I did not get any of that, so I am going to repeat a few things I need to be true in order to hang on to my beliefs. Even though if I had understood it I would have realized it is actually no threat to it one way or the other.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism without free will (not even the kind you are defining as "free" [ you are using a definition of "free will" that is one of the disqualifiers in Trick's argument]), does not mean we will end up with no moral responsibility. In fact, we don't need free will at all (we don't even need the illusion that we have free will) to be morally responsible human beings.

Then please tell me which conditions must apply that we can make a person responsible for his action.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Then please tell me which conditions must apply that we can make a person responsible for his action.

I've been trying to tell you what the conditions are, but you won't listen. Will you listen now or will you just cut me off and tell me compatibilism is right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Misconstrued?

- The book states the revolution should have already happened: it predicted it well before the year 2000.
- The book states people will simply marry whomever they have sex with for the first time and they will just never want to get a divorce
- The book states there will be less homosexuality
- The book states that young people will just fall in love with their partners sexual organs

You have completely misconstrued what he said. You're just turning this into lulz like the rest of them

- The author tried to sue the president for not putting the book into practice

Again, you are trying to make his actions look like someone who doesn't have his marbles. This shows me how a person can be so easily demonized if that's the goal.

- The book states that it uses "scientific", "Mathematical" and "undeniable" to mean roughly the same thing

This is exactly why he clarified what he meant by the terms so people would not get confused. He wanted to distinguish these terms from what is considered theory.

- The book dedicates endless rambling paragraphs complaining about how biased and arrogant the academic community is, and how no-one will take his book seriously.

He had a hard time getting an audience because he was not a member of the academic community, and he held no distinguishing titles.

You yourself wrote in the intro that the reason the revolution never happened was because the book never reached the scientists who could confirm it.

That is true and this knowledge has never been carefully investigated. Please don't tell me this forum has already done that.

You yourself have been unable to point out any evidence or even a good reason to assume that human psychology works the way to book claims.

That's not true either.

I'd say I am on pretty solid, well documented ground where all my statements are concerned.

No you're not.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been trying to tell you what the conditions are, but you won't listen. Will you listen now or will you just cut me off and tell me compatibilism is right?

I just want a short list of these conditions. I'll give you the 'compatibilist list', so you can see what I mean. Do not argue (yet), just give your list.

A person is moral responsible for an action, if:

1. the action was according to his own will, unobstructed by the will of others
2. the person is not somehow (intentionally or not) deluded in his observation of the situation and especially the consequences of his actions
3. the person recognises his action really as his action
4. the person is generally able to evaluate possible actions and their consequences, before actually choosing
5. the person is generally aware of possible moral consequences of his actions, i.e. of the blame or praise he might get due to his actions

As additional hobby, you might see how does when he thinks that he rebuts compatibilism. Is he really attacking such criteria, or is he attacking a straw man?

But now: please your shortlist of conditions when we can hold somebody responsible according to you.

[Vivisectus]

- The book states the revolution should have already happened: it predicted it well before the year 2000.
- The book states people will simply marry whomever they have sex with for the first time and they will just never want to get a divorce
- The book states there will be less homosexuality
- The book states that young people will just fall in love with their partners sexual organs

I could not possibly accept such credit, when it is not my due. The lulz where already there: I merely removed some of the excess material, unearthing the rich and varied shape of the lulz that were buried beneath.

I notice you do not disagree with any particular fact?

- The author tried to sue the president for not putting the book into practice

Again, you are trying to make his actions look like someone who doesn't have his marbles. This shows me how a person can be so easily demonized if that's the goal.

And yet, all I apparently had to do to make him look like a nutcase was state the bare facts without adornment or addition.

- The book states that it uses "scientific", "Mathematical" and "undeniable" to mean roughly the same thing

This is exactly why he clarified what he meant by the terms so people would not get confused. He wanted to distinguish these terms from what is considered theory.

I cannot pretend to know what you mean by that, but it does seem like I was again factually correct.

- The book dedicates endless rambling paragraphs complaining about how biased and arrogant the academic community is, and how no-one will take his book seriously.

He had a hard time getting an audience because he was not a member of the academic community, and he held no distinguishing titles.

Again - no contest to my stating of the facts.

You yourself wrote in the intro that the reason the revolution never happened was because the book never reached the scientists who could confirm it.

That is true and this knowledge has never been carefully investigated. Please don't tell me this forum has already done that.

Amazing how this "misconstruing" somehow does not involve any facts being wrong! Almost as if that was simply what I was doing: stating the facts.

You yourself have been unable to point out any evidence or even a good reason to assume that human psychology works the way to book claims.

That's not true either.

What do you mean, "either"? You have not contested anything else.

Also, this is still the case: all you could point out was the fact he wrote it was so. If this is not the case, why not tell me now? Why should we believe he was correct about how human conscience works?

You have not answered this question in 5 years... your best attempt was just saying it was an "astute observation".

I'd say I am on pretty solid, well documented ground where all my statements are concerned.

As compelling an argument as merely saying "is not" surely must be on the playground, it really does not hold much water here. So far, in fact, it seems I was actually factually correct on all points?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could not possibly accept such credit, when it is not my due. The lulz where already there: I merely removed some of the excess material, unearthing the rich and varied shape of the lulz that were buried beneath.

I notice you do not disagree with any particular fact?

And yet, all I apparently had to do to make him look like a nutcase was state the bare facts without adornment or addition.

I cannot pretend to know what you mean by that, but it does seem like I was again factually correct.

Again - no contest to my stating of the facts.

Amazing how this "misconstruing" somehow does not involve any facts being wrong! Almost as if that was simply what I was doing: stating the facts.

What do you mean, "either"? You have not contested anything else.

Also, this is still the case: all you could point out was the fact he wrote it was so. If this is not the case, why not tell me now? Why should we believe he was correct about how human conscience works?

You have not answered this question in 5 years... your best attempt was just saying it was an "astute observation".

As compelling an argument as merely saying "is not" surely must be on the playground, it really does not hold much water here. So far, in fact, it seems I was actually factually correct on all points?

All that matters is whether the discovery is valid and sound, not the dumb stuff you bring up. You have not removed the adornment to show the bare facts. You don't understand the bare facts. You have misconstrued everything he wrote. You are now being a self-righteous know-it-all, like the rest of the people in here. I really have nothing more to say to you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong about the discovery which is where it counts, not the dumb stuff you bring up. You are now being a self-righteous snob, like the rest of the people in here. The fact that you imitated David makes me feel sick. I really have nothing more to say to you.

Your lying makes me sick. Maybe it is time for you to fuck off now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I just want a short list of these conditions. I'll give you the 'compatibilist list', so you can see what I mean. Do not argue (yet), just give your list.

A person is moral responsible for an action, if:

1. the action was according to his own will, unobstructed by the will of others
2. the person is not somehow (intentionally or not) deluded in his observation of the situation and especially the consequences of his actions
3. the person recognises his action really as his action
4. the person is generally able to evaluate possible actions and their consequences, before actually choosing
5. the person is generally aware of possible moral consequences of his actions, i.e. of the blame or praise he might get due to his actions

As additional hobby, you might see how does when he thinks that he rebuts compatibilism. Is he really attacking such criteria, or is he attacking a straw man?

But now: please your shortlist of conditions when we can hold somebody responsible according to you.

I am not making a shortlist, sorry. Moving on. I thought you bought Trick Slattery's book? I will give you his blog post. Read it carefully. Maybe you will have a different point of view, but my guess is you will continue to defend compatibilism as the only way to hold people accountable.

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.

cont. at: The Problem with Compatibilist Qualifiers -

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Moving on.

[But]

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1263522]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could not possibly accept such credit, when it is not my due. The lulz where already there: I merely removed some of the excess material, unearthing the rich and varied shape of the lulz that were buried beneath.

I notice you do not disagree with any particular fact?

And yet, all I apparently had to do to make him look like a nutcase was state the bare facts without adornment or addition.

I cannot pretend to know what you mean by that, but it does seem like I was again factually correct.

Again - no contest to my stating of the facts.

Amazing how this "misconstruing" somehow does not involve any facts being wrong! Almost as if that was simply what I was doing: stating the facts.

What do you mean, "either"? You have not contested anything else.

Also, this is still the case: all you could point out was the fact he wrote it was so. If this is not the case, why not tell me now? Why should we believe he was correct about how human conscience works?

You have not answered this question in 5 years... your best attempt was just saying it was an "astute observation".

As compelling an argument as merely saying "is not" surely must be on the playground, it really does not hold much water here. So far, in fact, it seems I was actually factually correct on all points?

All that matters is whether the discovery is valid and sound, not the dumb stuff you bring up.

I may have cooties too!

You have not removed the adornment to show the bare facts. You don't understand the bare facts. You have misconstrued everything he wrote. You are now being a self-righteous know-it-all, like the rest of the people in here. I really have nothing more to say to you.

Also, my dad could beat up your dad.

Now we have that out of the way, You still do not seem to have found any facts that were wrong. So explain to me again what I have misconstrued?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
All that matters is whether the discovery is valid and sound...

In order to test whether the argument is valid and sound, it must be presented as an argument, with clearly stated premises and a conclusion. And yet, in your five-plus years of futile yammering here, you have never once been able to do that — even as you demand that others do it. You demand that others state, in their own words, what Lessans’ argument actually is — while you yourself, fraud and hypocrite that you are, refuse to describe the argument in your own words.

But I have described the argument in my own words, and I have done so in the formal sense — with clearly stated premises and a conclusion. When this was presented to you, you went into one of your trademark hissy fits and simply declared that my elaboration of the argument was false, without explaining why it was false. It wasn’t false at all — the sorry little truth is, you yourself have no fucking clue what Lessans was saying. You simply believe it to be true for the sole reason that he wrote it down, as you believe your father to be infallible, like God!

All of this, of course, supply the grounds for why people here find you to be contemptible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

In order to test whether the argument is valid and sound, it must be presented as an argument, with clearly stated premises and a conclusion. And yet, in your five-plus years of futile yammering here, you have never once been able to do that — even as you demand that others do it. You demand that others state, in their own words, what Lessans’ argument actually is — while you yourself, fraud and hypocrite that you are, refuse to describe the argument in your own words.

But I have described the argument in my own words, and I have done so in the formal sense — with clearly stated premises and a conclusion. When this was presented to you, you went into one of your trademark hissy fits and simply declared that my elaboration of the argument was false, without explaining why it was false. It wasn’t false at all — the sorry little truth is, you yourself have no fucking clue what Lessans was saying. You simply believe it to be true for the sole reason that he wrote it down, as you believe your father to be infallible, like God!

All of this, of course, supply the grounds for why people here find you to be contemptible.

Your summary was incomplete. You are an idiot!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your summary was incomplete. You are an idiot!

Oh, but WHY was it incomplete, you sniveling fraud?

Can YOU lay out your father's arguments in clear premises followed by a conclusion?

Of course you can't.

If you could do so, you would have done so already.

I dare you to try.

Oops! Time to change the subject, right? Maybe you can call an intermission now and post some cute animal videos.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Maybe you can call an intermission now and post some cute animal videos.

Yep. Pitbull smooching an autistic toddler in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[Angakuk]

Libertarian - "You may do it."

Hard Determinist - "You must do it."

Compatibilist - "You will do it."

That is all I've got.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, but WHY was it incomplete, you sniveling fraud?

Can YOU lay out your father's arguments in clear premises followed by a conclusion?

Of course you can't.

If you could do so, you would have done so already.

I dare you to try.

Oops! Time to change the subject, right? Maybe you can call an intermission now and post some cute animal videos.

You're nuts David. You're blinded by your own prejudices! So go away. Shoo fly, don't bother me!

[Vivisectus]

Or maybe one of those posts in which she explains that it is not possible to explain it when people are so hostile.

Because let us face it: the fact that no-one agrees with the book is NEVER the books fault.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not making a shortlist, sorry.

Translation: I can't give these criteria, because I don't know any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you bought Trick Slattery's book?

Yes, I did. And I think that you did not. And you did not read it. I am reading it, and I can say it is pretty superficial, until now (I've read about one third of it). Maybe he comes with better arguments later, but until now he is mainly saying that because everything is determined or not determined, we have no free will. Against compatibilism this is a very weak argument!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will give you his blog post. Read it carefully. Maybe you will have a different point of view, but my guess is you will continue to defend compatibilism as the only way to hold people accountable.

I am discussing with you here, not with 'Trick. If you are not capable of an argument yourself, how are you then able to evaluate the arguments of others? You are just avoiding to get really into the discussion.

The point is, compatibilism can give the criteria for making people responsible for their actions, because they are determined. I gave (my version of) these criteria. If you say that in your vision you can say that people can be made accountable, then I will know how your criteria differ from those I gave, which are also valid in a determined world. So if you want to deepen the discussion, then give these criteria.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're nuts David. You're blinded by your own prejudices! So go away. Shoo fly, don't bother me!

So why can't you do it?

You're completely insane.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your summary was incomplete. You are an idiot!

That is a good argument!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

That is a good argument!

I'm waiting to go over Trick Slattery's post with you. Can you do it or are you backing out?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by GdB

That is a good argument!

At least it's consistent. peacegirl's oft-stated position is that it's impossible to simultaneously understand Lessans and disagree with Lessans. If one disagrees, one does not understand.