A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Blast from the past: foul play on page 1681!

LadyShea So you dispute the existence of neutrinos now?

peacegirl Absolutely, is there anything wrong with that? It's a theory that can be disputed and for you to use this as a premise to negate what Lessans is offering is foul play.

[davidm]

Blast from the past, page 1682: an inquiry on imbibing

Stephen Maturin Good God, peacegirl, how much have you had to drink this morning?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, I do criticise compatilist free will because we don't have any kind of free will, even the kind that compatibilists define as being free. Please stop calling me names. I've had enough of that in here and I won't tolerate it any more.

Why shouldn't I? You show you have no idea what you are talking about. In the first place I am pretty sure you have said yourself that there is some kind of free will. Something like 'we were not forced to come here, we are here from our own accord'. Of course you added 'but this is not real free will'. Which in fact means that you say 'this is not free will according my definition'.

You are hopelessly confused about what definitions are, and what they have to do with reality. If there is some phenomenon in reality, I describe this in terms everybody understands, and then say 'and this is called XYZ', then I have defined XYZ. Nobody can tell me this definition is just wrong. Of course, if something in my description is inconsistent, e.g. a necessary part of the definition supposes the existence of square circles, then I may be criticised that my definition cannot apply to reality, because it contains a contradiction. This, BTW, is the case with libertarian free will: the definition is inconsistent, so it cannot apply to reality.

Now you say "we don't have any kind of free will"? What? If I define free will as 'acting without coercion of somebody else' (this is only a weak version of compabitilist free will), then you still say we do not have this kind of free will? This just makes no sense, because then you deny that we sometimes act without somebody forcing me to it. Now it may be confusing when people use different definitions, and therefore philosophers, when they find out that people are not talking about the same, invent new words, or add adjectives to distinguish between different meanings: so happened with libertarian free will and compatibilist free will.

Now in no way you are showing that you really understand this, e.g.:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. I can define anything as a free act, but if you understand that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, you would see that there is only one direction a person can take each moment in time.

Definitions mean everything when we are talking about reality, try to understand it. You show consistently that you do not understand how we can and must think about reality. And if I take your absolute abstruse ideas about seeing to it, where you show you have no idea about science, that you are contradicting the most fundamental established ideas about physical reality, it is obvious that you are no serious discussion partner: you use invalid arguments, bend definitions as you like, and argue against positions I do not take:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no proof that a person could have done otherwise in the same situation or in a similar situation because proof involves going back in time to see if he could have chosen another option.

(As DavidM also noticed.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can say he had options. You can threaten him in advance to choose option A over option B or else be punished, but regardless, once the choice is made he could not have done otherwise. The fact that you add "he could have chosen otherwise in a similar situation" does not save the argument.

Here you make the same error again and again. You show you haven't the faintest idea what counterfactuals are, and how they can be used, and how they are essential in understanding causality, so they can perfectly be used also in a determined world. This is basic understanding for every logician and philosopher of science (even libertarians) and you have no idea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Big fat contradiction. But I see why you choose (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to believe what you do. I can't fault you for that.

First you do not say what the contradiction is. And then you fail to see that I, as compatibilist, am a determinist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see you as the dualist. Your brain state is the culmination of your heredity and environment, which is you (whose brain state can it be if not you?), although it is also true that nothing can cause you to do something against your will. You do what you do because you want to.

But you fail to see the consequences of this: that it makes no sense to say that we are forced by our brain. Something can only force something else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not an error. Nothing in the natural world prescribes what you have to do. It just presents the conditions (descriptive) that compel you to choose one alternative over another, which is not of your own free will.

Conditions can only lead to consequences if there are laws of nature. However, you describe the relationship between conditions and my actions as 'compelling'. But nothing is compelled. You bend the meaning of words so that they fit your ideology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no proof that a person could have done otherwise in the same situation or in a similar situation because proof involves going back in time to see if he could have chosen another option.

Of course there is proof, because here you use the word similar. For similar situations I do not have to go back in time. Similar situations can occur again. I have been very often in similar situations, and sometime I choose one thing, another time something else. E.g. I often order Pizza Napoli, but sometimes I take a Pizza Gorgonzola. The situations are very similar: it is time to eat, I am too tired to cook for my self, I ask my wife and son if it is OK to order something at the Pizza house delivery, and then I choose what I want to eat. I was in similar situations dozens of times. So this clearly shows: in similar situations I can do different things, and it only depends on me if the delivery service will bring me a Pizza Napoli or a Pizza Gorgonzola.

But, because I am a determinist, I honestly believe that when I would come in exactly the same situation, including my brain state, I would order exactly the same pizza.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by But

3 is to 6 what 4 is to 7.

Kinda cool how that stylishly compact statement eloquently points out one of the biggest problems with the book and the way PG thinks.

[davidm]

Blast from the past, page 1648: won't someone think of the kids??!

peacegirl encounters, for the first time, the NASA page explaining special relativity to kids, and how someone accelerating to a certain fraction of the speed of light can travel away from the earth and return to it, only to find that he/she has aged only a few years while people on earth have aged decades.

peacegirl They're teaching this stuff as if it were true? They're teaching our kids lies.



This is one of my all-time favorite peacegirl idiocies. peacegirl, have you contacted NASA yet to demand that they stop teaching lies to our poor widdle chirrun?

[davidm]

Let's keep our poor widdle chirrun stupid and uneducated like peacegirl and let's also keep them unvaccinated so that they die early of easily preventable diseases!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, I do criticise compatilist free will because we don't have any kind of free will, even the kind that compatibilists define as being free. Please stop calling me names. I've had enough of that in here and I won't tolerate it any more.

Originally Posted by GdB

Why shouldn't I? You show you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh believe me, I do. It's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by GdB

In the first place I am pretty sure you have said yourself that there is some kind of free will. Something like 'we were not forced to come here, we are here from our own accord'. Of course you added 'but this is not real free will'. Which in fact means that you say 'this is not free will according my definition'.

Saying "of my own accord" is not inconsistent with determinism, and it doesn't translate to having free will. Not being forced at gunpoint to be here does not mean I have the free will to do anything I want. You're just creating an arbitrary definition as one of those disqualifiers.

Originally Posted by GdB

You are hopelessly confused about what definitions are, and what they have to do with reality. If there is some phenomenon in reality, I describe this in terms everybody understands, and then say 'and this is called XYZ', then I have defined XYZ. Nobody can tell me this definition is just wrong.

The definition of what you call something may not be wrong, but it does not mean the definition describes anything real.

Originally Posted by GdB

Of course, if something in my description is inconsistent, e.g. a necessary part of the definition supposes the existence of square circles, then I may be criticised that my definition cannot apply to reality, because it contains a contradiction. This, BTW, is the case with libertarian free will: the definition is inconsistent, so it cannot apply to reality.

Well you are being criticized for the definition you are using because it does create a contradiction. Free will and determinism are complete opposites. You cannot have a little bit of free will thrown in whenever you feel like it.

Originally Posted by GdB

Now you say "we don't have any kind of free will"? What? If I define free will as 'acting without coercion of somebody else' (this is only a weak version of compabitilist free will), then you still say we do not have this kind of free will?

All the word "free" means in this context is that you are not being pressured to do something you may not want to do. I already explained that making choices where there is no physical or emotional coercion does not grant us free will. Our brains still programmed to choose the best option which renders all other choices an impossibility. It is illusion that choices are free.

Originally Posted by GdB

This just makes no sense, because then you deny that we sometimes act without somebody forcing me to it.

Most of our choices are made without someone forcing us (in the gunpoint example) to do it. You are using a sleight of hand definition to make it appear that just because we're not being forced into a choice by threats, that we are free. We are not free because the choice, whatever it is, is the only choice that could have been made. That's not free GdB. I've gone over this many times already and you just go right back to your old way of thinking.

Originally Posted by GdB

Now it may be confusing when people use different definitions, and therefore philosophers, when they find out that people are not talking about the same, invent new words, or add adjectives to distinguish between different meanings: so happened with libertarian free will and compatibilist free will.

But all of these definitions do not describe reality for what it is.

Originally Posted by GdB

Now in no way you are showing that you really understand this, e.g.:

That's wrong GdB. Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not a definition. It is an observation.

Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. I can define anything as a free act, but if you understand that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, you would see that there is only one direction a person can take each moment in time.

Originally Posted by GdB

Definitions mean everything when we are talking about reality, try to understand it. You show consistently that you do not understand how we can and must think about reality. And if I take your absolute abstruse ideas about seeing to it, where you show you have no idea about science, that you are contradicting the most fundamental established ideas about physical reality, it is obvious that you are no serious discussion partner: you use invalid arguments, bend definitions as you like, and argue against positions I do not take:

I don't bend anything to fit a definition like you are doing, but you will not allow yourself to see it long enough to further the discussion. You are defending your worldview to the point where nothing can penetrate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no proof that a person could have done otherwise in the same situation or in a similar situation because proof involves going back in time to see if he could have chosen another option.

Originally Posted by GdB

(As DavidM also noticed.)

Possible world semantics does nothing to prove that we have free will. I'll read up on it though. I'm sure there is no proof that a person in the same situation could act any differently than what he did. This is not to say that if a new element is inserted into a situation, the response won't be a different one. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Hume never explored the alternative counterfactual approach to causation. In this, as in much else, he was followed by generations of empiricist philosophers. The chief obstacle in empiricists' minds to explaining causation in terms of counterfactuals was the obscurity of counterfactuals themselves, owing chiefly to their reference to unactualised possibilities. Starting with J. S. Mill (1843), empiricists tried to analyse counterfactuals ‘metalinguistically’ in terms of implication relations between statements. The rough idea is that a counterfactual of the form “If it had been the case that A, it would have been the case that C” is true if and only if there is an auxiliary set S of true statements consistent with the antecedent A, such that the members of S, when conjoined with A, imply the consequent C. Much debate centred around the issue of the precise specification of the set S. (See N. Goodman 1947.) Most empiricists agreed that S would have to include statements of laws of nature, while some thought that it would have to include statements of singular causation. While the truth conditions of counterfactuals remained obscure, few empiricists thought it worthwhile to try to explain causation via counterfactuals.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca...ual/#EarCouThe

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG, the truth that we are not in control of our determining factors is more relevant than you know.

Originally Posted by GdB

But not for somebody who believes determinism is true (for all practical purposes). I do.

Big fat contradiction. But I see why you choose (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to believe what you do. I can't fault you for that.

Originally Posted by GdB

First you do not say what the contradiction is. And then you fail to see that I, as compatibilist, am a determinist.

Again, there is a contradiction between these two terms. Similarly, you can't be dead and alive at the same time. You can't be a little bit dead and a little bit alive. And you can't be a little bit pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. Either we have free will or we don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too no matter how you try to define the term "free" in order to make it comfortable for you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see you as the dualist. Your brain state is the culmination of your heredity and environment, which is you (whose brain state can it be if not you?), although it is also true that nothing can cause you to do something against your will. You do what you do because you want to.

Originally Posted by GdB

But you fail to see the consequences of this: that it makes no sense to say that we are forced by our brain. Something can only force something else.

Lessans didn't use that expression. All he said was that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not an error. Nothing in the natural world prescribes what you have to do. It just presents the conditions (descriptive) that compel you to choose one alternative over another, which is not of your own free will.

Conditions can only lead to consequences if there are laws of nature.

Originally Posted by GdB

However, you describe the relationship between conditions and my actions as 'compelling'. But nothing is compelled. You bend the meaning of words so that they fit your ideology.

Lessans explains that nothing causes us to what we do. It just presents the conditions that compel us to choose one thing over another based on those conditions. That is very different than saying we were forced against our will which indicates that we didn't make the choice, but something else made the choice for us. What I'm saying is that you can't use the excuse that something caused me to do what I did. I did it because I wanted to do it, but that doesn't mean my will was free. This is a huge stumbling block in this longstanding debate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no proof that a person could have done otherwise in the same situation or in a similar situation because proof involves going back in time to see if he could have chosen another option.

Originally Posted by GdB

Of course there is proof, because here you use the word similar. For similar situations I do not have to go back in time. Similar situations can occur again. I have been very often in similar situations, and sometime I choose one thing, another time something else. E.g. I often order Pizza Napoli, but sometimes I take a Pizza Gorgonzola. The situations are very similar: it is time to eat, I am too tired to cook for my self, I ask my wife and son if it is OK to order something at the Pizza house delivery, and then I choose what I want to eat. I was in similar situations dozens of times. So this clearly shows: in similar situations I can do different things, and it only depends on me if the delivery service will bring me a Pizza Napoli or a Pizza Gorgonzola.

Of course you can do different things in a similar situation. They are a different set of conditions. Hindsight is 20/20 in many situations that are similar but not exact.

Originally Posted by GdB

But, because I am a determinist, I honestly believe that when I would come in exactly the same situation, including my brain state, I would order exactly the same pizza.

It's an absolute fact that if you could go back in time before making a choice, that choice would be the same as the one you already made.

[GdB]

OK, I've done enough.

You repeat your self without understanding what I say. You react like a bull on a red cloth on every single sentence of mine, without understanding what I am trying to say.

You can't be taken serious. Did you ever find somebody who agreed with your and your father's abstruse ideas?

Enjoy, till next time...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

OK, I've done enough.

You repeat your self without understanding what I say. You react like a bull on a red cloth on every single sentence of mine, without understanding what I am trying to say.

You can't be taken serious. Did you ever find somebody who agreed with your and your father's abstruse ideas?

Enjoy, till next time...

You don't even know what his ideas are GdB. You just want to be right even when you're obviously not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not surprised. You definitely have a block. People run away rather than face the facts when the going gets tough so they can hold on to their ideology. Goodbye.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even know what his ideas are GdB. You just want to be right at all costs even when you're obviously not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not surprised. People run away rather than face the facts when the going gets tough so they can hold on to their ideology. This is what you're doing because you know you've been busted. Goodbye.

Translation: "No, no one has ever been convince by the book or myself, and I'm completely in denial about this."

[But]

Originally Posted by But

No, let's not leave it at that. You're not weaseling out of this. This is just about observations by radio waves and optical telescopes. Those two methods give the same results with the same light-time delay. According to you, they shouldn't. You are saying that radio waves travel at the speed of light but vision (also by telescopes) is instantaneous.

Also, I don't know exactly what you mean by the above comment. Do you mean why don't they mention light-time correction in the article? I guess because for everyone but you, it's completely fucking obvious.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even know what his ideas are GdB. You just want to be right at all costs even when you're obviously not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not surprised. People run away rather than face the facts when the going gets tough so they can hold on to their ideology. This is what you're doing because you know you've been busted. Goodbye.

Q. - How delusional is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so delusional that she doesn't recognize when she is wrong, and has had reality explained to her. She is so delusional that she thinks what she has posted is rational and what others post is not. Peacegirl is so delusional that she thinks that when others get frustrated at her stupidity, she has won the argument.

GdB, Thankyou for explaining free will and determinism, plus a few other related concepts. I know that Peacegirl had no comprehension of what you were posting, but be assured others did understand, and I appreciated the explinations.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's an absolute fact that if you could go back in time before making a choice, that choice would be the same as the one you already made.

No, it is not a fact, a fact can be verified by repeating the experiment or test. This cannot be repeated, as far as we know, so there is no way to prove it one way or another. It is only an conjecture claimed by your father and others, but it is beyond verifying for truth, and therefore, is not a fact. It can be assumed to be true, but cannot be proven.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is what you're going because you know you've been busted. Goodbye.

This is one reason many people stay on this thread, they know that if they leave in frustration, from trying to relate the truth to Peacegirl, in her ignorance she will claim victory. Like so many other stupid posters, Peacegirl doesn't know when she is wrong, and has been beaten.

[davidm]

Blast from the past, page 1649: Insanity 101!

Further commentary by peacegirl on the NASA page explaining relativity and time dilation to kids:

peacegirl It's incredible to me that they're now introducing time travel to little kids as if it's an achievable goal. This is insanity 101! A whole generation of children are going to be unable to decipher fact from fiction.

[davidm]

Blast from the past, page 1654: peacegirl thinks incompatibilists agree with compatibilists!

peacegirl (lecturing ) ...and I know you are wrong about your imaginary opponents (the incompatibilists) agreeing with compatibilism.

[Stephen Maturin]

This thread could have, and in retrospect likely should have, ended with post #28 on page 2:

lisarea: The secret to world peace is to be really patronizing and evasive, and then to get butthurt and insult people when they call you on it.

[davidm]

Blast from the past, page 1658: peacegirl would like to talk to Miles Mathis and Louis Savain by phone!

Miles Mathis thinks the value of pi is 4. Louis Savain thinks he can construct artificial intelligence from the Book of Revelations.



Hey, peacegirl, did you ever talk to them by phone?

[Stephen Maturin]

Mathis is also a Sandy Hook denier, which places him at odds with another of peacegirl's deities, Sherri Tenpenny, who thinks the Sandy Hook massacre happened and may have been the result of vaccines.

Only the gaggle of Illuminati shape-shifting lizards known collectively as the British Royal Family knows for sure, but I for one see robust debates like this as good for the advancement of science.

#TrueKnowledge

[GdB]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Q. - How delusional is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so delusional that she doesn't recognize when she is wrong, and has had reality explained to her. She is so delusional that she thinks what she has posted is rational and what others post is not. Peacegirl is so delusional that she thinks that when others get frustrated at her stupidity, she has won the argument.

I assume she will interpret it in this way.

Originally Posted by thedoc

GdB, Thankyou for explaining free will and determinism, plus a few other related concepts. I know that Peacegirl had no comprehension of what you were posting, but be assured others did understand, and I appreciated the explinations.

Nice to know that is wasn't for nothing.

Maybe we can discuss goo' old 'Trick, without PG. And I have read some other texts of Norman Swartz, and I think he is going one step too far. So if you or DavidM is interested...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by GdB

I assume she will interpret it in this way.

Nice to know that is wasn't for nothing.

Maybe we can discuss goo' old 'Trick, without PG. And I have read some other texts of Norman Swartz, and I think he is going one step too far. So if you or DavidM is interested...

Yes, I'd always love to have this sort of discussion, but not with peacegirl. I used to correspond with Norman; unfortunately we lost touch.

[davidm]

Why not just start a new thread, GdB?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by GdB

Maybe we can discuss goo' old 'Trick, without PG. And I have read some other texts of Norman Swartz, and I think he is going one step too far. So if you or DavidM is interested...

There have been some good discussions on fascinating subjects in these threads. None with peacegirl, obviously, who is the poster girl for arrogant and willful ignorance, and who has all the reasoning ability of an amoeba.

But occasionally, people will simply decide to ignore her and discuss some interesting subject or another, and that can lead to some interesting and enlightening conversations.

You might worry about derailing the current thread, but really, is that such a bad thing? Still, for convenience's sake, it's probably best to start a new thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Blast from the past, page 1658: peacegirl would like to talk to Miles Mathis and Louis Savain by phone!

Miles Mathis thinks the value of pi is 4. Louis Savain thinks he can construct artificial intelligence from the Book of Revelations.

And Davidm thinks he can get in a time machine and go back to the past to visit his great great great great great grandmother (which would make for some very disconcerting paradoxes)... or go to the future and come back younger and better looking.

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, did you ever talk to them by phone?

No, but I did talk to Trick Slattery. He wants to interview me.

[But]

Time dilation is real, real-time vision is not.