A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, there is no way these principles can be applied in an environment that blames and punishes. That being said, I have used these principles in my life, and they do work up to a point. Remember, it takes two to tango, so if I'm the only one aware of these principles, there is no way they will work in the same way that they will work once they are understood by our leading scientists and applied on a global scale.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, so that means you chose not to make your kids aware of the principles and what, your husband rejected them or something?

My husband did not understand the principles. If he did, we probably wouldn't be divorced.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This sounds like an excuse to me, because there is no reason you couldn't apply these within your own family household and raised your kids in a close approximation to the New World in multiple ways.

Another false conclusion. I raised my children according to the principles (even though my husband could not partner in this) and they turned out to be well adjusted adults.

[peacegirl]

I agree with you. The problem here is that his observations were not obvious to the average person, but that does not disqualify them as being valid. The fact that I can't easily set up a tangible proof (but that doesn't mean it can't be done) shouldn't stop people from being open minded to the possibility that he could be right.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

if you personally can't do it and neither can anyone else even remotely fathom how to do it, then it can't be done.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Your saying it can be done without doing it is pointless. Prove it or don't and be told your pet theory is worthless. You may not like the way it works but that is the way it works.

It's not a pet theory Sidhe. Aren't you at all curious why he says man's will is not free? Don't you want to understand even the first thing about these principles? To say it's a pet theory is inaccurate. Epistemology does allow for observation and reason, which these principles are based on as a means of determining truth.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I prefer my philosophy with a touch more reality thanks. As far as I have read there may or may not be free will but it depends much on how you define free and will and few people can even agree to that.

This has much more than to do with a consensus of opinion. Opinion is the cause of bias and prejudice.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I think though if your father had really answered the age old question it would of got much more recognition, in fact it would of been a massive event that would of probably made the national news. With that in mind I would read it, but I really sincerely doubt I am going to be convinced by it given what has been said so far.

What age old question? He could care less about national news, believe me. That was not his goal.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Does it worry me that we might not have free will? Does it worry you?

No it doesn't. Does it bother you?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

As far as I am concerned the question is unanswerable and probably always will be, so I just proceed as if I am free because the illusion or not is good enough for me.

But free will is an illusion. Enjoy your illusion, but it's false.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Would I care if I was an automaton that simply plods on a preset predetermined course 'til the day I die, probably, but then I don't think I am ever going to be aware of this on any reasonable level so why worry.

Your response just shows me you are ignorant of this knowledge that I am presenting. Why don't you get up to speed, and then we can talk, ok?

[Sidhe]

[quote=peacegirl;966620]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My husband did not understand the principles. If he did, we probably wouldn't be divorced.

Another false conclusion. I raised my children according to the principles (even though my husband could not partner in this) and they turned out to be well adjusted adults.

No offence but correlation and causation issue there it's unlikely your kids turned out alright because they believed free will didn't exist or whatever you did. It's more likely you were just a decent parent. Which is a rarity and you should rightly be proud. There are some pretty decent people out there who went through hell in their childhood what makes them different from the basket cases is they didn't let it define them. They didn't let it grind them down.
.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a pet theory Sidhe. Aren't you at all curious why he says man's will is not free? Don't you want to understand even the first thing about these principles? To say it's a pet theory is inaccurate. Epistemology does allow for observation and reason, which these principles are based on as a means of determining truth.

This has much more than to do with a consensus of opinion. Opinion is the cause of bias and prejudice.

What age old question? He could care less about national news, believe me. That was not his goal.

No it doesn't. Does it bother you?

But free will is an illusion. Enjoy your illusion, but it's false.

No it doesn't. Does it bother you?

You keep saying this but since I believe that the question is moot why would I be bothered? I can't be bothered by something I don't see makes any sense. It's like asking if God exists: pointless.

Prove its an illusion. As a nihilist I am kinda uncommitted obviously. I think the question makes no sense I am ignostic about free will. That quote means that it does not exist but for all I know it might as well cause I'm none the wiser btw.

Of course its a pet theory. You have no proof, in science it would be a pet hypothesis, like strings or Many worlds or Lemarkian evolution, well kind of.


You didn't answer my question about what free will is so its hard to discuss it.

What do you think free will is?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Yeah but even when people read the whole thing you accuse them of being ignorant. You might want to work on your sales technique. Being damned if you do and damned if you don't isn't likely to encourage anyone to read it. I've read some of it but its a big book and someone only pmed me a few hundred pages.

That's not the way to read this book. You'll never understand it this way. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I only have your word for everything. Your word and your fathers is not good enough for me or science.

It would be far more credible if it made the national news is what I meant, the fact it didn't means that it is probably not credible, if people answer questions that have been asked since the first man walked the Earth it tends to be a big deal. I'm not saying that absolutely makes it wrong but it doesn't give me much hope its right.

The fact that it didn't make national news means absolutely nothing. It just means it hasn't been validated yet.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I'm afraid both philosophy and Science rely on consensus of opinion. The only thing philosophers have a problem with is when people say consensus reflects truthiness broadly. The more people believe in evolution and its 100% the more credible it is in science, you can't get away from that nor would I want anyone to.

How many people believe in something doesn't necessarily make it true. It just gives people a false sense of security to go along with the status quo.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not the way to read this book. You'll never understand it this way. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The fact that it didn't make national news means absolutely nothing. It just means it hasn't been validated yet.

How many people believe in something doesn't necessarily make it true. It just gives people a false sense of security to go along with the status quo.

I never said what people believe makes it true in fact I said the opposite, I said what people know when there is evidence does make it a truth if not an absolute one. Science doesn't deal in truths, but clearly your father did, which is what makes his ideas impenetrable to science but able to be explored by philosophy. The question is was he logical? Are you?

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing this is a fundamentally philosophical question in epistemology.

Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
How do we know what we know?

Might sound patronising but reading some philosophy might make you better able to accept what truths really are and when they are at least reasoned if not true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say it was causation, but there was a correlation by the kind of parent I was based on these principles. I always supported my kids and never pushed them too hard. I let them determine who they were as individuals. On the other hand, my ex, in no uncertain terms, did not want my kids marrying out of their religion. This caused a lot of contention.

My husband did not understand the principles. If he did, we probably wouldn't be divorced.

Another false conclusion. I raised my children according to the principles (even though my husband could not partner in this) and they turned out to be well adjusted adults.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

No offence but correlation and causation issue there it's unlikely your kids turned out alright because they believed free will didn't exist or whatever you did. It's more likely you were just a decent parent. Which is a rarity and you should rightly be proud. There are some pretty decent people out there who went through hell in their childhood what makes them different from the basket cases is they didn't let it define them. They didn't let it grind them down.
.

I never talked about free will. I just treated my kids with respect and unconditional love.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never talked about free will. I just treated my kids with respect and unconditional love.

Good for you. Was just saying your fathers book had nothing to do with anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I never said what people believe makes it true in fact I said the opposite, I said what people know when there is evidence does make it a truth if not an absolute one. Science doesn't deal in truths, but clearly your father did, which is what makes his ideas impenetrable to science but able to be explored by philosophy. The question is was he logical? Are you?

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing this is a fundamentally philosophical question in epistemology.

Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Might sound patronising but reading some philosophy might make you better able to accept what truths really are and when they are at least reasoned if not true.

Sidhe, this knowledge fits the description fact, not theory. I am at a complete loss as to how to convince you of this.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My husband did not understand the principles. If he did, we probably wouldn't be divorced.

I knew a girl like you when I was teaching, she taught the extra bright students, we only went on one date, and I figured her out. She was pretty and had a nice body, but the sex wasn't worth listening to the insanity. Apparently it took you ex. a lot longer to see that you were about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Another false conclusion. I raised my children according to the principles

Except, apparently, the first principle of man's will not being free, as you told Sidhe you didn't discuss that with them. Did you allow them the fully self directed learning (currently known as unschooling?) that Lessans espoused?

they turned out to be well adjusted adults.

Great! But that still doesn't answer why you didn't choose to live all the principles in your own life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can be done.

This is reality. It's a fact that will is not free. This has nothing to do with a consensus of opinion.

What age old question?

But free will is an illusion. Enjoy your illusion, but it's false.

No it doesn't. Does it bother you?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You keep saying this but since I believe that the question is moot why would I be bothered? I can't be bothered by something I don't see makes any sense. It's like asking if God exists: pointless.

But it's not pointless.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Prove its an illusion.

I can share with you the part in the book where he demonstrates why will isn't free. No one here got that far, or was even interested.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

As a nihilist I am kinda uncommitted obviously. I think the question makes no sense I am ignostic about free will. That quote means that it does not exist but for all I know it might as well cause I'm none the wiser btw.

Many people could care less whether will is free or not, but if they knew what lied behind the door of determinism, they would start caring.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Of course its a pet theory. You have no proof, in science it would be a pet hypothesis, like strings or Many worlds or Lemarkian evolution, well kind of.

Not true. He proved that will is not free.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You didn't answer my question about what free will is so its hard to discuss it.

What do you think free will is?

If you're serious about understanding why will is not free, I will post a couple pages for you to absorb. Otherwise, we'll just be going around in circles.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do.

These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free?

It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Another false conclusion. I raised my children according to the principles

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except, apparently, the first principle of man's will not being free, as you told Sidhe you didn't discuss that with them. Did you allow them the fully self directed learning (currently known as unschooling?) that Lessans espoused?

Lessans did not espouse unschooling. I did home school two of my children for a few years but this wasn't related to the book.

they turned out to be well adjusted adults.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Great! But that still doesn't answer why you didn't choose to live all the principles in your own life.

That question shows me you have no understanding of the book. There is no way these principles can be applied the way they are intended until they become a permanent condition of the environment. It can work on a smaller scale if two people understand the principles, but not to the degree that it will work when it is applied on a global scale.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans did not espouse unschooling.

He discussed fully self directed learning, correct? Kids would study what they wanted to study when they wanted to study it?

How is that not the equivalent of what is currently known as unschooling (ala John Holt)?

I did home school two of my children for a few years but this wasn't related to the book.

Why didn't you follow the educational principles from the book?

they turned out to be well adjusted adults.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That question shows me you have no understanding of the book. There is no way these principles can be applied the way they are intended until they become a permanent condition of the environment.

Your answer shows me you are making excuses. You can't personally choose to teach your kids that man's will is not free and not to blame? You can't personally refrain from using words like beautiful and ugly in your home? You can't make tasty meals and not gripe at your husband about money? You can't follow the parenting and educational principles?

It can work on a smaller scale if two people understand the principles, but not to the degree that it will work when it is applied on a global scale.

Apparently it cannot work on a smaller scale, or you would have made it work....to demonstrate it's truthiness if nothing else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Apparently it cannot work on a smaller scale, or you would have made it work....to demonstrate it's truthiness if nothing else.

But it would need all parties involved to be commited to the program, and given the time frame, Peacegirls Ex. must have known Lessans, and known the true nature and intent of the book, which would explain his reluctance to participate in the indoctrination of the children. It would also explain why they are no longer together and would indicate that peacegirl is way off the deep end.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's not pointless.

I can share with you the part in the book where he demonstrates why will isn't free. No one here got that far, or was even interested.

Many people could care less whether will is free or not, but if they knew what lied behind the door of determinism, they would start caring.

Not true. He proved that will is not free.

If you're serious about understanding why will is not free, I will post a couple pages for you to absorb. Otherwise, we'll just be going around in circles.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do.

These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free?

It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

I'm sorry but that doesn't say anything except what he considers free will is, I have contentions with even that as what he is talking about is compatibilism, for example libertarian free will is not dependent on good/evil or morals per se, just probabilities, if they exist then libertarian free will is true regardless of the anthropocentric idea of moral agency, moral agency matters not at all. Although personally I agree if someone has no control over what they do that is not free will, so if choices were totally random that would probably not be free will if we were being honest about the term will.

Does he go on to prove we have no free will because what he says there certainly proves nothing. The mechanism of why people act would have to be established to prove free will either way. Are we just a product of genetic programming or is there some real probability to what we chose, is the future determined by the past absolutely. He answers nothing in these pages about such issues. How does this prove that I can or cannot act without being coerced?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who is judging? I am asking a question. Surely these principles can be applied in individual families and marriages to demonstrate that people can live without laying blame on each other? Surely you could make your own home a non-free will environment? Surely you could have raised your kids without the hurtful words being introduced in your home? People unschool and follow non-coercive parenting. Couples set the terms of their relationship and their agreement could include pretty much everything Lessans envisioned.

Why is it the whole world or nothing?

As I said, this knowledge can absolutely work to a lesser degree, but until we remove the pressures of the economic world, those pressures will have an impact on marriage. That said, following these principles can definitely help marriages that are in trouble, and maintain marriages that are not in trouble.

[peacegirl]

I agree with you. The problem here is that his observations were not obvious to the average person, but that does not disqualify them as being valid. The fact that I can't easily set up a tangible proof (but that doesn't mean it can't be done) shouldn't stop people from being open minded to the possibility that he could be right.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

if you personally can't do it and neither can anyone else even remotely fathom how to do it, then it can't be done.

You saying it can be done without doing it is pointless. Prove it or don't and be told your pet theory is worthless. You may not like the way it works but that is the way it works.

It's not a pet theory Sidhe. Aren't you at all curious why he says man's will is not free? Don't you want to understand even the first thing about these principles? To say it's a pet theory is inaccurate. Epistemology does allow for observation and reason, which these principles are based on as a means of determining truth.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I prefer my philosophy with a touch more reality thanks. As far as I have read there may or may not be free will but it depends much on how you define free and will and few people can even agree to that.

I think though if your father had really answered the age old question it would of got much more recognition, in fact it would of been a massive event that would of probably made the national news. With that in mind I would read it, but I really sincerely doubt I am going to be convinced by it given what has been said so far.

Does it worry me that we might not have free will? Does it worry you?

As far as I am concerned the question is unanswerable and probably always will be, so I just proceed as if I am free because the illusion or not is good enough for me. Would I care if I was an automaton that simply plods on a preset predetermined course 'til the day I die, probably, but then I don't think I am ever going to be aware of this on any reasonable level so why worry.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

This has nothing to do with being an automatom, and if you read the book you would have known that. Then you would have not been threatened by this knowledge, and maybe you would have paid more attention. What can I say? I hope you let go of some of your preconceived ideas and finally give him a chance to share his knowledge. Otherwise, this is futile.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I don't understand what you mean by that since having no free will would indeed make us nothing but slaves to our nature or automatons who are puppets to internal or external agency. If you are defining free will as something else then say so otherwise I will go with a conventional definition.

That's why I have to finish cutting and pasting the key points in this book. If we get past that, then we'll have something to discuss.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

The question of free will hinges mostly on three things

• Moral agency (usually in compatibilism not absolutely necessary in libertarian free will, if I cannot chose how I act then how can I be responsible for it, issues of coersion, also issues of Gods foresight etc)

• In this author's definition, you can choose, that's a non-issue.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Sidhe

  Determinism and predeterminism (is the future determined by the past and issues of fate related to moral agency by the issue it has with randomness, if my actions are random how can they be moral)

  This doesn't apply either because, although we make choices based previous determinants, there is nothing random about those choices. Moral responsibility goes up, not down, when the environmental conditions change.
  
  

  Originally Posted by Sidhe

  In libertarian free will all that is required usually is that I could of acted differently if time were rerun with a soupcon of concern for randomness.

But if determinism is true (which it is), then we could not have acted differently if time were rerun.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

If you aren't talking about these issues please explain what you mean by free will.

I don't feel threatened by no free will, why would I?

"The illusion of free will is so complete that it might as well exist."

I think is a quote that I agree with.

I am a free will nihilist. Ie I've always believed its pretty much impossible to prove especially libertarian free will, which I think makes the most sense to me personally, and compatibilism seems to be sullied with talk about God a lot so I tend to dislike that on the principle that when people talk about God reason goes out of the window. Not that it's exclusive to God botherers by any means.

You're on the wrong track. I hope you stay with me although it might just change your worldview.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

My point is that he did a lot of things that had he not done them, we would still be together.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I have to finish cutting and pasting the key points in this book. If we get past that, then we'll have something to discuss.

• In this author's definition, you can choose, that's a non-issue.
  
  
  This doesn't apply either because, although we make choices based previous determinants, there is nothing random about those choices. Moral responsibility goes up, not down, when the environmental conditions change.
  
  

But if determinism is true (which it is), then we could not have acted differently if time were rerun.

You're on the wrong track. I hope you stay with me although it might just change your worldview.

I doubt it.

The problem is you have not really explained why you think we have choices that are free or not, or why that means we have free will or not. That's not an argument it's just stating a belief without a logical foundation. A priori arguments are not particularly convincing anywhere except in religion.

For example why is determinism true? I know for example that nothing about science these days prohibits stochastic mechanics, or randomness, in fact the whole of physics and therefore every science is based on using models that have some sort of random element. For example if I knock a cup off a table and it smashes, science tells us that rewinding time might not result in the same collection of atoms with the same properties let alone a cup like the original. And if I reran me knocking the cup off there's no guarantee it will smash in the same way exactly either. This is something that is fundamental, heat dispersion and entropy are not based on deterministic laws either.

It is also true that enzymes in my DNA use non deterministic methods because at that scale quantum effects are present and if it had not evolved to do so it would become less efficient at finding building blocks for replication. The very thing that makes us us, like memory is controlled by enzymes like this and what they do isn't determined. That has implications to randomness and what makes us us and free will. Now I can't say that gives us free will because I have not solved the problem of consciousness, so it would be premature. But you can't say that free will does not exist either. It's not as easy as just saying I am right. That's lazy philosophy, and its pointless.

Also some people like Dennet think that determinism is compatible with free will, hence compatibilism. Even if everything runs like clockwork (something there is no reason to believe is true anyway) that does not mean we have no free will or we do for that matter. The question has not been resolved.

Also Libertarian free will, is at odds with everything your dad says. Nothing he says and no argument he makes has to be true for LFW to be correct. All that has to happen there is that if I reverse time I can choose differently, good or evil is irrelevant to LFW or at least some versions of it. Actually good and evil are silly terms anyway but there you go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can be done.

This is reality. It's a fact that will is not free. This has nothing to do with a consensus of opinion.

What age old question?

But free will is an illusion. Enjoy your illusion, but it's false.

No it doesn't. Does it bother you?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You keep saying this but since I believe that the question is moot why would I be bothered? I can't be bothered by something I don't see makes any sense. It's like asking if God exists: pointless.

But it's not pointless.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Prove its an illusion.

I can share with you the part in the book where he demonstrates why will isn't free. No one here got that far, or was even interested.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

As a nihilist I am kinda uncommitted obviously. I think the question makes no sense I am ignostic about free will. That quote means that it does not exist but for all I know it might as well cause I'm none the wiser btw.

Many people could care less whether will is free or not, but if they knew what lied behind the door of determinism, they would start caring.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Of course its a pet theory. You have no proof, in science it would be a pet hypothesis, like strings or Many worlds or Lemarkian evolution, well kind of.

Not true. He proved that will is not free.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You didn't answer my question about what free will is so its hard to discuss it.

What do you think free will is?

If you're serious about understanding why will is not free, I will post a couple pages for you to absorb. Otherwise, we'll just be going around in circles.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do.

These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free?

It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sidhe]I'm sorry but that doesn't say anything except what he considers free will is, I have contentions with even that as what he is talking about is compatibilism, for example libertarian free will is not dependent on good/evil or morals per se, just probabilities, if they exist then libertarian free will is true regardless of the anthropocentric idea of moral agency, moral agency matters not at all. Although personally I agree if someone has no control over what they do that is not free will, so if choices were totally random that would probably not be free will if we were being honest about the term will.[/quote]

I didn't get your answer totally. I can't deal with all of these arguments that are so flimsy I could scream.

[quote="Sidhe

Does he go on to prove we have no free will because what he says there certainly proves nothing. The mechanism of why people act would have to be established to prove free will either way. Are we just a product of genetic programming or is there some real probability to what we chose, is the future determined by the past absolutely. He answers nothing in these pages about such issues. How does this prove that I can or cannot act without being coerced?

How do you know he answers nothing in these pages when you haven't read them. I have to stop right here or you will think you're right and unfortunately this thread will be dead.

[Sidhe]

How do you know he answers nothing in these pages when you haven't read them. I have to stop right here or you will think you're right and unfortunately this thread will be dead.

Ok this is going to sound obvious, why not post the pages where he makes an argument against free will existing then?

Honestly I don't get that?