A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point I was making is that side effects are often not known beforehand. I was just using cigarettes and a prescribed drug: fosomax as examples.

I am not going to look up the drug just to prove you wrong. I gave an honest example. It was not a typical pain drug. It was approved for something else entirely, but was used as an off label drug because they found it helped with insomnia. As a consequence, it helped to alleviate the tender points found in fibromyalgia, therefore reducing pain, which is often due to lack of restorative sleep. LadyShea, think what you want. I am done discussing this.

LOL, keep lying! Every detail you provide offers more evidence that you are totally full of shit.

So now we have:

• This drug was actually prescribed off label to help with insomnia that would in turn help with pain from fibromyalgia, and not prescribed for muscle pain as you originally claimed.
  
• This drug, which do not remember the name of, causes liver problems, but not cancer as you originally stated
  
• This drug was pulled from the market, or not, you don't remember
  
• You distinctly remembered the liver side effects were not on the insert, until you couldn't remember anymore 2 days later and were no longer sure if they were or were not listed on the insert
  
• You know, somehow, that this drug definitely has some problems though

You basically can't remember anything of importance about this drug...Yet you call it an "honest example" of something or other. An honest example of your weaseling I guess

[LadyShea]

All those things you mentioned come into play to affect one's choices, but the past does not cause or compel someone to move in a certain direction; it just creates conditions that arouse one's desire (depending on his life circumstances) to choose one thing over another in the direction of greater satisfaction.

"Conditions that arouse a desire" can be accurately and succinctly referred to as a cause.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You proved our points, peacegirl. Even if Lessans was 100% correct, his reasoning is full of holes and easily refuted.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or because you don't understand English? I didn't ask if Lessans definition says that. I asked if Lessans definition of determinism RULED IT OUT.

Does Lessans concept of determinism allow for contemplation and choice between multiple possible alternatives?

If yes, then this particular concept of free will, the one I offered as an example, is not ruled out.

If you answer no, it is ruled out, then you have made multiple mistakes regarding Lessans concept of determinism, because you have stated that contemplation and choice are included.

There are multiple understandings of the term "free will" and Lessans definitions and descriptions do not rule all of them out as he has stated his concept of determinism.

I have tried to explain that Lessans' definitions and descriptions do not rule out the concept of being able to make multiple choices, but it doesn't mean we actually have free will. If it is impossible for me to go in the direction of B because it offers less satisfaction under the circumstances, how is A a free choice? I've asked this question before.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the first chapter he states that being able to contemplate and choose between multiple alternatives DOES NOT MEAN WILL IS FREE

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, he stated it. But, if free will is understood to mean the ability to contemplate and choose between multiple alternatives, then he has not ruled out all forms of free will...specifically not this one. That's the point I am making.

But that's the standard definition that Lessans is ruling out. Lessans disagrees that being able to contemplate and choose between multiple alternatives translates to having free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

which what most people have considererd to be what free will means. That's how it's defined, which is why we can't go by the standard definition in order to understand Lessans' definition. That definition is useless in this context.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It doesn't matter what most people consider free will to mean, nor does it matter what the standard definition is.

Of course it does. That's what Spacemonkey was trying to explain. The standard definition is what you are using to analyze Lessans' definition, which is based on a different proposition. This definition does not rule out being able to choose between multiple alternatives, but it does rule out that this means we have free will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans descriptions of determinism did not rule out all possible concepts/understandings of the term "free will". That is the point I am trying to make, as was Spacemonkey.

Lessans' observations prove that there are no possible concepts/understandings that would confirm free will because there are none.

Did you listen to the link I gave on a lecture given by Tom Clark? He explained why free will (as in choosing between options in an everyday sense) is not the overarching type of free will that is being refuted

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't share his understanding of free will. Do you understand and agree that there are multiple prepositions that could be used to describe free will? Lessans did not rule out all possible concepts of free will.

Of course he has ruled out all possible concepts of free will. We have no free will, but that does not mean can't choose; it's just that our choices are not free because we can only go in one direction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But my concept of free will is then not ruled out.

Free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives.

To say "I did something of my own free will" is okay if it means "I did something because I wanted to do it", which is also fine, but this in no way indicates we have free.

p. 54 "Just because I cannot be made to do
something against my will does not mean my will is free because my
desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free
choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did
it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually
did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me
no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Show me an excerpt of Lessans explanation that rules out this proposition.

p. 53 It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’

The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

< skip >

Therefore,
when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another.”

[LadyShea]

Free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives.

Is totally compatible with Lessans ideas which allow for contemplation and choice between alternatives. Neither you nor Lessans have not ruled out this concept of free will...this "definition" if you prefer that word.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans disagrees that being able to contemplate and choose between multiple alternatives means that we have free will.

Yay for him and his opinion. He in no way, shape, or form proved that his idea is the correct one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans' observations prove that there are no possible concepts/understandings that would confirm free will because there are none.

I just proved that there is. Since Lessans allows for contemplation and choice amongst alternatives, this concept of free will is not ruled out

Free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Conditions that arouse a desire" can be accurately and succinctly referred to as a cause.

That's true. That's why our will is not free. The only difference is that cause, according to the standard definition, implies something done against our will (something we didn't want to do but had to because we were caused to do it). Nothing can cause us to do what we don't want to do. The conditions are created that arouse our desire to move in a particular direction; the direction that gives us greater satisfaction based on many factors (temperment, heredity, environment, weather, what happened a moment ago, etc.) that come into play before making a choice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives.

Is totally compatible with Lessans ideas which allow for contemplation and choice between alternatives. Neither you nor Lessans have not ruled out this concept of free will...this "definition" if you prefer that word.

Yay for him and his opinion. He in no way, shape, or form proved that his idea is the correct one.

I just proved that there is. Since Lessans allows for contemplation and choice amongst alternatives, this concept of free will is not ruled out

He did not rule out the ability to choose, but again the word "choice" is misleading. We don't have a true choice. If we did we could choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B, but how is this possible if it's impossible to choose B? We can't move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a better alternative is available. If A is the more preferable alternative, we cannot choose B. So how can our will be free? I know I know, you don't think he proved it because there is no way to see someone moving toward greater satisfaction to know if that's what he's doing. But that's where empirical testing in proving or disproving free will cannot help, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to know the truth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives.

I suggest you reread what I posted. Obviously, you still don't get it. There is a huge distinction between propositions. The fact that you keep telling me that Free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives, means you've understood nothing, and you're reverting right back to the standard definition.

[LadyShea]

No, the standard of definition of cause says absolutely nothing about "something done against our will". You are using idiosyncratic definitions, as usual

CAUSE noun
1.
a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: You have been the cause of much anxiety. What was the cause of the accident?
2.
the reason or motive for some human action: The good news was a cause for rejoicing.
3.
good or sufficient reason: to complain without cause; to be dismissed for cause.
4.
Law .
a.
a ground of legal action; the matter over which a person goes to law.
b.
a case for judicial decision.
5.
any subject of discussion or debate.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So Einstein, Edison, Mendel, and many others, must also have been preachers because I'm sure when they were revealing their discoveries, they didn't take kindly to anyone who didn't accept their Revealed Truths, especially coming from people who said they didn't have a discovery.

You're lying again. None of them were preaching, and none of them got upset because people ridiculed their ideas. Because it never happened.

What every single one of them was able to provide was evidence -- lots of it. So far, you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever in support of Lessans' claims.

Incidentally, it's been explained to you before that your claims about both Edison and Mendel are outright lies. (And unlike you, I provided the evidence to show it.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I suggest you reread what I posted. Obviously, you still don't get it. There is a huge distinction between propositions. The fact that you keep telling me that Free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives, means you've understood nothing, and you're reverting right back to the standard definition.

I get it very well. This particular proposition of free will is not ruled out by Lessans description of determinism. It is compatible with it, as a matter of fact.

The most that can be said is that you think people always choose that which offers greater satisfaction. You cannot say they must do so or are compelled to do so without empirical evidence.

Maybe you will be shown to be correct in the future, but you do not have the evidence right now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So Einstein, Edison, Mendel, and many others, must also have been preachers because I'm sure when they were revealing their discoveries, they didn't take kindly to anyone who didn't accept their Revealed Truths, especially coming from people who said they didn't have a discovery.

Einstein's, and Edison's, ideas were readily accepted, Mendel's ideas were misunderstood rather than rejected, so there was no need for any of them to preach, that is your speciality.

[The Lone Ranger]

Indeed. And unfortunately, Mendel published his observations in an obscure journal that no one who was in a position to recognize their significance apparently happened to read. It's a shame, too, because if Darwin or A. R. Wallace had read the paper, for instance, they'd have instantly recognized the significance.

Note that not even Mendel recognized the true significance of his discovery regarding modes of inheritance, as his writings make clear. Regardless, when his findings were re-discovered around 60 years later, their significance was immediately recognized and accepted (after proper testing and verification, of course).

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed. And unfortunately, Mendel published his observations in an obscure journal that no one who was in a position to recognize their significance apparently happened to read. It's a shame, too, because if Darwin or A. R. Wallace had read the paper, for instance, they'd have instantly recognized the significance.

Note that not even Mendel recognized the true significance of his discovery regarding modes of inheritance, as his writings make clear. Regardless, when his findings were re-discovered around 60 years later, their significance was immediately recognized and accepted (after proper testing and verification, of course).

In their defense, people are still trying to understand the significance of the discovery.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're splitting hairs here. Should and must are similar terms.

Should and must are not similar terms. Your inability to recognize that fact is the source of one of your fundamental errors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cheating is always possible, but you need to understand why cheating would never be an option in the direction of greater satisfaction, once people become citizens.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And you need to demonstrate that such is the case, rather than simply asserting that it is so. You cannot legitimately argue the truth of a claim by appealing to the supposed future existence of conditions which may, if they actually occur at some future date, substantiate the truth of said claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you carefully studied the principles in this book, you would see why there will be no need to cheat. People cheat because they feel that cheating will benefit them in some way. Yes, I can appeal to the claim of a supposed future existence of conditions to substantiate the truth of said claim if that claim is based on an accurate set of premises. For example, I can predict that I will get to a certain destination (barring any unforeseen delays) if my calculation based on distance and speed are accurate, even though I have not actually arrived yet.

"If that claim is based on an accurate set of premises" is a huge conditional. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that you are arguing from an accurate set of premises. That, in and of itself, invalidates your claim to be able to reliably predict future conditions.

Additionally, your paranthetical conditional (i.e. "barring any unforeseen delays") renders your prediction unfalsifiable and therefore useless. What you are saying, essentially, is that under the future changed conditions things will be a certain way, barring any unforeseen factors that might interfere with things being that certain way.

P1. If I purchase a lottery ticket it will be a winning ticket.
P2. I am going to purchase a lottery ticket tomorrow.
C. Next week I will be a filthy rich lottery winner (barring something unforeseen happening that might prevent me from becoming a filthy rich lottery winner).

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now thinking back, I recall that I got off of it before I even heard the announcement on television. Does that make me a liar? No, it doesn't. I had been brought up to be very cautious about drugs in general, which is why my instinct that this drug might not be safe caused me to think twice, even thought it was prescribed by a doctor. This cautiousness has been to my advantage. I am grateful I did not go on this drug, and I have my father to thank.

So, peacegirl, which one is it? Did you go on the drug and then get off the drug or did you never go on the drug at all? One would think that, if your story was true, you could keep the facts straight over the course of a paragraph that is only six sentences long.

Noting this sort of inconsistency if no doubt very anal on my part.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. No, you have not. That is the one thing you most certainly have not done.

You're no further forward today than you were a decade ago. You still don't have a single convert who thinks your father's book has an non-comedic value at all. You haven't made an inch of progress.

She now has a website that she didn't have before. Surely that is progress, of a sort.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's for sure!

You came to preach. And like a many preacher of Revealed Truth, you don't take kindly to anyone who doesn't accept your Revealed Truth without question.

Hey! I'm right here you know.

I can't believe that I have to put up with this sort of crap, and on a Sunday even!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You proved our points, peacegirl. Even if Lessans was 100% correct, his reasoning is full of holes and easily refuted.

It also doesn't mean the will is not free. If free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives, and Lessans determinism allows this contemplation and choice, then Lessans definition of determinism does not rule out this concept of free will. You've even agreed that it is not ruled out, multiple times.

I don't share his understanding of free will. Do you understand and agree that there are multiple prepositions that could be used to describe free will? Lessans did not rule out all possible concepts of free will.

You are, once again, left defending an unsupported assertion that man's will is not free.

Lady Shea, are you not paying attention? Lessans has ruled out free will as he defines it. What more do want from the man?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because we don't have free will. Therefore to say that it doesn't rule out contra-causal free will is incorrect. It absolutely rules it out, but you don't get his proposition whatsoever. There is no free will Spacemonkey whether it's compatibilist theory, libertarian theory, or any other theory.

You haven't answered the question, so I'll ask it again: Why is the compatibilist conception of free will, which Lessans' redefinition does not rule out, not a legitimate form of free will? Why do you call it a misnomer?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

< skip >

No, you don't get to skip this. Address the point: Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans' observations are correct, then his redefinition is also correct, which rules out contra-causal free will but maintains his position on determinism. BTW, if contra-causal free will is ruled out (or any other type of free will), determinism is ruled in not because free will is ruled out, but because of scientific proof that man's will is not free. There can only be one or the other Spacemonkey, and determinism wins. The truth is we can only go in one direction (the direction of greater satisfaction) each and every moment of time, which rules out the ability to choose another alternative than the one that was chosen.

There you go again talking about the correctness of definitions, proving you haven't paid any attention at all to anything I've been explaining to you for the past several days. And no-one said anything about ruling in or ruling out determinism. The point at issue was that I said his redefinition doesn't rule out contra-causal free will, and you mistakenly took that to mean that I was saying his redefinition must rule in contra-causal free will.

Do previous events causally determine in advance which option will be judged as the most satisfying? If so, then you are in agreement with the standard thesis of determinism (despite earlier rejecting it), as previous conditions will then determine the one and only choice that can be made. If not, then there is room for contra-causal free will in determining for oneself which option to take to be the most satisfying one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again with your patronizing attitude.

If you don't like being treated like a child then don't act like one. When I have carefully explained your latest logical blunder to you, responding with nothing more than a bald denial and projection ("I have made no blatant logical blunders... You have"), you deserve to be told to grow up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not Spacemonkey. You still don't get it. Keep saying this is over and over again. Maybe you'll be able to convince yourself.

Dafuq? "No it does not" isn't even a grammatically appropriate response to what you were replying to. You made a blunder. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was so clear in the book about this distinction. I thought you read the book Spacemonkey. He explained that the problem with the present definition is that antecedent events cause us to act a certain way, which is incorrect. Nothing causes us to do anything, not heredity, environment, or anything else, because this implies that even if we don't want to do something, we were being forced against our will. We are just given conditions that compel us to move in a certain direction. If we use the standard definition, we could then use the excuse that we were caused us to kill someone, which is untrue. That has been the dilemma and no one has been able to solve it. People could excuse their behavior by saying, "My will is not free, I could not have done otherwise", and be released of all responsibility If you don't even grasp this, you won't understanding anything else. If you for once say you understand what I'm saying, I will continue. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my breath.

No, causation does not imply that we are caused to do things against our will. If people think that, then they are wrong and this can be pointed out. It is not a problem with the definition or thesis of determinism. And none of this addresses what you were asked to address. You were supposed to be explaining to me how his version of determinism (i.e. his satisfaction principle) allegedly rules out contra-causal free will. Where is your answer to this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there is.

No, there isn't. There's nothing even remotely misleading about the thesis or definition of determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. They are supported by observation and sound reasoning. He made a discovery on death only through observation and reasoning. He didn't have to die first.

He didn't make any discovery on death. At best the halfwit made a trivial observation about our use of personal pronouns. And why are you again changing topics? You said his two-sided equation was supported by observations that he neglected to record. That means it is now no more than either a trivial tautology or an empirical claim yet to be supported by any kind of evidence. His alleged observations, which neither you nor anyone else know anything about, cannot serve as supporting evidence, because no-one at all has any access to them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's what you believe we're at the end of the road.

You've been at the end of this road for years. Only you don't seem to notice, and instead keep walking face first into the same brick wall over and over again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're completely off the mark Spacemonkey. But believe what you want. The latter does support the former, and he shows how the extension of the latter is able to support the former. But you'll never get there. Oh well.

Yet another completely content-free non-response where you do nothing but tell me you think I'm wrong. Go on, explain it to me. Tell me exactly how his claims about free will allegedly provide support for those points which I listed as his presuppositions about free will. They don't. His reasoning presupposes these points, and he NOWHERE supports them. That's why you keep resorting to the claim that he directly observed them, and try to leave it at that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has evidence based on his observations. He spells it out clearly in Chapter Two. But you'll never see it because your pride is ruining it for you.

You're full of it, and you know it. Neither chapter two nor any other part of his book contains any evidence at all for his ridiculous assumptions about conscience. All you can do is assert that it is in the book, and then wave your arms and stamp your feet when we ask you to show us where.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If what you mean by not rejecting the contributions made in here that I have to accept these contributions as evidence against Lessans, you're right. I've been doing it for years.

Exactly. You've been blatantly disregarding any and all contrary evidence that is presented to you, and you've been doing it for years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's really none of your business why I'm here. It confounds me why someone who is so against this knowledge continues to come back for more and more and more. Makes no sense to me.

Stop weaseling. You just said you were still posting here for the same reason as me. Was that just bullshit, like everything else you've been posting for the last several days (and years)? If not, then tell me. What is your reason for still posting here, when you've already convinced everyone that you're nuts? You really don't know, do you? Your behavior is even more of a mystery to you than it is to anyone else.

[Vivisectus]

I suspect the answer to that last question is very simple: this is the only place where people discuss the Mighty Tome. Anywhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No pain med has been pulled from the market for liver problems that were not listed on the insert, because all pain meds that can cause liver problems (like anything containing acetaminophen including OTC Tylenol) are labeled as having this long well known side effect.

That is not true. Fosamax is now implicated for causing necrosis of the jaw and femur. They did not know this in the beginning. Now it's listed as a possible side effect. We didn't know smoking was dangerous. Now the side effects are listed on the insert. This was not just a pain med. It was an off label used for insomnia. I was diagnosed as having fibromyalgia, and it supposedly helped with this. Thank goodness I'm feeling better, but these were tough years.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did not say nothing ever has been found to have previously unknown side effects. I said, very clearly "No 1. pain med has been 2. pulled from the market for 3. liver problems that were 4. not listed on the insert"

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Necrosis of the jaw and femur is not liver problems. Fosamax has not been pulled from the market nor is it a pain med. Smoking is not a prescribed medication.

The point I was making is that side effects are often not known beforehand. I was just using cigarettes and a prescribed drug: fosomax as examples.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no drug that I can find that meets the 4 features you've given for the drug you supposedly were prescribed. So, you can backtrack all the way to "I was prescribed a drug that had side effects" (which all drugs have side effects as do most supplements) and admit you exaggerated immensely for histrionic effect, or you can find the drug you are referring to and prove me wrong.

I am not going to look up the drug just to prove you wrong. I gave an honest example. It was not a typical pain drug. It was approved for something else entirely, but was used as an off label drug because they found it helped with insomnia. As a consequence, it helped to alleviate the tender points found in fibromyalgia, therefore reducing pain, which is often due to lack of restorative sleep. LadyShea, think what you want. I am done discussing this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, keep lying! Every detail you provide offers more evidence that you are totally full of shit.

I don't need to be talked to like this LadyShea. I'm going to say the same thing to you: if you want me to continue to engage with you then stop telling me that I'm full of shit. If you want me to answer you in the future, please stop prefacing your posts this way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So now we have:

• This drug was actually prescribed off label to help with insomnia that would in turn help with pain from fibromyalgia, and not prescribed for muscle pain as you originally claimed.

• It was prescribed for muscle pain, but the pathway to relieving this pain was through better sleep. It did both, so they thought it was an appropriate drug to be used in this situation.
  
  

  Originally Posted by LadyShea

  This drug, which do not remember the name of, causes liver problems, but not cancer as you originally stated

  How many times do I have to tell you that I said this off the cuff. I realized after thinking about it (it was many years ago and I had no idea you were going to make such a big issue over this to make people believe I'm not credible) that it was liver damage that this drug was being implicated for.
  
  

  Originally Posted by LadyShea

  This drug was pulled from the market, or not, you don't remember

  I never followed what happened to this drug because I stopped taking it. I'm assuming they put a label on it, because it's so difficult to get drugs recalled even if they've caused injury. There's a lot of money at stake.
  
  

  Originally Posted by LadyShea

  You distinctly remembered the liver side effects were not on the insert, until you couldn't remember anymore 2 days later and were no longer sure if they were or were not listed on the insert

  Considering that this was an unknown complication and the dangers were just becoming known, I suspect there was no warning on the insert.
  
  

  Originally Posted by LadyShea

  You know, somehow, that this drug definitely has some problems though

Only when I heard the association with liver damage from a television ad to call a lawyer if you think you have been hurt.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You basically can't remember anything of importance about this drug...Yet you call it an "honest example" of something or other. An honest example of your weaseling I guess

I think I remember something of great importance related to this drug: it was being associated with liver damage. That's pretty important in my book. I'm not sure if this had to do with dosage or frequency of usage. I just know that I stopped taking it because my intuition told me to. Whether it was the way I felt after one or two doses, or that I already was inclined not to take drugs because I lean toward natural remedies, I'm not sure. I'm just glad I stopped when I did.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need to be talked to like this LadyShea.

Actually, I think you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to tell you that I said this off the cuff. I realized after thinking about it...

Try thinking about things before you begin typing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I remember something of great importance related to this drug...

Your memory is not reliable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just know that I stopped taking it because my intuition told me to.

Intuition? Well, then it was hardly a case of you applying rational skepticism was it? And that was your whole point in raising the example in the first place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because we don't have free will. Therefore to say that it doesn't rule out contra-causal free will is incorrect. It absolutely rules it out, but you don't get his proposition whatsoever. There is no free will Spacemonkey whether it's compatibilist theory, libertarian theory, or any other theory.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't answered the question, so I'll ask it again: Why is the compatibilist conception of free will, which Lessans' redefinition does not rule out, not a legitimate form of free will? Why do you call it a misnomer?

Because it's an illusion that one's choice is actually free. We can only go in one direction. That doesn't mean we cannot contemplate between multimple alternatives, but that in itself (although defined as free will in the standard definition) does not mean we have freedom of the will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

< skip >

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you don't get to skip this. Address the point: Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

If you had noticed, I had already answered it in the previous post right before you asked me the same thing again. I'm not repeating it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans' observations are correct, then his redefinition is also correct, which rules out contra-causal free will but maintains his position on determinism. BTW, if contra-causal free will is ruled out (or any other type of free will), determinism is ruled in not because free will is ruled out, but because of scientific proof that man's will is not free. There can only be one or the other Spacemonkey, and determinism wins. The truth is we can only go in one direction (the direction of greater satisfaction) each and every moment of time, which rules out the ability to choose another alternative than the one that was chosen.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There you go again talking about the correctness of definitions, proving you haven't paid any attention at all to anything I've been explaining to you for the past several days. And no-one said anything about ruling in or ruling out determinism. The point at issue was that I said his redefinition doesn't rule out contra-causal free will, and you mistakenly took that to mean that I was saying his redefinition must rule in contra-causal free will.

He did not. His redefinition does rule out contra-causal free will because we are not free to choose A if B is an impossibility. The definition of contra-causal free will is that we are free to choose A or B equally. That's an illusion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do previous events causally determine in advance which option will be judged as the most satisfying? If so, then you are in agreement with the standard thesis of determinism (despite earlier rejecting it), as previous conditions will then determine the one and only choice that can be made. If not, then there is room for contra-causal free will in determining for oneself which option to take to be the most satisfying one.

I can't believe you're still missing it. There is room for this ability to contemplate. Why are you splitting hairs Spacemonkey? I'm giving this to you on a silver platter. But the term "free will" has to be qualified because this ability to contemplate does not mean we have Free Will in an actual sense. The only difference between saying previous events causally determine in advance which option will be judged the most satisfying is to make the important distinction in the idea that something other than ourselves is making the choice for us. People could then use the excuse that they didn't want to do it but had to because they were caused to do it. In other words, by saying they were caused to choose an "evil" act implies that they had no choice in the matter; that their heredity, environment, a previous event or circumstance made them do it, which, according to the standard definition of determinism can be used as an excuse, and that they are therefore not to be held responsible even if their choice was to kill someone because their will was not free to do otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again with your patronizing attitude.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you don't like being treated like a child then don't act like one. When I have carefully explained your latest logical blunder to you, responding with nothing more than a bald denial and projection ("I have made no blatant logical blunders... You have"), you deserve to be told to grow up.

Spacemonkey, you're playing games with me, and I'll repeat, if you want to talk to me further you better watch what you say. I'm not a doormat to be stepped on just because you don't agree with my thought process. This is the only post I'm going to answer today as a result of your ignoring my request.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I just demonstrated your latest blunder. I said that Lessans' redefinition of determinism does not rule out contra-causal free will, and you thought that was the same as saying that his version of determinism means that we do have contra-causal free will. That was a blunder and it was yours.

No it does not Spacemonkey. You still don't get it. Keep saying this over and over again. Maybe you'll be able to convince yourself.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Dafuq? "No it does not" isn't even a grammatically appropriate response to what you were replying to. You made a blunder. Deal with it.

What was not grammatically correct? The "is", that wasn't meant to be there? And you're using this against me? How low can you go?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was so clear in the book about this distinction. I thought you read the book Spacemonkey. He explained that the problem with the present definition is that antecedent events cause us to act a certain way, which is incorrect. Nothing causes us to do anything, not heredity, environment, or anything else, because this implies that even if we don't want to do something, we were being forced against our will. We are just given conditions that compel us to move in a certain direction. If we use the standard definition, we could then use the excuse that we were caused us to kill someone, which is untrue. That has been the dilemma and no one has been able to solve it. People could excuse their behavior by saying, "My will is not free, I could not have done otherwise", and be released of all responsibility If you don't even grasp this, you won't understanding anything else. If you for once say you understand what I'm saying, I will continue. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my breath.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, causation does not imply that we are caused to do things against our will. If people think that, then they are wrong and this can be pointed out. It is not a problem with the definition or thesis of determinism. And none of this addresses what you were asked to address. You were supposed to be explaining to me how his version of determinism (i.e. his satisfaction principle) allegedly rules out contra-causal free will. Where is your answer to this?

I already gave it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, there isn't. There's nothing even remotely misleading about the thesis or definition of determinism.

There is a subtle misunderstanding in the standard definition that is causing this unnatural split between these two worldviews. That's why they have never been able to be brought together harmoniously. The slight shift in how we view determinism reconciles these two opposing ideologies, which is for our benefit, not our detriment, which you seem to think.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. They are supported by observation and sound reasoning. He made a discovery on death only through observation and reasoning. He didn't have to die first.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He didn't make any discovery on death. At best the halfwit made a trivial observation about our use of personal pronouns. And why are you again changing topics? You said his two-sided equation was supported by observations that he neglected to record. That means it is now no more than either a trivial tautology or an empirical claim yet to be supported by any kind of evidence. His alleged observations, which neither you nor anyone else know anything about, cannot serve as supporting evidence, because no-one at all has any access to them.

Who are you calling a halfwit? Are you nuts? Do you actually think I'm going to continue talking to you? I'm done.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who are you calling a halfwit?

That would be daddy Lessans. you really do have a problem with reading comprehension.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I get it very well. This particular proposition of free will is not ruled out by Lessans description of determinism. It is compatible with it, as a matter of fact.

The most that can be said is that you think people always choose that which offers greater satisfaction. You cannot say they must do so or are compelled to do so without empirical evidence.

Maybe you will be shown to be correct in the future, but you do not have the evidence right now.

I promise you that you will look back and kick yourselves for being so obstinate, but it's okay. You're really not being blamed. The unfortunate part of all this "who is right and who is a fraud (of which I have been designated) is that the life we all want because of your obstinance, whether it's ego or anything else, is going to be delayed, but it will never be gone forever. Truth will live on, whether it's in our lifetime or not. It's really very sad, but it could be no other way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I promise you that you will look back and kick yourselves for being so obstinate.

We will all look back and kick ourselves for wasteing so much time on this nonsense, but I must admit it is one of my 'guilty pleasures' to watch what Peacegirl does next.