A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if your choices and actions are considered free, as is defined by the standard definition, then your choices and actions cannot be caused

I didn't say choices and actions are caused. Read more carefully.

1. Our desires, opinions, beliefs and motives are caused
2. Our choices in how and whether to act on them are free

You are arguing with the strawman you have constructed, not with what I am actually communicating to you

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are doing exactly what Spacemonkey does. You are coming from the afferent position (which you don't even realize) that focuses on photons traveling, rather than the eyes seeing.

You're lying again. You have moving photons in your account. Therefore asking about the motion and behavior of those photons in your account is not to adopt the afferent position.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already did LadyShea. For you to ask me where the contradiction is when I have been over this with a fine tooth comb, and explained it as carefully as possible, indicates that the problem is not with me.

That you think you've shown a contradiction in compatibilism when all you've ever done is assert that it is there and tell us to find it for ourselves shows that the problem is very much with you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot separate your desires, opinions, beliefs and motives and say they are caused in one breath, and then say you have free will in the next breath.

Yes, we can. We can say exactly that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because nothing is coercing you to choose one way or another does not mean your will is free.

It means we have the compatibilist kind of freedom that I explained to you before.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you examine this carefully you will see that the compatibilist definition has been a way to resolve this irreconcilable issue since to make someone morally blameworthy, the people doing the blaming must believe that this person had the "freedom" to choose otherwise. But how could one choose otherwise if his desires, opinions, beliefs and motives are pushing or causing him to act a certain way? Can't you see the contradiction? Don't you see that if someone has the freedom to choose a different alternative than the one that was chosen, then his actions would not be determined.

Compatibilist freedom is not the freedom to have been able to choose otherwise in exactly the same causal conditions. It is rather the freedom to have been able to choose differently under slightly different antecedent conditions, and to have been able to act in accordance with one's decision given whatever choice one is actually caused to make.

This is a form of freedom which we undeniably have, and which is also sufficient for moral responsibility, blame, and punishment. And there is no contradiction involved at all, regardless of your faith-claims and assertions to the contrary.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1096450]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are various concepts of determinism too, though. There are definitions of both terms that are not contradictory.

For example what I've said several times is not contradictory at all: Our desires, opinions, beliefs and motives are caused,and our choices in how and whether to act on them are free. Where is the logical contradiction in this statement?

You cannot separate your desires, opinions, beliefs and motives and say they are caused in one breath, and then say you have free will in the next breath.

Sure I can. Desires, opinions, beliefs and motives are not in one's conscious control (the will), the choices in whether and how to act are within one's conscious control, therefore free.

For example I cannot control feeling angry, I don't have free will to choose emotions. I can control whether I punch someone in the face based on that anger. My actions are freely chosen.

Just because nothing is coercing you to choose one way or another does not mean your will is free.

Maybe not according to your concept of free will, but according to other versions of free will, it means the will is free.

If you examine this carefully you will see that the compatibilist definition has been a way to resolve this irreconcilable issue since to make someone morally blameworthy, the people doing the blaming must believe that this person had the "freedom" to choose otherwise.

If people can freely choose how to act, then they could be considered moral agents and held responsible for those actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But how could one choose otherwise if his desires, opinions, beliefs and motives are pushing or causing him to act a certain way?

One can choose not to act, or choose from amongst multiple actions in response to those things.

Bob is angry at the outcome of the election. He cannot choose to not feel angry. He can choose whether and how to act on that anger, however. Maybe he writes a letter to the editor, maybe he complains on Facebook, maybe he builds a bomb, maybe he gets drunk. His actions are freely chosen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can't you see the contradiction? Don't you see that if someone has the freedom to choose a different alternative than the one that was chosen, then his actions would not be determined.

I never said actions are determined, did I?

BTW, I am not a compatibilist either...I have no emotional ties to this discussion. I am trying to show you that your binary thinking is not proof of anything because others understand and use terms differently than you do.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you aren't showing me any flaws in my reasoning. All you're doing is asserting that they are there.

I carefully explained the difference the compatibilist kind of freedom and the libertarian/contra-causal kind of freedom in the very post you just replied to. I said:

The above definition of compatibilist free will differs from libertarian or contra-causal free will in that it allows for a person's choices and actions to be fully determined by previous causes. Being caused does not involve any compulsion or coercion, and the ability to act in accordance with one's choice allows for that choice to have been causally determined.

And you still haven't told me what "outright lies" you were speaking of.

Yes, I have. I defined it for you and carefully explained how it differs from libertarian/contra-causal freedom. The definition does render the will free. It does not render it unfree, nor is it meant to. It renders free will compatible with determinism.

Then you are wrong. The definition I gave you is not the same as that for libertarian/contra-causal free will, and I explained to you the difference. It is not at all contradictory, and you have not even tried to identify any contradiction in the definition I gave you.

There isn't one. If you think otherwise then stop weaseling and tell me what you think it is.

Again, if you think there is a flaw then point it out.

Determinism doesn't involve coercion at all. And it does not mean not having a free choice either. You are simply presupposing incompatibilism once again without identifying any flaw in compatibilism.

I can and do tell you exactly that. And apparently all you can do in response is stamp your feet and shake your head. If you think you have a rational response then please provide it.

You said you had a plausible model. That is not true. You don't have any kind of model at all.

No, the distance is not nil if Lessans is right. The actual distance does not change under Lessans account. So the light still cannot be impinging on a retina on Earth if light has not arrived at the Earth. If the light is ever there without having traveled there, then it either came into existence at the retina or teleported there.

No, I am not going back to the afferent account. I am quite specifically asking you about the light at the film/retina on YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT. And you are again WEASELING instead of actually answering. Once again: You say that light being at the retina on Earth without having traveled to Earth is exactly what is happening. So then did this light come into existence at the retina without ever having previously existed? If not, i.e. if this light did also previously exist, then where was it at the immediately preceding moment?

You may be trying your best to maintain your faith-based position, but you are not doing your best to actually answer my questions. You are not trying to do that at all.

More weaseling. Still no answers. Stating there must be a "180 degree turnaround" doesn't help me or answer what I asked in any way. Again: You are saying that there is light at the retina which never traveled to get there. So you have to explain its presence there. Was it always there? Did it come into existence there? Did it teleport there? Where was this light at the immediately preceding moment? You won't answer this question because all you can do is weasel.

Really? What is it? Why do you keep claiming there to be a contradiction without ever being able to identify it? Is this another faith-claim from you?

What are you talking about??? I did take you up on your offer!!! Are you reneging?

Bump.

[koan]

What do dogs and lightning have to do with this?
That's Lessans style science. He uses these things as "proof"

Lessans claims his book is complete and contains everything we need to know to see his brilliance and agree with his conclusions. If you need to come up with explanations that aren't contained in the book then he failed. His book was God's will he didn't have a choice but to write the book. If his book failed, his God failed. Perhaps if you see it that way you can let go. It's not your dad's failure, it's God that messed up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did. You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

But you're missing why a mirror image can be at the retina in the efferent account, even though light hasn't reached Earth, so this analysis is not accurate, although it is logical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you're missing. When the eyes look in the opposite direction, it follows that light is not bringing the image into the brain. Light is a necessary condition for the eyes to see. When the eyes look at the real object (not the image), it follows that what is at the retina is a mirror image which does not travel, even though light is constantly replacing old photons with new photons.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the "same light" is located at the retina (required to be "impinging" on it), it cannot also be located someplace other than the retina, especially not on the Sun 93 million miles away or the stars light years away.

Vision being opposite doesn't change the laws of physics.

Of course it doesn't LadyShea. I never said it did. But it does change how we see the world. Just because the eyes work differently than once believed does not mean that light works any differently, but it does change an important fact; namely, our relationship to the external world.

If we see an object no matter how far away it is, it is due to the fact that the image is capable of being resolved. The only difference is that in the efferent account, the object must be present, which seems to have been forgotten. That is what allows this phenomenon to occur even though light hasn't traveled to Earth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The eyes working differently cannot make light impinge on the retina if there is no light located at the retina. Your exact words were "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth."

Light CAN IMPINGE ON THE RETINA, no one is debating this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light that is not physically located on Earth and on the retina is not light that is impinging on the retina.

Not true if you think of "mirror image" and what the eye is capturing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if the eyes work differently than what originally believed, the interpretation of what is actually going on changes dramatically.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Gibber jabber blargle snarph. You are weaseling through word salad

No I'm not talking word salad. If the eyes work differently than what was once thought, it becomes a game changer and our understanding of what is going on has to be adjusted accordingly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, it is true that light lands on the retina

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Location of light = on the retina, on Earth

Yes, from an afferent position, but if the eyes are efferent light does not have to reach earth for the eyes to utilize the light. The farther away a person moves from the object, the less photons are going to be at the retina until the object is so far away that no photons are at the retina and the object can no longer be seen. Our entire visual landscape works in the same way whether the object is far away or very close. This has nothing to do with the speed of light which travels at 186,000 miles a second. It only means that the eye is capable of seeing objects in real time due to light being a necessary condition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As we were discussing Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon, so the light hasn't yet arrived on Earth, how does the light come to be located on the retina if there is no light on Earth?

You have to try really hard (because this is not an easy concept) to understand the difference between the efferent view and the afferent. This does not change physics; but it does allow this mirror image to show up, or be captured, on the retina or film instantly, even though photons are constantly being replaced by the Sun's light. The mirror image that is on the retina is everything that is in our field of view, not just one object. If you look at the retina you will see an upside down version of everything that is seen, just like you get in any mirror image. There is no travel time whatsoever.

Reflections Photos, Reflections Pictures, Reflections Wallpaper — National Geographic

You're not getting that if the eyes are efferent they are capturing the external world as it exists instantly on the retina. There is no time involved whatsoever. Distance is not the issue here. It is size and intensity of light that matters. This is what you're not getting because you keep thinking in terms of light traveling from the object to the eye. But this is the afferent account, not the efferent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If there are no light photons in the same physical location of the retina, those same light photons cannot impinge on the retina.

Remember the thought experiment with the marble across the room? It still applies.

No, it doesn't apply LadyShea. We're talking the eyes, not light or marbles.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". This is the same as saying "the marble can be on the table even if that same marble has not reached the table from the chair across the room."

You made a claim about light, and I am asking you to defend that claim.

This is not analogous. As I just said, we're talking about the eyes, not about the physical properties of light or marbles.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So again, you can somehow account for the laws of physics and known properties of light in your model, or your model is disproved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This claim is so far from being disproved, it's a real joke. You will realize in time that there is no contradiction with physics and the fact that light travels.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I won't realize any such thing because there is a huge contradiction with your claims that you can't explain.

I know this is a difficult concept, but I'll keep trying as long as you keep trying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the fact that the object must be in view, allows for light to impinge on the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Brains looking out through the eyes at things in view does not negate physical distance. Impinging requires physical proximity. Physically get the photons to the retina or you are gibbering nonsense.

But there is physical proximity if the object is within visual range. It may be a distant object, but that is not as important as whether that object is large enough and bright enough. If it meets those requirements, it can be seen regardless of how far away it is. By the same token, if something is tiny, it won't be seen even if it's right in front of you because the requirements for sight have not been met.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does LadyShea, not because this observation changes physics, but because the eyes can get a mirror image on the retina due to the direction the eyes are viewing reality. You keep arguing with me as if this changes light's physical properties, which it does not, and Lessans never disputed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Impinging requires physical proximity. Physically get the photons to the retina or you are gibbering nonsense.

You are doing exactly what Spacemonkey does. You are coming from the afferent position (which you don't even realize) that focuses on photons traveling, rather than the eyes seeing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am only coming from the position of the laws of physics as they apply to light and asking you to defend your claims about light.

You are weaseling. Respond to my points. I bolded them above for your convenience.

I am not disputing anything about light. I am disputing how the eyes work, and until you get the difference, you will continue to ask the same questions because you are still basing your understanding on the afferent account, not the efferent.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's your style Spacemonkey. I've said this before. You don't have to come off like an interrogator for me to hear what you have to say and to try to respond to your questions. I feel defensive when you come off like this, and it does not help the discussion. I also told you I am trying to answer all questions, but it makes it more difficult than it already is when you call this a non-discovery and tell me I'm batshit insane. If you can't be nice, just soften your edges a little bit, and we'll get along.

If you want me to soften my style, then stop lying to me, avoiding my questions, and accusing me of lies and contradictions without being able to support those charges. Those things don't really help the conversation either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have repeat myself that this was an astute observation that cannot be tested directly. This is how conscience works or we wouldn't have one. Yes, there are things that can get in the way of conscience working at full throttle, but that also means we can change the environment in such a way that we can get conscience to work at full throttle.

You can repeat yourself about his claims being astute observations all you like. It doesn't help you one bit. That isn't supporting his claims, but is rather only your excuse for not being able to do so. Again, why do you keep assuming that conscience has some kind of natural "full throttle" state that it is prevented from reaching due to present conditions and limitations? This is the fundamental assumption I keep asking you to support. Would you believe me if I said we had a natural ability to jump to the moon if only our present conditions and practices of [insert social practice here] were to be removed, allowing our jumping ability to run at full throttle?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop telling me I'm not supporting these claims. I'm explaining what conditions in the environment have to be met (which you don't know yet because you never got that far) for a person not to have any justification to hurt another.

Why should I stop telling you that you are not supporting his claims? YOU AREN'T. You are not providing any support for them at all. I'm not asking you to tell me what conditions you think have to be met to remove all justifications. I'm asking you why you think a justification would always be necessary under those changed conditions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry but you can't tell someone in hindsight that has offered a valuable discovery, how he should have done it, or how he should have anticipated certain things, or what he should have written. I know he did the best he could and it took him years to put this discovery into words that people would be able to digest and comprehend. And what do you do? Complain. You just can't do that in all fairness.

I most certainly can. It is perfectly fair and reasonable for me to ask why Lessans never anticipated that the complete absence of any support for his fundamental premises regarding conscience would lead to so many people failing to be convinced of or impressed by his argument. If he was as perceptive and insightful as you claim, then he should have anticipated such an obvious problem. Anyone who has voraciously read and studied history and human behavior should have known that rational people will have a problem with claims that lack any supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is it primitive? Explain yourself.

'Primitive' is a semi-technical notion here, which just means that 'looking' as you use it remains an unexplained an unreduced aspect of your account. There is no explanation of what this 'looking' is or how it is done. However, this was in parentheses for a reason. The important point here is that 'looking' cannot be done by the brain through the eyes. It is rather what the brain and eyes do together as a single system. And everyone agrees that the brain-eye system looks outwards at objects. The difference lies in how this is explained. For us it is explained in terms of the inwards transmission of light and information. For you and efferent vision it is not explained at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It isn't looking that is the key component here. It is this focusing, and this focusing takes place as babies when the other senses stimulate the brain to desire to look and see what it is feeling and experiencing.

You're hopeless. You've tried to say that 'looking' is not the important component here, and gone on to speak of the brain looking and seeing things again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't invalidate anything Spacemonkey. It might not be a perfect analogy, but the brain is looking through the eyes as one unit. A person looking through a window is not one unit. It's a close enough analogy. To repeat: Just because it's not perfect does not invalidate the claim in any way, shape, or form.

I'm afraid the analogy is absolutely worthless. Not only does it fail in the way I explained, but the only sense in which it holds is that in which it is trivially true and agreed with by everyone. Obviously people look out at things with their eyes. But there is no sense in which people (or their brains) look out at things through there eyes as a window that distinguishes efferent from afferent vision. And if the analogy is not identifying something the brain does in efferent vision that it does not do in afferent vision, then the analogy fails to make any useful or relevant point.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're missing why a mirror image can be at the retina in the efferent account, even though light hasn't reached Earth, so this analysis is not accurate, although it is logical.

Is this mirror image at the retina composed of light? Yes, or No?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

What do dogs and lightning have to do with this?
That's Lessans style science. He uses these things as "proof"

Lessans claims his book is complete and contains everything we need to know to see his brilliance and agree with his conclusions. If you need to come up with explanations that aren't contained in the book then he failed. His book was God's will he didn't have a choice but to write the book. If his book failed, his God failed. Perhaps if you see it that way you can let go. It's not your dad's failure, it's God that messed up.

Now what you just said is word salad. My father didn't fail. And what do you mean by his God? This is a psychological law of man's nature. It is not his personal God. This book contains a blueprint and, as such, it is complete. Blueprints are general outlines. Do you even know what his discovery is about? You seem to think you know a lot more than you actually do. You're too busy nitpicking.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing anything about light.

Yes, you are. You are claiming light can be somewhere without having traveled there. And that contradicts the known properties of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am disputing how the eyes work...

You have absolutely no idea how the eyes are meant to work on your account.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this mirror image at the retina composed of light? Yes, or No?

Yes, and please don't start telling me that the photons haven't reached the eye, which is right back to the afferent account (even though you don't see it). I don't want to get into this again after that long post from LadyShea.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, and please don't start telling me that the photons haven't reached the eye, which is right back to the afferent account (even though you don't see it). I don't want to get into this again after that long post from LadyShea.

So then why are you contradicting yourself? How can photons be at the retina on Earth if no photons have yet reached the Earth? If photons are at the retina on Earth in the form of a mirror image, then obviously they have reached the Earth somehow. So how did they get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still am dumbfounded why you wouldn't take my offer to get the book for free. It astounds me. One day you will want the book.

Peacegirl, please clarify what you were talking about here. Because I am pretty sure I did take you up on your offer.

[LadyShea]

What have I missed? You've never explained how or why this works, you've only asserted that it is so.

You are being asked to support that statement. So, how does light impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth?

That statement puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

You've not explained how light can be impinging on the retina if there is no light located at the retina.

All you said was we can see things that can be seen. That's not the topic under discussion

You are now back to light existing in two locations simultaneously. If the mirror image consists of light, and the mirror image is at the retina, then at noon, when the Sun is turned on, light is located at the retina as well as on the Sun 93 million miles away.

That's not physically possible, nor have you offered any physical mechanism to make it physically possible. Light physically exists, it obeys physical laws and has measurable, observable, immutable properties. Bi-location is not one of those properties.

How did the light at the retina come to be located at the retina if there is no light on Earth?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, it is true that light lands on the retina

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Location of light = on the retina, on Earth

Originally Posted by peqcegirl

Yes, from an afferent position, but if the eyes are efferent light does not have to reach earth for the eyes to utilize the light.

You've moved the goal posts from light "impinging on the retina" to the eyes merely "utilizing" light. If light is located on the retina and the retina is located on Earth, then the light is located on Earth.

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". Defend that statement, or retract it.

Is the mirror image made of light? Is the retina located on Earth? How does the light come to be located on the retina (in the form of a mirror image) if there is no light on Earth since the light is located on the Sun in Lessans scenario?

This is not analogous. As I just said, we're talking about the eyes, not about the physical properties of light or marbles.

As I said you made a claim about light, and I am asking you to defend that claim. Your claim was, yet again weasel:light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth

Impinge means direct physical contact, requiring that the light and retina be in the same physical location, as the marble and table must be in the same physical location for the marble to be on the table.

If the light is on the Sun, and therefore has not yet reached the retina on Earth, the light can't occupy the same physical location as the retina, just as the marble cannot occupy the same location as the table if the marble is still across the room on a chair.

The analogy is apt.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing anything about light.

Yes, you are when you said:light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth

You can retract that statement, or defend it. Anything you say in response to this post that is irrelevant to defending or retracting this statement as quoted will be ignored as it was in this response.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have repeat myself that this was an astute observation that cannot be tested directly. This is how conscience works or we wouldn't have one.

You have given us no reason believe any of this other than "Lessans said so".

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Dogs will chase a laser light, too.

True, but they learned to do that from watching the cat.

Originally Posted by Dragar

(Did you know we can see lignting strikes before we see them too?)

I think you better read that again, Dragar. It's not only wrong, it's peacegirl wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had any doubt that this was as true discovery, I would never be this confident.

Your lack of doubt is at the very core of your problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can be ignorant of one thing and enlightened by another.

Or you can be like peacegirl and be ignorant of everything.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are arguing with the strawman you have constructed, not with what I am actually communicating fruitlessly attempting to communicate to you

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, from an afferent position, but if the eyes are efferent light does not have to reach earth for the eyes to utilize the light. The farther away a person moves from the object, the less photons are going to be at the retina until the object is so far away that no photons are at the retina and the object can no longer be seen.

If the photons don't have to travel to reach the retina, why would the distance between the retina and the object matter?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to try really hard (because this is not an easy concept) to understand the difference between the efferent view and the afferent.

Yes, Lady Shea, you have to try much harder. The ability to understand meaningless nonsense can only be acquired after a great deal of diligent effort. Listen to peacegirl. She knows whereof she speaks. She has mastered the skill of understanding nonsense.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then why are you contradicting yourself? How can photons be at the retina on Earth if no photons have yet reached the Earth? If photons are at the retina on Earth in the form of a mirror image, then obviously they have reached the Earth somehow. So how did they get there?

She asked you not to tell her that. She even said please. You are a very rude boy, Spacemonkey!

[Vivisectus]

But you're missing why a mirror image can be at the retina in the efferent account, even though light hasn't reached Earth, so this analysis is not accurate, although it is logical.

Do explain how this is possible?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by koan

What do dogs and lightning have to do with this?
That's Lessans style science. He uses these things as "proof"

Lessans claims his book is complete and contains everything we need to know to see his brilliance and agree with his conclusions. If you need to come up with explanations that aren't contained in the book then he failed. His book was God's will he didn't have a choice but to write the book. If his book failed, his God failed. Perhaps if you see it that way you can let go. It's not your dad's failure, it's God that messed up.

He was a genius who could observe human nature without fail! He saw patterns in human behaviour that no-one else could fathom, and divined the true working of the soul. He unlocked the secrets of the universal human conscience, and prophesied Gods Plan for all of us.

It is just that he had this enormous blind spot where writing a convincing account is concerned. And that he did not know what "proof" means. Or "Science". And that despite being blessed with penetrating insight into what makes people tick he seems to have been completely unable to predict that people would need some reason to believe he was correct. And that his extensive reading seems to somehow not have included, say, biology 101. Or high-school grade science. A basic course in creative writing would have saved the world some bleeding eyeballs too.

But apart from his general ignorance, complete inability to express a clear point, and an obsession with calling his own ideas The Most Important Discovery Ever, he was a humble genius.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, we can. We can say exactly that.

If you think people should be held morally responsible and therefore blamed and punished for their wrongdoing, even if those actions were caused by previous desires, opinions, beliefs and motives, go right ahead and blame. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You aren't asking any questions; you are telling me Lessans is wrong on all counts. If that's what you believe, then we can part ways. All this is is an interrogation on your part because you will not allow yourself to even hear the extension of these principles. It's amazing that we never got past the first chapter and just a small portion of chapter two. I'm not going to sit in the interrogating room anymore and take your verbal accusations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because nothing is coercing you to choose one way or another does not mean your will is free.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It means we have the compatibilist kind of freedom that I explained to you before.

A compatibilist kind of freedom says zilch.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you examine this carefully you will see that the compatibilist definition has been a way to resolve this irreconcilable issue since to make someone morally blameworthy, the people doing the blaming must believe that this person had the "freedom" to choose otherwise. But how could one choose otherwise if his desires, opinions, beliefs and motives are pushing or causing him to act a certain way? Can't you see the contradiction? Don't you see that if someone has the freedom to choose a different alternative than the one that was chosen, then his actions would not be determined.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Compatibilist freedom is not the freedom to have been able to choose otherwise in exactly the same causal conditions. It is rather the freedom to have been able to choose differently under slightly different antecedent conditions, and to have been able to act in accordance with one's decision given whatever choice one is actually caused to make.

But how could they choose differently under slightly different antecedent conditions, if those conditions met with the same consequences that they didn't want and therefore were compelled or caused not to choose? I have no idea what freedom you're talking about except to make it sound like it's a special kind that is unique to compatibilism, which it is not. It's the same old definition of free will and it fails the test.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is a form of freedom which we undeniably have, and which is also sufficient for moral responsibility, blame, and punishment. And there is no contradiction involved at all, regardless of your faith-claims and assertions to the contrary.

Then, like I said, go ahead and keep believing in this kind of free will environment, and we will continue to get the same results with the possiblity of a nuclear war. I am not going to sit here and argue with you as you continue to tell me that these are faith claims. I'm sick of it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think people should be held morally responsible and therefore blamed and punished for their wrongdoing, even if those actions were caused by previous desires, opinions, beliefs and motives, go right ahead and blame.

Okay, I will. If you can't give me any reason to reject compatibilism then I won't reject it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You aren't asking any questions; you are telling me Lessans is wrong on all counts.

That's another lie. I have been asking you plenty of questions on this topic. They're just not ones you're capable of answering.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A compatibilist kind of freedom says zilch.

It says exactly what I said it says. You asked me to explain it to you. Apparently you can't even understand it, never mind refute it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But how could they choose differently under slightly different antecedent conditions, if those conditions met with the same consequences that they didn't want and therefore were compelled or caused not to choose? I have no idea what freedom you're talking about except to make it sound like it's a special kind that is unique to compatibilism, which it is not. It's the same old definition of free will and it fails the test.

It is not the same definition. I have repeatedly explained the difference, and you just keep on ignoring it. They could have chosen differently if the antecedent conditions had been such that they wanted to choose differently, i.e. if they had had different values or desires.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then, like I said, go ahead and keep believing in this kind of free will environment, and we will continue to get the same results with the possiblity of a nuclear war. I am not going to sit here and argue with you as you continue to tell me that these are faith claims. I'm sick of it.

Stop making faith claims about alleged contradictions you cannot identify, and I'll stop saying you are making faith claims. If you stop claiming that compatibilism is false, then I'll stop asking you to prove it. But if you can't show compatibilism to be false, then you have failed to show that Lessans proved we have no free will of any kind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You have given us no reason believe any of this other than "Lessans said so".

That is not true Angakuk. I can't move forward if you can't take at face value that conscience functions in a predictable way. It's true that we can't predict the psychological underpinnings of each human being if they have already been hurt in life. Their underlying anger or rage can take many forms, but I'm talking about a complete change in the environment where this hurt to others will no longer occur. Therefore, those who may have been genetically predisposed to manifesting their anger in certain ways, will not show up because there will be no hurt done to them where it will ever get to that point.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Dogs will chase a laser light, too.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are arguing with the strawman you have constructed, not with what I am actually communicating fruitlessly attempting to communicate to you

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, from an afferent position, but if the eyes are efferent light does not have to reach earth for the eyes to utilize the light. The farther away a person moves from the object, the less photons are going to be at the retina until the object is so far away that no photons are at the retina and the object can no longer be seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the photons don't have to travel to reach the retina, why would the distance between the retina and the object matter?

I never said photons don't travel. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to try really hard (because this is not an easy concept) to understand the difference between the efferent view and the afferent.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this mirror image at the retina composed of light? Yes, or No?

Yes.

Yes, and please don't start telling me that the photons haven't reached the eye, which is right back to the afferent account (even though you don't see it). I don't want to get into this again after that long post from LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So then why are you contradicting yourself? How can photons be at the retina on Earth if no photons have yet reached the Earth? If photons are at the retina on Earth in the form of a mirror image, then obviously they have reached the Earth somehow. So how did they get there?

Think efferent, that's all I can say. If the eye can see the object in real time (not the image from light), then the light has to be at the eye. I understand people don't get it and they think it's not physically possible because light hasn't traveled to earth where the retina is located, but it doesn't have to in the efferent account.

[Vivisectus]

The question is how does one define free will.

If we define it as the ability to choose actions according to our desires, which is the general definition, then yes we do have it.

You can then say "But you cannot choose your desires"!

But is that the point? Does "free will" mean "complete self-determination"? It seems to me that the discussion goes off-topic a bit there. It seems more like "free will" means an ability to decide everything about yourself. And it would not stop there: you would also require full control over everything you experience, or else the outside world would still be able to determine some of what happens to you.

That does not seem like "free will" to me. The question seems more "Are we able to determine who we are".

The question is then - how do we determine what we want to be?

And how do we determine what we want to want to be?
And want to want to want to be?

We seem to have hit an infinite regression.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think efferent, that's all I can say. If the eye can see the object in real time (not the image from light), then the light has to be at the eye. I understand people don't get it and they think it's not physically possible because light hasn't traveled to earth where the retina is located, but it doesn't have to in the efferent account.

If you want us to "think efferent" then you have to stop contradicting yourself and start making sense. How can this light be at the retina without traveling there? How does it get there in efferent vision? Where was this same light one moment beforehand?

[Vivisectus]

Think efferent, that's all I can say. If the eye can see the object in real time (not the image from light), then the light has to be at the eye.

The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.

Is there any information in that sentence about the tautology club? Why no, there is not. Nor is there any in your sentence. You just say "If efferent vision is true, then it is true."

You might as well say nothing at all.