A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So what makes you so interested in repeating yourself over and over to absolutely no effect? You realize that you could easily be bested by a 3 year old?

Some of us are actually directing our posts to those other than peacegirl. Even my own that are addressed to Peacegirl, it is a rhetorical post intended for the benefit of others. Really I'm only here for the occasional 'thankyou'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Picky, picky. Give her a break. As she has said often enough, she is doing the best she can, with the limited resources at her disposal.

Peacegirl left a 'thankyou' for this post? Shall we add 'Sarcasm' to the list of words that Peacegirl does not understand?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl left a 'thankyou' for this post? Shall we add 'Sarcasm' to the list of words that Peacegirl does not understand?

I'm sure she knows the meaning of the word "sarcasm". However in her current mental state I doubt she can detect actual sarcasm. She shouldn't be the target of derision. She needs help.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong LadyShea. At one time the shape of the earth was a philosophical question until it became known that it had a spherical shape, which then became factual.

The shape of the Earth was never a philosophical question, it was always a mathematical issue that could ultimately be determined through measurements and geometry and empirical observation...because the Earth is material.

Originally Posted by link

Setting up a mathematical model of the Earth, taking into account all its properties, is extremely complicated: the Earth has a non-homogeneous interior, there are internal flows of the molten material, there is a relatively thin crust, etc. A mathematical model is only feasible if the question at hand is simplified. Studying a mass of an ideal fluid (ie. with zero viscosity), floating in the vacuum of empty space, and subject to a rotation, yields calculable results that should at least give a reasonable indication on what would happen in reality.

Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction is not material. It cannot be measured, nor directly observed. It is a psychological concept and cannot be proven factual. It can be inferred from behavior at the very most, but there is no way to eliminate the possibility of exceptions...there is not just a single human mind so there is no one answer..

To say it can't be wrong or right is ridiculous LadyShea, just because this has been philosophical debate for centuries.

I am not using the past history of the debate as my reason. I am saying it is not possible to prove that free will does or does not exist, just as it can't be proven that God does or does not exist.

Language is the only way to communicate the concepts. Lessans used language in his proof because there is no other way to discuss these concepts.

Neither Free will nor determinism are material things that can be measured and directly observed, they are words to represent immaterial concepts. Words have definitions, and definitions are not set in stone.

So if words mean nothing then Lessans words mean nothing as well. We are left with agreeing with or disagreeing with any given definition or explanation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Instead of it being an either/or -contra causal free will or hard determinism- those two concepts are on opposite ends of a spectrum. There are lots of valid concepts in between. If you get a lot of people reading the book, you are going to have readers that fall all over that spectrum. Is your response to them also going to be to scream that they are wrong, because of your rigid binary thinking on this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are putting this discovery in a philosphical category. It is not philosophy although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought. It is a proven fact that man's will is not free, and he absolutely and positively proved it.

No, he didn't. He offered his opinion on the subject. You happen to agree with him is all.

[LadyShea]

You claimed to be the "small guy" being "domineered". That is persecution talk.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You could try to understand my position and let me move forward instead of confront me every step of the way, which is not helping.

Not helping who to do what? Not helping you be a slimy little weasel without being called on it? I have no desire to help you do that. You talk bullshit, you will be challenged on it. Take it or leave it, it's up to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you say does have momentum because you are one of the main participants.

So are you. As I said, if you weren't on board there would be no momentum.

If you helped me by asking me questions about his first discovery (which has the absolute power to prevent war and crime), then the conversation might take a different course.

I've asked questions, and you've refused to answer them, or answered them with mere assertions, or pleas to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, or pleas to assume Lessans was correct temporarily, or appeals to non-existent evidence that you hope will be forthcoming sometime in the future, and myriad other weaseling bullshit.

LOL did you not see the winking smilie or did you not know it was put there purposefully to send you into a shit fit like this? You're funny

Exactly my point. You can't force others to have the discussion you want to have, no matter how much you stamp your feet, or beg, or weasel.

Yes and they are unlikely to comply with that request.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people thought for one second that this knowledge could actually prevent war, crime, and poverty, they wouldn't hesitate to listen, but they think it's a big joke which has to do with how I'm being treated in here. It can't help but rub off on those who are lurking.

It's a big joke because neither Lessans nor you have offered any rational, well supported reason, whatsoever, to believe Lessans ideas could actually prevent war, crime, and poverty.

It's too late for this forum, but next time try to make compelling arguments, answer questions adequately, and refrain from histrionics and blatant weaseling.

That may or may not help people get over the inadequacies in the book itself, but it might garner you more preferable treatment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The shape of the Earth was never a philosophical question, it was always a mathematical issue that could ultimately be determined through measurements and geometry and empirical observation...because the Earth is material.

But what you are saying is that a discovery cannot be made regarding man's will because it's not something that can be measured or directly observed. It is true that we cannot observe someone moving in the direction of "greater satisfaction", but it can be proven in other ways. In the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it doesn't work, then it would be wrong, but it isn't wrong and it hasn't been proven to be wrong, and even though it's not here yet does not make it a faith claim.

Originally Posted by link

Setting up a mathematical model of the Earth, taking into account all its properties, is extremely complicated: the Earth has a non-homogeneous interior, there are internal flows of the molten material, there is a relatively thin crust, etc. A mathematical model is only feasible if the question at hand is simplified. Studying a mass of an ideal fluid (ie. with zero viscosity), floating in the vacuum of empty space, and subject to a rotation, yields calculable results that should at least give a reasonable indication on what would happen in reality.

A mathematical model may start out as a simplification, but when it's complete it is precise LadyShea. We can't build bridges with an approximation. By the same token, this blueprint of a new world (although it could have been volumes) serves its purpose. It is complete in the sense that it shows how peace on earth can come about. He also showed how a new economic system can be created that protects everyone in the world from ever going below a basic standard of living. With this blueprint, it will not be difficult to get this new world off the ground.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction is not material. It cannot be measured, nor directly observed. It is a psychological concept and cannot be proven factual. It can be inferred from behavior at the very most, but there is no way to eliminate the possibility of exceptions...there is not just a single human mind so there is no one answer..

I am upset that you refuse to even try to understand this law because you have made up your mind that it's just an opinion. I will need to end our discussion because as long as you think this is a mere opinion, it will prevent you from taking this work seriously. We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a better alternative is available LadyShea. Our nature will not allow it. Just because this knowledge is immaterial doesn't make it wishy washy, or just another opinion that has no right or wrong. Free will is wrong. That makes determinism right. He proves this in an undeniable manner. You may not have the capacity to understand it, or you may have too many competing theories in your head to be able to decipher truth from fiction. It isn't a problem just with you, but with the philosophical community in particular, the very field this discovery came from. Another irony.

To say it can't be wrong or right is ridiculous LadyShea, just because this has been philosophical debate for centuries.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not using the past history of the debate as my reason. I am saying it is not possible to prove that free will does or does not exist, just as it can't be proven that God does or does not exist.

It is possible LadyShea, and behind this knowledge lies the answer to war and crime, so for you to so blatantly handwave this knowledge away is foolhardy and I won't waste my time discussing this with you if you have already made up your mind that he is wrong. Think what you want but it will be your loss, not mine. I can move on and find plenty of people who will be interested in this book and will give Lessans a fair chance, something you are not doing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The question of free will vs. determinism isn't answered with hard data or empirically measurable facts- it's a question of various understandings and definitions.

Noooooo LadyShea. Definitions are words only, and if they don't reflect reality, they mean nothing whatsoever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Language is the only way to communicate the concepts. Lessans used language in his proof because there is no other way to discuss these concepts.

Of course language is the only way to communicate concepts, but where does this say we cannot reject definitions that are not useful because they are empty words that have no relationship to reality?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neither Free will nor determinism are material things that can be measured and directly observed, they are words to represent immaterial concepts. Words have definitions, and definitions are not set in stone.

You're right that definitions are not set in stone but like Spacemonkey said, definitions are useful or they are not. The proposition being put forth is most important and whether it is accurate or not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So if words mean nothing then Lessans words mean nothing as well. We are left with agreeing with or disagreeing with any given definition or explanation.

You are not thinking correctly LadyShea. Words mean nothing if they don't describe reality. Isn't that what we're searching for...solutions (not empty definitions) that work in the real world? If a definition is not describing reality for what it is, it won't be useful. Before telling me no discovery can be made in regard to free will and determinism, you better think again.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Instead of it being an either/or -contra causal free will or hard determinism- those two concepts are on opposite ends of a spectrum. There are lots of valid concepts in between. If you get a lot of people reading the book, you are going to have readers that fall all over that spectrum. Is your response to them also going to be to scream that they are wrong, because of your rigid binary thinking on this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are putting this discovery in a philosphical category. It is not philosophy although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought. It is a proven fact that man's will is not free, and he absolutely and positively proved it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, he didn't. He offered his opinion on the subject. You happen to agree with him is all.

I think we're done LadyShea. The only person left is Spacemonkey and we're close to ending that conversation too. It's your loss. It's so ironic that someone who is trying so hard to learn and become enlightened is actually cutting off her nose to spite her face.

[LadyShea]

You are so wrong here it makes me upset that you refuse to even try to understand this law of our nature because it isn't material. I will need to end our discussion if you can't get beyond this and keep ignoring that this is the direction everyone is compelled to move. We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a better alternative is available. Our nature will not allow it, and just because this is an immaterial observation doesn't make it wishy washy, or just another opinion among thousands.

It's a claim about human mental states and thought processes, it can never be empirically proven. The most you can ever do is support the claim that the movement toward greater satisfaction is highly common amongst humans, but even that would require compiling mountains of statistics and data from the relevant fields like psychology and neurology.

Not my problem that you dislike the facts of the matter.

[LadyShea]

Of course language is the only way to communicate concepts, but where does this say we cannot reject definitions that are not useful because they are empty words that have no relationship to reality?

They are related to the reality of how people understand and communicate about the concepts and terms in question. They are useful because there is no other way to convey the concepts except by using words.

Math doesn't need definitions. One of something is one of something in all languages and across all cultures. You can demonstrate the concept of 1+1 without using any language at all or using different words and symbols to represent the numbers.

You cannot explain the concepts of free will, determinism, or greater satisfaction without using common definitions. So while you are of course free to reject a definition, that doesn't mean anyone else will agree with your idiosyncratic usage of terms...and may in turn reject your definition.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it doesn't work, then it would be wrong, but it isn't wrong and it hasn't been proven to be wrong, and even though it's not here yet does not make it a faith claim.

LOL really? Well you have no idea if it will work yet, you only have hope and belief, so yes it is a faith claim until it is demonstrated to work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can move on and find plenty of people who will be interested in this book and will give Lessans a fair chance, something you are not doing.

Oh look, here comes another faith claim. If you can do so, then do it. What's stopping you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think we're done LadyShea.

You can't speak for me, so using "we" was inaccurate. If you're done, then you are. I'll believe it when I see it though, and not just because you say it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's a claim about human mental states and thought processes, it can never be empirically proven. The most you can ever do is support the claim that the movement toward greater satisfaction is highly common amongst humans, but even that would require compiling mountains of statistics and data from the relevant fields like psychology and neurology.

Not my problem that you dislike the facts of the matter.

Dislike what facts? You're not stating any facts. We're not talking about approximations or compiling mountains of statistics from relevant fields. You keep reverting back to "these fields" as if this is the only way a discovery of this magnitude could be made. He wasn't in any of these fields but he made a discovery nevertheless. It shouldn't have happened, but it did against all odds. And what he discovered is a universal law which means there are no exceptions.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable while other differences need a more careful consideration
does not change the direction of life which moves always towards
greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must
bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that a
juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that affect
choice.”

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not stating any facts. No LadyShea, this is not an approximation. This is a universal law. There are no exceptions.

Unsupported assertion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will have a dual with you on this count, and I will win this dual whether it's now or later on. You are not right; compatibilism is not right, and all I care about is what's right, not who wins.

I would rather have a rational discussion than a duel. I would rather you support your claim that compatibilism is wrong, rather than merely repeatedly asserting this to be the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you can't do something that is against your will. Even though your choice could be not what you want (i.e., the lesser of the evils that are presented to you), that is exactly what you're not understanding. I could care less about definitions. I WANT THE TRUTH SPACEMONKEY AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING ME TO MOVE FORWARD.

I've explained compatibilism to you. If you want to move forward, then the next step would be for you to explain WHY you think it is wrong. Am I preventing you from doing that? The notion of 'compulsion' I am appealing to is that of a strong psychological impulse to do something that - other than for the impulse - you do not want to do. (Like the compulsion you have to keep posting here.) And I am stipulating that my use of this term does not include causal determination as a compulsion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what is, or what is not, included in the compatibilist definition. The point is IT'S WRONG; IT'S NOT ACCURATE; IT DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO BE ACCURATE SPACEMONEY, and for you to keep defending it gives me no hope in talking to you because you are becoming irrational in defense of compatibilism so you can justify punishment and blame.

You should care what is or is not included in the compatibilist definition. Because you can't show it to be wrong without understanding what it says, and you can't understand what it says if you continue ignoring how it is defined. Which one of us is becoming irrational? Am I the one going on about 'winning duals' (sic)? Am I the one resorting to CAPSLOCK unsupported assertions of wrongness? Am I the one ignoring definitions and refusing to identify any flaw in the position I am criticizing?

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion (as defined above, i.e. without any 'compulsion' other than causal determination) or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

The definitions are different. Compatibilism says that only the first kind of freedom is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you have yet to show this to be wrong or contradictory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL really? Well you have no idea if it will work yet, you only have hope and belief, so yes it is a faith claim until it is demonstrated to work.

Oh look, here comes another faith claim. If you can do so, then do it. What's stopping you?

I haven't even begun because I have not gotten my books. When I do, I will send them out to many people in different fields, and I believe I will get a favorable response. You haven't even read the book, you only read parts and took so many things out of context like falling in love with someone's genitals. You have no idea what he was even talking about so you made a joke out of it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think we're done LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't speak for me, so using "we" was inaccurate. If you're done, then you are. I'll believe it when I see it though, and not just because you say it.

It takes two to tango, so I can use the word "we", for without "me", there is no "we".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

BUMP.

BUMP.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it is not assumed. It is directly observed. You can see it for yourself. Simply shine a flashlight off a mirror in a darkened room. You will see the light that is not absorbed bounce off the mirror and hit the wall. Put some red colored paint or cellophane on the mirror, and you will see that the mirror now absorbs the non-red light from your torch while the non-absorbed red light from the flashlight bounces off and hits the wall. And worse, you have absolutely no explanation for where the non-absorbed light goes if it doesn't bounce off and travel away.

You should know by now what you mean, but unfortunately you don't. Because the only pattern or information involved on our account is something you agree with. The only things you keep denying (other than the light-speed delay, whose alleged absence you cannot explain) are things that the afferent account does not claim.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. They are also the known measurable properties of light - which you and Lessans are disputing. What happens to these non-absorbed photons after they hit an object, if they don't bounce off and travel away from it? Don't just say that they "reveal the object". You need to explain where they are and where they are going immediately after hitting the object that allows them to do this.

The non-absorbed light can't affect the retina or a film without coming into contact with it. It can't come into contact with it without traveling there at the speed of light. If it gets there any faster then it is violating physics by either teleporting or traveling faster than light. If you think otherwise, then please go ahead and explain where these non-absorbed photons are immediately after hitting the object, and how they can interact with the film or retina to 'reveal the external world' without first getting to the film or retina, and taking time to do so.

The question that remains is this: How do the non-absorbed photons allow us to see the object on your account, given that they start at the object and can't affect the retina in any way without first getting from the object to the retina?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

I will not be done until I am done. I can keep posting on this topic-here and elsewhere- all I want. So no, you cannot say when or if I am done.

As for context, I asked you multiple times to supply the alleged context that would change the meaning of Lessans very clear words on the subject of falling in love with genitals. Care to revisit that disgusting passage?

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

THESE ARE HIS EXACT WORDS. He only mentions sexual organs as the object the boy is falling in love with, and the only reason this is so much better than the old free will days is because other people won't call his girl ugly. Talk about vomitous.

And you still have not explained how I have misconstrued these exact words.

And this has something to do with falling in love with sexual organs?

It is heinous, extremely so. I am giving you the opportunity to explain the context that makes that sentence NOT dehumanizing and objectifying. You danced around the issue, tried to redirect to other unrelated shit, and blamed me for being confused and not understanding...yet again.

You wonder why nobody takes you seriously? Really?

[LadyShea]

Bumping the weaseling

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no idea what he meant by that passage. If you did, you would have understood what he meant. It was not a harmful statement at all if you understood the context in which it was written. But you're the queen of reading everything out of context and thinking you are the guardian of truth. This is actually getting funny.

If you didn't miss anything, explain what he meant by this. Don't just parrot back the excerpt. Explain it in your own words.

I can't figure out how to use my Reader X Adobe. Does anyone know where the search button is? If it's nowhere to be found, I'll have to uninstall and download my original adobe. LadyShea, you're going to have to find the part yourself and post it. That's your homework.

We're back to how one's perspective can be so wrong. I know what he meant. You don't. Your perspective is completely wrong because you believe it was a chauvanistic statement. But it wasn't. Just like everything else you've misinterpreted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I would rather have a rational discussion than a duel. I would rather you support your claim that compatibilism is wrong, rather than merely repeatedly asserting this to be the case.

Spacemonkey, I did explain it to you until I was blue in the face and all you do and continue to do is come back and tell me that being able to choose without coercion means a person is blameworthy because he wasn't forced to make that choice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you can't do something that is against your will. Even though your choice could be not what you want (i.e., the lesser of the evils that are presented to you), that is exactly what you're not understanding. I could care less about definitions. I WANT THE TRUTH SPACEMONKEY AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING ME TO MOVE FORWARD.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've explained compatibilism to you. If you want to move forward, then the next step would be for you to explain WHY you think it is wrong. Am I preventing you from doing that? The notion of 'compulsion' I am appealing to is that of a strong psychological impulse to do something that - other than for the impulse - you do not want to do. (Like the compulsion you have to keep posting here.) And I am stipulating that my use of this term does not include causal determination as a compulsion.

Compulsion means compelled, which does not give a person a free choice. It is synonymous with being caused to do what one does. Please don't play these word games with me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what is, or what is not, included in the compatibilist definition. The point is IT'S WRONG; IT'S NOT ACCURATE; IT DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO BE ACCURATE SPACEMONEY, and for you to keep defending it gives me no hope in talking to you because you are becoming irrational in defense of compatibilism so you can justify punishment and blame.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You should care what is or is not included in the compatibilist definition. Because you can't show it to be wrong without understanding what it says, and you can't understand what it says if you continue ignoring how it is defined. Which one of us is becoming irrational?

I am not ignoring how it's defined but it's not a useful definition unless you want to accept a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Am I the one going on about 'winning duals' (sic)? Am I the one resorting to CAPSLOCK unsupported assertions of wrongness? Am I the one ignoring definitions and refusing to identify any flaw in the position I am criticizing?

I showed you the flaw. They are not unsupported assertions of wrongness. They are proven contradictions, but you can't let go of your comfortable worldview. After all, it's much easier to blame and punish people for their "wrongdoing" than to find ways of preventing them from desiring to do that which is "wrong."

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion (as defined above, i.e. without any 'compulsion' other than causal determination) or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Acting in accordance with one's choices without compulsion means will is free, according to the very definition. Why don't you get this? It's like you don't even hear me and then you go on to tell me that I haven't showed you the flaw.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The notion of 'compulsion' I am appealing to is that of a strong psychological impulse to do something that - other than for the impulse - you do not want to do. (Like the compulsion you have to keep posting here.) And I am stipulating that my use of this term does not include causal determination as a compulsion

Compulsion does not have to be a strong impulse. Compulsion means to be compelled to do something whether it's a strong impulse or a weak impulse. Causal determination as a compulsion is accurate because being compelled is being caused. You're just twisting words to make it appear as if the two terms are not identical.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

The definitions are different. Compatibilism says that only the first kind of freedom is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you have yet to show this to be wrong or contradictory.

As I said before, the freedom to choose without compulsion is the same thing as saying without causal necessity. You are using the word "compulsion" with the wrong reference.

Definition of COMPULSION

1 a: an act of compelling : the state of being compelled

Compulsion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Compel: cause to do; cause to act in a specified manner;

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Folks, this is someone who never read the book, let alone the chapter. She pulled a few words out of the .pdf when I first joined, and used this to make it seem like I was a troll, and now she's using this as fodder against Lessans again. Don't listen to her, she is so determined to make Lessans look ridiculous, that if you're not careful you will join the bandwagon of naysayers because it's so easy to do especially in a group setting where there is an underdog. It's like the wolves come out to attack the weaker of the group. This is not the sign of an open-minded individual.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A compulsion means you are compelled to do what you do. It is no different than being caused to do what you do. So please don't play these word games with me in order to make yourself appear right.

I am stipulating what I mean by the term compulsion. You don't get to insist that I use the term according to your preferred usage. Compatibilism says that the absence of non-causal compulsion is all that is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not ignoring how it's defined but it's not a useful definition unless you want to accept a contradiction.

You are ignoring how I have defined the term, and you are not showing me any contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Acting in accordance with one's choices without compulsion means will is free, according to the very definition. Why don't you get this? It's like you didn't even hear me and then you go on to tell me that I haven't showed you the flaw.

What about acting in accordance with one's choices without any compulsion other than causation? Because that is how I just defined compatibilist freedom for you. Yet you reply as if you haven't even read my words.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compulsion does not have to be a strong impulse. Compulsion means to be compelled to do something whether it's a strong impulse or a weak impulse. Causal determination as a compulsion is accurate because being compelled is being caused. You're just twisting words to make it appear as if the two terms are not identical.

Speaking of causal determination as compulsion is not accurate, because I have stipulated that this is not the sense in which I am using the word. Weak or strong, the point is that causation does not imply any such psychological impulse towards an unwanted choice or action.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said before, the freedom to choose without compulsion is the same thing as saying without causal necessity. You are using the word "compulsion" with the wrong reference.

I get to choose how I use my words. I get to decide for myself which definition of compulsion I am using. And I was NOT using a definition which is equivalent to or inclusive of causal determination. But it really doesn't matter, because even if you insist on treating causation as a form of compulsion, I have defined compatibilist freedom as requiring only freedom from all coercion and compulsion other than causal determination. And you have yet to identify any flaw or contradiction in this position.

[LadyShea]

Dear imaginary readers peacegirl is addressing, I found the passage by reading the book, how else would I have found it? I have the .pdf version of the book still so can check any references peacegirl wants me to (it had been misplaced but I found it in my Google drive).

Once again, I am asking peacegirl to provide this alleged missing context, from the book and chapter. She can't do it, so is appealing to you to dismiss my valid criticism of the text itself because she is a weasel. I have quoted the passage accurately.

Folks, this is someone who never read the book, let alone the chapter. She pulled a few words out of the .pdf when I first joined, and used this to make it seem like I was a troll, and now she's using this as fodder against Lessans again. Don't listen to her, she is so determined to make Lessans look ridiculous, that if you're not careful you will join the bandwagon of naysayers because it's so easy to do especially in a group setting where there is an underdog. It's like the wolves come out to attack the weaker of the group. This is not the sign of an open-minded individual.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are using the word "compulsion" with the wrong reference.

Definition of COMPULSION

1 a: an act of compelling : the state of being compelled

Compulsion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Compel: cause to do; cause to act in a specified manner;

Your own linked source gives two definitions for both 'compulsion' and 'compel':

Definition of COMPULSION
1 a : an act of compelling : the state of being compelled
b : a force that compels
2: an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act (as excessive hand washing); also : the act itself

Definition of COMPEL
1: to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure <public opinion compelled her to sign the bill>
2: to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly <hunger compelled him to eat>

In each case it is only the first definition which involves causation, and it is instead the second definition which is in use in the explanations of compatibilism I have given you. So YOU are the one using the word 'compulsion' with the wrong reference. Because in arguing against compatibilism on the basis of the first definitions, you are arguing against a strawman. What compatibilism actually says concerns only the second definitions, against which you have no argument whatsoever.

[LadyShea]

Bumping the heinous crap that is Lessans ideas about love and relationships. In the entire chapter, Lessans never once mentions companionship, shared interests, personality, humor, goals and dreams, or anything else denoting people relating to each other with their minds as well as their bodies.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans page 138

Lessans page 146

Lessans page 151

Lessans page 157

Lessans page 334

Lessans page 391