A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think it can be said, Spacemonkey, that anything that falls between contra-causal free will and hard determinism on a scale is a form of compatibilism?

But it is an illusion that there is anything other than determinism, hard, soft, and everything else in between. All you are doing LadyShea is accepting definitions that sound good but have no basis in reality. It is amazing how confused people get in their logic by stringing together a bunch of words, nothing more.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My suggestion to you: Go back to page 1.

peacegirl, you need to look at it closer. You used the words "how can", meaning "by what means do you exercise an ability". People have the ability to blame anyone for anything they want to, correct? The mechanism for doing so is by simply saying "I blame..."

The words you probably had in mind is "why should" or "why would". You are making an argument for what people ought or ought not do, yet phrasing it as what people can or cannot do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

It is only true if there is no flaw. Those flaws are outlined below.

It is a false dilemma because being dead vs being alive is completely irrelevant to whether a person, while alive, has free will or not.

That wasn't the point he was making. He was only saying that if one should kill himself, he is doing this because living the way he is, is worse than dying [in his eyes]. Therefore, when a person takes his life, he is still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction than what the present position offers.

Originally Posted by koan

You can only say that a dead person has no free will because they are dead and therefore have no option of taking an action. That does not prove that an alive person has no choice. The state of being alive or dead only helps narrow down which type of person you are talking about. You've only shown that an alive person isn't dead, not that the alive person has no free will. Nobody has said that a dead person has free will. Your example is irrelevant.

You better go back and reread what he wrote and when you're done, come back with a question instead of telling me that his example is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not an argument from ignorance. Rationally, if free will can't be proven true, you cannot prove determinism false, because that would prove free will true, which was demonstrated accurately that it cannot be done. But that still leaves the possibility that determinism can be proven true and free will false. I'm sorry if you can't follow this, but his thinking was spot on.

Originally Posted by koan

You just repeated the fallacy. Thank you for giving a more clear example of what is wrong with that logic. Leaving possibilities does not prove either side conclusively therefore it can not be used as a proof. It only explains why the premise is not a proof. You might say the argument is an anti-premise or anti-proof.

Oh my god, that was not his proof. That was only to show that we can't prove free will true, or determinism false. He did not yet prove determinism true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a fallacy koan. His premises are correct.

Originally Posted by koan

I have shown exactly what fallacies they commit and you have done nothing to refute it. You are welcome to try again but, thus far, all you've said is that dead people have no free will and that there is no way of proving either free will or determinism... so it seems we agree.

There is not one fallacy in his book, so try again. What do you mean that dead people have no free will? I have no idea where this relates to what he was trying to get across. You didn't even understand his reasoning in the slightest. And where is my apology koan? Please don't address me anymore unless you retract your statement that I'm schizophrenic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, you need to look at it closer. You used the words "how can", meaning "by what means do you exercise an ability". People have the ability to blame anyone for anything they want to, correct? The mechanism for doing so is by simply saying "I blame..."

People can do anything they want (this is not about oughts). They will only desire not blaming (during the transition phase; Lessans is not advocating that we stop blaming in this society as it is now) when they understand that this will be in their best interest and the best interest of the world. Making different choices as we learn to replace outmoded ways of thinking is what propels our world forward. We are compelled not to do what we did in the past when it does not serve us anymore. We don't light candles anymore as a means of seeing when we now have electricity. Now that we have a more efficient lightbulb, incandescent light bulbs are being phased out because this type of lightbulb no longer serves us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The words you probably had in mind is "why should" or "why would". You are making an argument for what people ought or ought not do, yet phrasing it as what people can or cannot do.

This is not about what people ought to do. This is what people will want to do once they see why it is better not to blame than to blame, and when it is established as an undeniable truth that man's will is not free. This is not telling anyone that they should not blame, unless they see that this knowledge will help to create a better world for everyone, not just a selected few.

[Ymir's blood]

Who's winning?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is an illusion that there is anything other than determinism, hard, soft, and everything else in between. All you are doing LadyShea is accepting definitions that sound good but have no basis in reality. It is amazing how confused people get in their logic by stringing together a bunch of words, nothing more.

Words have meaning and are used to impart meaning by stringing them together.

You are using the same word with different meanings at different times. You are not using words consistently. This means you are not imparting meaning.

How on Earth could this work be translated into other languages, peacegirl, without using accepted definitions of the words Lessans used? Do you plan to usher in the new world only in English?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can do anything they want to do it (this is not about oughts), but they will only want to agree to not blame (during the transition phase; Lessans is not advocating that we stop blaming in this society as it is now) when they understand that by not blaming will be in their best interest and the best interest of the world. Making new choices is what propels our world forward as we learn to replace outmoded ways of thinking with new discoveries. We are compelled not to do what we did in the past when it does not serve us anymore. We don't light candles anymore as a means of seeing when we now have electricity. Now that we have a more efficient lightbulb, incandescent light bulbs are being phased out because this type of lightbulb no longer serves us.

This is not about what people ought to do. This is what people will want to do once they see why it is better not to blame than to blame, and when it is established as an undeniable truth that man's will is not free. This is not telling anyone that they should not blame, unless they see that this knowledge will help to create a better world for everyone, not just a selected few.

Your questions to Angakuk were absolutely related to ought. Now you are just after the fact justifying

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My suggestion to you: Go back to page 1.

My suggestion to you: Answer direct questions with direct responses whenever they are asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is an illusion that there is anything other than determinism, hard, soft, and everything else in between. All you are doing LadyShea is accepting definitions that sound good but have no basis in reality. It is amazing how confused people get in their logic by stringing together a bunch of words, nothing more.

For someone with Peacegirl's unfortunate level of reading comprehension, everything appears as a mere bunch of strung together words. She doesn't understand what she is replying to, and doesn't want to understand.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think it can be said, Spacemonkey, that anything that falls between contra-causal free will and hard determinism on a scale is a form of compatibilism?

Yes. I think that is a good way of putting it. And by that account, Lessans is clearly advocating a form of compatibilism.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

Who's winning?

Too close to call at this early stage.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your questions to Angakuk were absolutely related to ought. Now you are just after the fact justifying

You can frame it anyway you want. If I say that flying an airplane with four engines is much better than flying with two on an international commercial flight, I guess I am telling what you ought to do if you want to have a better chance of making it across the ocean, but it's still your choice. Just as in the previous example, you can use a product that's much more expensive and less efficient if you want to, but if it's not in your best interest you won't want to, because it will be the least preferable choice in comparison to what is now available.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is an illusion that there is anything other than determinism, hard, soft, and everything else in between. All you are doing LadyShea is accepting definitions that sound good but have no basis in reality. It is amazing how confused people get in their logic by stringing together a bunch of words, nothing more.

Let's look at Wiki. How many types of determinism do you see discussed? Each of those is determinism, but a slightly different conception of it.

Which do you hold as the best descriptor of reality?

Also, please discuss the possible consequences of convincing people they lack free will

Three studies tested the hypothesis that disbelief in free will would be linked with decreased helping and increased aggression. In Experiment 1, induced disbelief in free will reduced willingness to help others. Experiment 2 showed that chronic disbelief in free will was associated with reduced helping behavior. In Experiment 3, participants induced disbelief in free will caused participants to act more aggressively than others. Although the findings do not speak to the existence of free will, the current results suggest that disbelief in free will reduces helping and increases aggression.

Prosocial benefits of feeling free: di... [Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

http://the-mouse-trap.com/2009/12/16...-implications/

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. I think that is a good way of putting it. And by that account, Lessans is clearly advocating a form of compatibilism.

There you go again, misrepresenting his discovery. There is nothing about this knowledge that has ANYTHING to do with free will, so stop making things up just so you can puff up your argument.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can frame it anyway you want. If I say that flying an airplane with four engines is much better than flying with two on an international commercial flight, I guess I am telling what you ought to do if you want to have a better chance of making it across the ocean, but it's still your choice. Just as in the previous example, you can use a product that's much more expensive and less efficient if you want to, but if it's not in your best interest you won't want to, because it will be the least preferable choice in comparison to what is now available.

Blah, blah, blah, you and Lessans are saying people ought not blame others. That was clearly a major factor in his argument. Why are you denying this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Too close to call at this early stage.

Early stage? I can't imagine what the end stage will look like.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing about this knowledge that has ANYTHING to do with free will, so stop making things up just so you can puff up your argument.

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Freedom to choose is a type of freedom

Free from what?

Really think about that answer, because it is the key difference amongst various conceptions of free will

If you start arguing for hard determinism (which you seem to keep entering that path), you remove any and all ability for the agent to affect change....you have us as automatons doing exactly as we are forced to do by circumstances we are completely unable to manipulate.

If you give us any agency, any ability to affect change through any means, we have some type of freedom. Any type of freedom could be interpreted as free will, depending on the person doing the interpretation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Blah, blah, blah, you and Lessans are saying people ought not blame others. That was clearly a major factor in his argument. Why are you denying this?

Yes, it is in our best interest once we understand that blame and punishment are not serving us now that there is a better way. But he did not say to stop blaming without a transition period.

p. 63 Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance
of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite
principle of an eye for an eye by refusing to defend himself against his
sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither
he nor his sister had a free choice because the one was willing to cheat
to get what she wanted while he was willing to be cheated rather than
hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself
financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because
it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was
entitled to by law.

Both of them were moving in the direction of what
gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this
knowledge nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself
knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to
hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was
excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated,
which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person
would be thrown out for being an atheist but not for being a God
intoxicated man.

The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t
intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality but when the heat
gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison
between Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. He
refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him
because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on
the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when
someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her
conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me I’d fight
him tooth and nail.

Turning the other cheek under these conditions
could make matters worse, which is why most people reject the pacifist
position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is
being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of an eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth. I personally would get greater satisfaction
defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or
have done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a
scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind is compelled, for
greater satisfaction, to move in this direction.

Therefore, it should be
clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that
you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that
man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to
follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us; something that
investigators like Durant have never done because the implications
prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact
that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in
the direction of greater satisfaction. If you sock me I might get
greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man
understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock
me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for
hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood we will be compelled
to continue living in the world of free will, otherwise, we would only
make matters worse for ourselves.

[LadyShea]

Yes, it is in our best interest once we understand that blame and punishment are not serving us when there is a better way. But he did not say to stop blaming without a transition period.

LOL. He argued for what he thought people ought to do to make the world a better place. That is a moral judgement of what people should or shouldn't do. That is judging that blaming others is wrong for someone else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we cannot judge what is right or wrong for someone else

So Lessans could judge, but we cannot?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again, misrepresenting his discovery. There is nothing about this knowledge that has ANYTHING to do with free will, so stop making things up just so you can puff up your argument.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Lessans is advocating a form of compatibilism because he is not arguing for hard determinism. He says that despite determinism we still have a limited form of moral responsibility - that by which self-blame through conscience (but not external blame from or towards others) is legitimate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Early stage? I can't imagine what the end stage will look like.

Woosh! Poor Peacegirl still can't spot a joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is an illusion that there is anything other than determinism, hard, soft, and everything else in between. All you are doing LadyShea is accepting definitions that sound good but have no basis in reality. It is amazing how confused people get in their logic by stringing together a bunch of words, nothing more.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Words have meaning and are used to impart meaning by stringing them together.

Words have meaning only if they represent something that exists in reality. But if the meaning given to these definitions does not represent what is actually going on in reality, than these definitions are not useful at all. That's what we're dealing with here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are using the same word with different meanings at different times. You are not using words consistently. This means you are not imparting meaning.

You're wrong LadyShea. I am making it very simple because there's one determinism which includes the agent. I could easily come up with this type of determinism and that type of determinism, but when all is said and done, there is only one type.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How on Earth could this work be translated into other languages, peacegirl, without using accepted definitions of the words Lessans used? Do you plan to usher in the new world only in English?

Just by listening LadyShea insteading of getting confused with all of these non-useful definitions. It's no wonder you don't get it. You have so many conflicting definitions to deal with, thinking that this somehow makes Lessans wrong in his very accurate analysis, that it's no wonder you can't follow the reasoning. At this rate I don't think anyone here can decipher truth from reality even if it hit them on their noggin.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words have meaning only if they represent something that exists in reality.

This is not true at all. Meaning is intensional, not just extensional. 'Leprechaun' is a term that has meaning, though it does not represent something that exists in reality. Likewise, causal determinism and contra-causal free will both have meaning, despite the fact that only one of them can be representing what is actually going on in reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Woosh! Poor Peacegirl still can't spot a joke.

That was a joke backatcha and it went right over your head. Woosh! Poor Spacemonkey still can't spot when I'm joking.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was a joke backatcha and it went right over your head. Woosh! Poor Spacemonkey still can't spot when I'm joking.

The glare smiley hardly indicates a joke, Peacegirl. And why are you posting jokes instead of addressing the many substantive and unaddressed posts that await your attention?