A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

We're talking about a discovery Spacemonkey. This involves a scientific investigation to determine if what is being presented has a factual basis IN REALITY. The words you are describing may interest writers of science fiction or the supernatural, but this is about a scientific discovery, and words that have no bearing on reality have no place in this discussion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

That is a demonstrably false statement.

What something that exists in reality is represented by the word truth?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

This is an assertion. You are simply stating what you believe.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about a discovery Spacemonkey. This involves a scientific investigation to determine if what is being presented has a factual basis IN REALITY. The words you are describing may interest writers of science fiction or the supernatural, but this is about a scientific discovery, and words that have no bearing on reality have no place in this discussion.

You're missing the point. You are wrong to dismiss definitions as meaningless just because you don't think they represent what is going on in reality. You can argue that free will and compatibilism are wrong, but you can't argue that they are meaningless, or reject all presented definitions as meaningless, just because you don't think they accurately reflect reality. You have to pay attention to and understand the definitions being used before you decide upon the soundness of the arguments in which they are used. Rejecting all definitions just because you don't like what they can be used to show is just an irrational avoidance of rational discussion.

And what you are talking about is neither a discovery nor scientific.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

Who's winning?

It's a dead beat, as in horse.

[peacegirl]

I added a little more to post #22503 for anyone who is interested.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. You admitted to ignoring my explanations in your last post. I've carefully explained to you what compatibilism says, and why I think it is correct. You've responded only to attack my motivations and claim that you think Lessans can do better. At no point have you presented any rational objection against compatibilism whatsoever.

It may feel that way to you, but in reality I have been consistently supporting my position and directly addressing your points and answering your questions, while you have not been doing the same. I have explained to you why Lessans notion of compulsion is not relevant to blameworthiness and why the compatibilists' notion is relevant, and you have yet to address that explanation.

You have the options of either addressing my points with rational responses and objections, or of fallaciously attacking my motivations. You have consistently opted for the latter, presumably because you are incapable of the former.

It's working just fine. We can blame a person for moving in a direction which happened to be that of greater satisfaction because they were not compelled in the stronger sense, meaning in relevantly similar situations they could have chosen differently and blaming them will therefore be able to influence their behavior in future relevantly similar situations. So why are you missing what I've been saying?

Of course you reverted to speaking of compulsion in a different sense to that which I have defined. You do so every time you speak of being 'compelled' to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is not a compulsion in the compatibilist sense. And what is the "free will type of compulsion"? What on Earth are you claiming to be arguing? The compatibilist sense of free will is obviously incompatible with the compatibilist sense of compulsion - but neither is in contradiction with causal necessity. Do you have any idea at all of what you were here trying to say?

You are yet again conflating the two senses of being able to choose otherwise. And you are still not addressing my point: Lessans' kind of 'compulsion' is irrelevant to moral responsibility and blameworthiness because it is not something that prevents one from having been able to do otherwise given slightly different antecedent circumstances, and therefore is not something that in any way negates the influence and effectiveness of blame and punishment.

You clearly aren't paying attention to a word I say. Being merely caused is obviously compatible with compatibilist freedom, because that kind of freedom only requires one to have been able to choose differently given different antecedent causes. I'm being perfectly honest with both you and myself, and you haven't shown any flaw in my position. Yet again you are attacking my motivation instead of my points, and asserting rather than showing any flaw. And it is quite false that the only difference between the two definitions of freedom I gave you is that I think the compatibilist one justifies punishment. I carefully explained the difference between them and you are ignoring it once again.

Peacegirl in one post: "This is not about moral responsibility".

Peacegirl in her next post: "This entire discovery is about feelings of moral responsibility".

I wasn't saying anything of the sort. I was pointing out that no matter how many times one has read the book, so long as they still don't agree with it, you'll object that they need to read it again. That is irrational and dogmatic. More importantly, I was pointing out that you can't see where compatibilism is wrong - for if you could you'd be explaining how and why it is wrong instead of just repeatedly asserting that it's wrong.

I haven't put myself on any pedestal, Peacegirl. And telling you you are a liar is completely different from you telling me I'm in denial. Firstly because I support my charge by showing you your lies, while you can't support your allegations at all, and secondly because I do this in addition to addressing your points and answering your questions, while you attack my motivations instead of addressing my points or answering my questions. You HAVE ignored my explanations - you even admitted to doing so in your last post - and you have NOT presented any argument at all. All you've done is attack my character and assert that compatibilism is wrong. If you think you've presented an actual argument somewhere against compatibilism, then please quote or repeat it for me in your next post.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's only a true dilemma if you specify that by 'free will' you are only speaking of contra-causal/libertarian free will. When you speak of free will in general you have to include other conceptions of free will, and that is what makes it a false dilemma, because there are other conceptions of free will for which we can be determined at the same time.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I haven't given you two definitions of 'cause'. I was simply distinguishing for you the difference between logical and causal necessity. That a dropped apple will fall is causally but not logically necessary, because we live in a world where the law of gravity holds, yet the law of gravity itself is not a logical truth as it could have failed to hold without contradiction. This distinction between logical and causal necessity is not controversial, and is agreed to by compatibilists and incompatibilists alike. And of course there is room for the compatibilist kind of freedom I defined for you, as this kind of freedom is consistent with determinism.

You aren't making any kind of sense, and no longer have any idea what you are even talking about. The two definitions were not logical vs. causal, but freedom from compulsion vs. freedom from causal determination. And there is plenty of room for the kind of freedom I believe justifies blame and punishment, for this kind of freedom is consistent with determinism.

What is a 'pure' vs. an 'impure' definition? You are now appealing to the alleged motivations of all compatibilists, and this remains a fallacious mode of argumentation. Motivations and intentions are irrelevant to the soundness of the argument and distinctions made. And as I have repeatedly explained to you, that someone with compatibilist freedom could have done otherwise given slightly different antecedent conditions is true by definition, and proven by the obvious fact that different causes lead to different effects. So it is obviously not a presupposition or a mere theoretical construct.

If you think that you've shown where compatibilism is flawed, then I am afraid you are completely delusional. You've done no such thing. All you ever do is repeatedly assert that it is flawed, without ever identifying any flaw, just as you have done here. Lessans' belief in the innate potential perfection of conscience is a big fat assumption because neither you nor he can or did provide anything at all in support of it. I'm sure you don't like being told this, but it is true nonetheless. If you think compatibilism is based on flawed assumptions then you are welcome to identify one and point it out.

Yep, there I go again directly addressing your objections and explaining your errors. Pity you can't do the same. The person could have chosen otherwise because differing antecedent circumstances would have allowed him to choose a different option as being in his direction of greater satisfaction.

Definitions still cannot be true or false. All you are saying is that you disagree with the compatibilists' view of what kind of freedom is needed for blameworthiness. But you have never once addressed my argument in support of this position. Not once.

The person in the wheelchair differs by lacking the compatibilist notion of freedom with respect to choosing to walk. The person not in a wheelchair can walk or not walk as he chooses, while the wheelchair-bound person will not be able to walk no matter how he chooses. This is a pretty obvious difference, and is morally relevant for the reasons I've already explained, and which you have yet to address.

Given your complete absence of any actual objection or argument against compatibilism, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Bump.

[thedoc]

I think I need new shocks, this thread is getting very bumpy lately.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're missing the point. You are wrong to dismiss definitions as meaningless just because you don't think they represent what is going on in reality. You can argue that free will and compatibilism are wrong, but you can't argue that they are meaningless, or reject all presented definitions as meaningless, just because you don't think they accurately reflect reality. You have to pay attention to and understand the definitions being used before you decide upon the soundness of the arguments in which they are used. Rejecting all definitions just because you don't like what they can be used to show is just an irrational avoidance of rational discussion.

And what you are talking about is neither a discovery nor scientific.

What do you think I've been doing Spacemonkey? I have paid attention to the definitions being used and I do understand them, therefore I am in the position to decide upon the soundness of the arguments in which they are used. I have clearly showed you why I do not believe the definitions being used are sound. I did not say I reject all definitions, but I do reject definitions that I believe are not useful except to protect a particular worldview that seems to make the most sense to its proponents. You can refute me all you want, but you cannot tell me that what I'm talking about is neither a discovery nor scientific. You are the one that is avoiding the truth in defense of your position.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think I need new shocks, this thread is getting very bumpy lately.

I wouldn't want Peacegirl to delude herself into thinking she's been answering all of my posts again, as she has done before. So I'm afraid anyone entering this highway to insanity of a thread is going to need some heavy duty suspension.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do reject definitions that I believe are not useful except to protect a particular worldview that seems to make the most sense to its proponents

LOL, so what if we reject your definitions based on this reasoning? They are only useful to protect your worldview that Lessans was correct in every way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you think I've been doing Spacemonkey?

I think you've been feeding your obsessive delusions by making up whatever nonsense you have to in order to avoid the points being raised and still continue posting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have paid attention to the definitions being used and I do understand them, therefore I am in the position to decide upon the soundness of the arguments in which they are used. I have clearly showed you why I do not believe the definitions being used are sound.

No you haven't. You've just repeatedly asserted that our definitions are a bunch of strung together words so as to avoid addressing the arguments made which employ them. You reject definitions purely because you do not like what they can be used to show.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can refute me all you want, but you cannot tell me that what I'm talking about is neither a discovery nor scientific.

I can and have done. His work was not scientific because he did not employ the methodology of science. At best he wrote (very bad) philosophy and speculative psychology.

I think his most conspicuous example of poor reasoning (efferent vision aside) bears repeating: He argues that we will anticipate a guilty conscience because we know we cannot be compelled to do anything we do not want to do, and that we can never be blamed because we are compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Yet he completely overlooks the obvious objection that one could just as easily say the opposite - that we will not anticipate a guilty conscience because we will know that we are compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and we will be able to blame others because we know they cannot be compelled to do anything they do not want to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where in either definition of "cause" are we free? You are splitting hairs to make a definition fit logically so it doesn't look like a contradiction. I don't understand how logical necessity is not true if determinism is true because every consistent way that the world could be has already been established. If we are determined, the world can be no other way than what it is already. And causally necessary is also consistent with a world where the antecedent conditions occur in every possible world which ooperates under the same causal laws. Both are consistent with determinism, and there is no room for the kind of freedom that you believe justifies blameworthness.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I haven't given you two definitions of 'cause'. I was simply distinguishing for you the difference between logical and causal necessity. That a dropped apple will fall is causally but not logically necessary, because we live in a world where the law of gravity holds, yet the law of gravity itself is not a logical truth as it could have failed to hold without contradiction.

Where would it have failed to hold if all apples that are dropped in every case fall to the ground?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This distinction between logical and causal necessity is not controversial, and is agreed to by compatibilists and incompatibilists alike. And of course there is room for the compatibilist kind of freedom I defined for you, as this kind of freedom is consistent with determinism.

Saying this a hundred times or a thousand times or a hundred thousand times isn't going to change the fact that the compatibilist kind of freedom that you defined for me is in any way consistent with determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am only pointing out that the two definitions don't make a bit of difference in the real world. Whether logical or causal, they are purely deterministic and leave no room for the kind of free will that you believe justifies blame and punishment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You aren't making any kind of sense, and no longer have any idea what you are even talking about.

You are attacking my intelligence and I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The two definitions were not logical vs. causal, but freedom from compulsion vs. freedom from causal determination. And there is plenty of room for the kind of freedom I believe justifies blame and punishment, for this kind of freedom is consistent with determinism.

That's where you are wrong. In reality, there is no kind of freedom that is consistent with determinism. None whatsoever. And don't you mean "causal determinism"? I cannot find the phrase "causal determination" in the online dictionary.

Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the exact phrase causal determination.

Definitions of causal determination - OneLook Dictionary Search

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The distinction they are making is artificial because it is not pure. It is a contrived definition intended to separate those who should not be held responsible due to a strong compulsion, and those who should be held responsible because they don't have the kind of compulsion that compatibilists believe are the only ones to be excused from moral responsibility. But as I stated earlier, there is no way you can prove that someone could have chosen otherwise, so the freedom you are talking about is a theoretical construct. It would be a different story if it was proven that someone could have chosen differently, which would then justify attributing blameworthisness to an individual. But this is a presupposition which has not been supported whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What is a 'pure' vs. an 'impure' definition? You are now appealing to the alleged motivations of all compatibilists, and this remains a fallacious mode of argumentation.

That's not what I meant by pure. I only meant watered down.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Motivations and intentions are irrelevant to the soundness of the argument and distinctions made. And as I have repeatedly explained to you, that someone with compatibilist freedom could have done otherwise given slightly different antecedent conditions is true by definition, and proven by the obvious fact that different causes lead to different effects. So it is obviously not a presupposition or a mere theoretical construct.

You keep repeating yourself. Just because someone can make a choice that is not controlled by a compulsion does not mean that he could choose otherwise in a situation where the choice has already been made. This is completely theoretical as Lessans demonstrated. The only way you can prove that someone could do otherwise (the kind of freedom that you believe justifies blameworthiness), is if you can go back in time to see if he could have made a different choice UNDER THE SAME EXACT CONDITIONS. Your standard for determining this freedom is not correct. This is not related to the fact that people can act differently under similar antecedent condition. We know this is true, but this doesn't make their will any more free than the person who cannot act differently due to an experienced compulsion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't appreciate your telling me that Lessans had a big fat assumption, when compatibilism is based on all kinds of big fat assumptions. Compatibilism is flawed and I've shown where.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you think that you've shown where compatibilism is flawed, then I am afraid you are completely delusional.

I think you are the one who is delusional. You are entitled to keep your position and act on that belief by blaming those you feel could have acted differently.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've done no such thing. All you ever do is repeatedly assert that it is flawed, without ever identifying any flaw, just as you have done here. Lessans' belief in the innate potential perfection of conscience is a big fat assumption because neither you nor he can or did provide anything at all in support of it. I'm sure you don't like being told this, but it is true nonetheless. If you think compatibilism is based on flawed assumptions then you are welcome to identify one and point it out.

I believe compatibilism is flawed and I have showed you where. Take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again. How could someone choose otherwise when they couldn't choose otherwise since any other choice would have been in the direction of dissatisfaction, rendering that choice impossible because one cannot move from point a toward point b unless it is more satisfying, not less (unless there is no other option but to choose the lesser of two evils).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yep, there I go again directly addressing your objections and explaining your errors. Pity you can't do the same. The person could have chosen otherwise because differing antecedent circumstances would have allowed him to choose a different option as being in his direction of greater satisfaction.

He could have chosen otherwise HAD HE WANTED TO; NOTHING WAS STOPPING HIM BUT HIS DESIRE WHICH CAN ONLY CHOOSE THAT WHICH IS MOST PREFERABLE AMONG ONE OR MORE OPTIONS.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is what I'm talking about. You are distinguishing who should be blamed and who should not based on a false definition of who is free and who is not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Definitions still cannot be true or false. All you are saying is that you disagree with the compatibilists' view of what kind of freedom is needed for blameworthiness. But you have never once addressed my argument in support of this position. Not once.

I'm not arguing what kind of freedom is needed for blameworthiness because there is none. If you can accept that man's will is not free [temporarily] I could show you that the very thing you want to be actualized (moral responsibility) is being prevented by your notion of blameworthiness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you are failing to see that a person in a wheelchair is no different than a person who could make no better choice under his particular circumstances.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The person in the wheelchair differs by lacking the compatibilist notion of freedom with respect to choosing to walk. The person not in a wheelchair can walk or not walk as he chooses, while the wheelchair-bound person will not be able to walk no matter how he chooses. This is a pretty obvious difference, and is morally relevant for the reasons I've already explained, and which you have yet to address.

But if the person who can walk or not walk (i.e., nothing physically preventing him from walking which is your definition of free will) is just like the person in the wheelchair --- if choosing to walk is the only choice he could make at a particular moment --- then you cannot separate the two.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to go that far with you until you accept that compatibilism is fatally flawed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Given your complete absence of any actual objection or argument against compatibilism, I don't see that happening any time soon.

I think we need to take a break.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if the person who can walk or not walk (i.e., nothing physically preventing him from walking which is your definition of free will) is just like the person in the wheelchair --- if choosing to walk is the only choice he could make at a particular moment --- then you cannot separate the two.

Spacemoneky has pretty consistently stated that compatibilism includes the component that the agent has the ability to act in accordance with their choices.

A person who does not have the ability to walk, does not have the ability to act in accordance with a choice to walk.

The person who has the ability to walk, has the ability to act in accordance with the choice to walk.

We are back to the action being the important part of the discussion, not the choice, which is what I explained to you previously.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I wouldn't want Peacegirl to delude herself into thinking she's been answering all of my posts again, as she has done before. So I'm afraid anyone entering this highway to insanity of a thread is going to need some heavy duty suspension.

I'll drive my truck, I can haul a lot more insanity that way.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could have chosen otherwise HAD HE WANTED TO; NOTHING WAS STOPPING HIM BUT HIS DESIRE WHICH CAN ONLY CHOOSE THAT WHICH IS MOST PREFERABLE AMONG ONE OR MORE OPTIONS.

In other words, nothing was stopping him except what was stopping him.

show spoiler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is a demonstrably false statement.

What something that exists in reality is represented by the word truth?

This is an assertion. You are simply stating what you believe.

That is not true. Determinism has an exact meaning and that is the meaning I am using.

Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen.

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Determinism

Definition of DETERMINISM


1 a: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

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

[Vivisectus]

Still not committed to marketing the knowledge huh?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if the person who can walk or not walk (i.e., nothing physically preventing him from walking which is your definition of free will) is just like the person in the wheelchair --- if choosing to walk is the only choice he could make at a particular moment --- then you cannot separate the two.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Spacemoneky has pretty consistently stated that compatibilism includes the component that the agent has the ability to act in accordance with their choices.

Yes, according to the compatibilist definition, but it's not adequate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A person who does not have the ability to walk, does not have the ability to act in accordance with a choice to walk.

The person who has the ability to walk, has the ability to act in accordance with the choice to walk.

I have never disputed a person's ability to choose, but this does not mean man has free will. This is not an adequate definition of free will.

Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition of free will: incompatibilists may agree that the compatibilists are showing something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that something ought not to be called "free will". Incompatibilists might accept the "freedom to act" as a necessary criterion for free will, but doubt that it is sufficient. Basically, they demand more of "free will". The incompatibilists believe free will refers to genuine (e.g., absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones.

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are back to the action being the important part of the discussion, not the choice, which is what I explained to you previously.

That's exactly right, and it's the action that is unfree when coming from a deterministic position.

Compatibilists are sometimes called "soft determinists" pejoratively (William James's term). James accused them of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, according to the compatibilist definition, but it's not adequate.

I have never disputed a person's ability to choose, but this does not mean man has free will. This is not an adequate definition of free will.

Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition of free will: incompatibilists may agree that the compatibilists are showing something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that something ought not to be called "free will". Incompatibilists might accept the "freedom to act" as a necessary criterion for free will, but doubt that it is sufficient. Basically, they demand more of "free will". The incompatibilists believe free will refers to genuine (e.g., absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones.

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All you've done is stated that you, personally, are an incompatibilist, though many of your arguments are compatibilist in nature so you are not being consistent.

Yay you, wanna cookie?

[LadyShea]

The compatabilist positions Spacemonkey has posted do not contradict the definitions of determinism you listed.

So, what is your argument against those compatibilist views if they agree with definitions of determinism you now state you are using?

The last one even states flat out acts of the will are causally determined

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. Determinism has an exact meaning and that is the meaning I am using.

Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen.

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Determinism

Definition of DETERMINISM


1 a: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

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

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never disputed a person's ability to choose

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.