Pec, Basically you've been suckered into believing a meme on the internet spread by Swartz because you have a desire for Libertarian Free Will.You are quite stupid. Swartz is not a Libertarian. This is semantics again . He doesn't believe free will is compatible with same past same future determinism and he believes we have free will. So that makes him a Libertarian as ordinarily understood.
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. If he is so stupid he must bear the consequences.You see there is no indication of why that is fair or why he must face the consequences. We could increase the insurance premiums to include him. It would be interesting if you could make your case. And perhaps you can't. Perhaps your feelings about this are based on libertarian intuitions.
Anyway, the above is just a restatement of the problem of induction, and that's a philosophical problem independent of this discussion, though there is overlap.No. The problem of induction Is about why we should expect the universe to go on behaving as it has in the past. This is different because Swartz has come up with laws that are created when they happen. These have no connection with how the universe behaved in the past. These aren't physical laws as ordinarily understood because those are laws that we can in principle have some idea about. So the technology used to get this message to you is based on physical laws that have been discovered from past experiments. If Swartz style physical laws were applied to this message there would be no telling whether it will get to you or not since that law will be created when it happens (or doesn't happen). This is not how science works and science couldn't work this way.
Some will jump to the conclusion we don't need another free will thread but I think what I want to address is worth a thread of it's own. So the problem is the way the free will question is traditionally framed is, is free will compatible with determinism or not? And do we have free will or not? So what do people take that to mean? They take it to mean there is this thing called free will and it either is compatible with determinism or it isn't and we either have it or we don't. This is what causes most of the endless circling because the truth is free will can be defined in ways incompatible with determinism and in ways compatible with determinism. It isn't either or. So when people like Lois or peacegirl come along and say we don't have free will they are not wrong. They are defining free will in a way that we don't and can't have. And more importantly when a compatibilist such as GdB argues we do have free will he's not disagreeing because he's arguing we do have free will by a different definition. But it looks like he's disagreeing. Now of course most people aren't going to get this, they will think there is a real disagreement, rather than a semantic one. My point is the way this debate is framed needs to change to avoid this confusion.I'm late to the party, but then have had other things on my mind, timing is right for this today - and I admit, I only read through page one. The thing I noticed is that none of the talk touches on the actual act of engaging with the moments of my-your life. It's like talking mathematics of climate models and never, lifting up your head to look up into the actual weather/climate system swirling all around us and what we're seeing. You know back last winter when I first entered the "determinism" discuss, once I figured out what you folks were talking about with all this "great determinism debate", all it really offered me, was a walk down a hall of infinity mirrors and end regressions. OK determisms plenty true, but …, but … Because when I popped out the other end I still had to negotiate the moment by moment activities that make up my day and my existence. And to me that's what important, meditating on my actual actions and interactions in the now and going forward. What's important to me is understanding that moment of living 'here, right now" dealing with the 'cards' presented with all their choices. It's more than just reacting, it's the tenor and substance of how you react… All that cascading into tomorrow's adventures and how I will behave through those. and all the unanticipated unintended consequence that then become part of my life against the backdrop of who what I am The Flesh and The Spirit and all that. And always the wild cards coming in from unexpected directions, etc., and so on and so forth… That's where the intellectual adventure is for me. That why I was never too good at long winded books, too much time slipping by, on an existential level, we only have today to live and I always wanted to live as much of it as I could given my circumstances and limitations and assets. cheers, gotta run, have a room to finish painting :cheese:
We get born with our one possible future ahead of us. We are capable of happiness and suffering. I think we all deserve our one possible future to be a happy one.So if speeding makes me happy, even if I regularly cause serious accidents, that is no problem? Do I 'deserve' to be punished? Do I 'deserve' that my driver's license is taken away What I said was in a just world we'd all deserve to be happy. In this world we need to be deterred from speeding and if someone is unlucky enough for speeding to be their one possible future they need to be required to pay a penalty. But in a just world either they could speed without doing any harm or they'd be happy not speeding so wouldn't do it. I've been skimming this thread and it is interesting to note that this is exactly what the knowledge that we don't have free will prevents, as we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame. CHAPTER THREE THE END OF CARELESSNESS Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we never had to worry about people carelessly risking the lives of our loved ones, neighbors, and friends? Well, get ready for a miracle. I shall demonstrate, by applying this natural law, how it is now possible to change our environment and raise man’s conscience to such a degree that all carelessness, including automobile accidents, will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth because people the world over will do everything in their power to avoid the carelessness and risks responsible. Right now there are more people killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend. These collisions take place only because man operates on 75% of his potential power which is insufficient to prevent what nobody wants, even though he is doing everything in his power to prevent it. By understanding what it means that man’s will is not free we plug in the extra 25%, and then have the power to prevent the unintentional tragedies that continue to plague our lives.
Some will jump to the conclusion we don't need another free will thread but I think what I want to address is worth a thread of it's own. So the problem is the way the free will question is traditionally framed is, is free will compatible with determinism or not? And do we have free will or not? So what do people take that to mean? They take it to mean there is this thing called free will and it either is compatible with determinism or it isn't and we either have it or we don't. This is what causes most of the endless circling because the truth is free will can be defined in ways incompatible with determinism and in ways compatible with determinism. It isn't either or. So when people like Lois or peacegirl come along and say we don't have free will they are not wrong. They are defining free will in a way that we don't and can't have. And more importantly when a compatibilist such as GdB argues we do have free will he's not disagreeing because he's arguing we do have free will by a different definition. But it looks like he's disagreeing. Now of course most people aren't going to get this, they will think there is a real disagreement, rather than a semantic one. My point is the way this debate is framed needs to change to avoid this confusion.I'm late to the party, but then have had other things on my mind, timing is right for this today - and I admit, I only read through page one. The thing I noticed is that none of the talk touches on the actual act of engaging with the moments of my-your life. It's like talking mathematics of climate models and never, lifting up your head to look up into the actual weather/climate system swirling all around us and what we're seeing. You know back last winter when I first entered the "determinism" discuss, once I figured out what you folks were talking about with all this "great determinism debate", all it really offered me, was a walk down a hall of infinity mirrors and end regressions. OK determisms plenty true, but …, but … Because when I popped out the other end I still had to negotiate the moment by moment activities that make up my day and my existence. And to me that's what important, meditating on my actual actions and interactions in the now and going forward. What's important to me is understanding that moment of living 'here, right now" dealing with the 'cards' presented with all their choices. It's more than just reacting, it's the tenor and substance of how you react… All that cascading into tomorrow's adventures and how I will behave through those. and all the unanticipated unintended consequence that then become part of my life against the backdrop of who what I am The Flesh and The Spirit and all that. And always the wild cards coming in from unexpected directions, etc., and so on and so forth… That's where the intellectual adventure is for me. That why I was never too good at long winded books, too much time slipping by, on an existential level, we only have today to live and I always wanted to live as much of it as I could given my circumstances and limitations and assets. cheers, gotta run, have a room to finish painting :cheese: Well said. I also like practical solutions and sometimes it's difficult to see that these discussions have any real bearing on what we do from day to day. But in actuality this particular discussion is more than intellectual (as Stephen pointed out) because the implications are huge. There is a storehouse of knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that no one has addressed until now. This knowledge can change the quality of our every day lives, so this discussion does have extreme significance.
Yes, but Swartz's point is that these "unknown" laws are unknowable in principle, because they do not exist, until a first instance of them is realized. But more on this later.Yeah, this is exactly it. The thing is laws like that, and I don't think they even deserve the name laws, are useless to us. We can't use them to talk about "what will happen if" since they merely come from what will happen. I Can't sensibly say the kettle will boil if I flick the switch, since the truth of that statement just depends upon what does happen after I flick the switch. And I can't sensibly say the kettle would not have boiled if I hadn't flicked the switch. Swartz is as crazy as Lessans. Just much cleverer with it. Why did you say that Lessans is crazy Stephen? Where did that come from?
Why did you say that Lessans is crazy Stephen? Where did that come from?Probably from reading what Lessans wrote.
Why did you say that Lessans is crazy Stephen? Where did that come from?Probably from reading what Lessans wrote. But he didn't read what Lessans wrote except for what I've shared about "greater satisfaction." We were on the same page as far as his understanding of determinism, and mine, so I have no idea why he said this. I hope he explains himself because I was shocked that he said something like this. Now if it was you I would understand, but not him.
Why did you say that Lessans is crazy Stephen? Where did that come from?Probably from reading what Lessans wrote. But he didn't read what Lessans wrote except for what I've shared about "greater satisfaction." We were on the same page as far as his understanding of determinism, and mine, so I have no idea why he said this. I hope he explains himself because I was shocked that he said something like this. Now if it was you I would understand, but not him. Newsflash Janis: Everyone who has come into contact with you and your father thinks you are both crazy. This should not come as a surprise.
Why did you say that Lessans is crazy Stephen? Where did that come from?Probably from reading what Lessans wrote. But he didn't read what Lessans wrote except for what I've shared about "greater satisfaction." We were on the same page as far as his understanding of determinism, and mine, so I have no idea why he said this. I hope he explains himself because I was shocked that he said something like this. Now if it was you I would understand, but not him. Newsflash Janis: Everyone who has come into contact with you and your father thinks you are both crazy. This should not come as a surprise. What you're saying is not true, as usual. If Stephen doesn't have an explanation that makes any sense to me I will probably leave the forum since he is the only one (other than Lois) that understands the true meaning of determinism. I have no desire to argue with compatibilists.
Newsflash Janis: Everyone who has come into contact with you and your father thinks you are both crazy. This should not come as a surprise.What you're saying is not true, as usual. Sure it is. But as usual, you don't much care for the truth.
If Stephen doesn't have an explanation that makes any sense to me I will probably leave the forum as he has been the only person I have stayed for...Nonsense. You've been here for the negative attention, just like every other forum you've been to.
Newsflash Janis: Everyone who has come into contact with you and your father thinks you are both crazy. This should not come as a surprise.What you're saying is not true, as usual. Sure it is. But as usual, you don't much care for the truth.
If Stephen doesn't have an explanation that makes any sense to me I will probably leave the forum as he has been the only person I have stayed for...Nonsense. You've been here for the negative attention, just like every other forum you've been to. You're another reason I would be leaving.
You're another reason I would be leaving.You're not capable of leaving.
You're another reason I would be leaving.You're not capable of leaving. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. :snake:
CHAPTER THREE THE END OF CARELESSNESS Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we never had to worry about people carelessly risking the lives of our loved ones, neighbors, and friends? Well, get ready for a miracle. I shall demonstrate, by applying this natural law, how it is now possible to change our environment and raise man’s conscience to such a degree that all carelessness, including automobile accidents, will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth because people the world over will do everything in their power to avoid the carelessness and risks responsible. Right now there are more people killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend. These collisions take place only because man operates on 75% of his potential power which is insufficient to prevent what nobody wants, even though he is doing everything in his power to prevent it. By understanding what it means that man’s will is not free we plug in the extra 25%, and then have the power to prevent the unintentional tragedies that continue to plague our lives.What the fuck is that all about? :ahhh: Are you implying that actually says something of substance??? Please highlight what my take away message is supposed to be.
But in actuality this particular discussion is more than intellectual (as Stephen pointed out) because the implications are huge. There is a storehouse of knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that no one has addressed until now. :gulp: This knowledge can change the quality of our every day lives, so this discussion does have extreme significance.:blank: Can you give a concise summary ?
But in actuality this particular discussion is more than intellectual (as Stephen pointed out) because the implications are huge. There is a storehouse of knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that no one has addressed until now. :gulp: This knowledge can change the quality of our every day lives, so this discussion does have extreme significance.:blank: Can you give a concise summary ? U WOT M8?? It is blasphemy and high treason to summarize the words of the prophet.
Hope it’s not too rude to repost this at the top, hoping some old timers see it 
I'm late to the party, but then have had other things on my mind, timing is right for this today - and I admit, I only read through page one. The thing I noticed is that none of the talk touches on the actual act of engaging with the moments of my-your life. It's like talking mathematics of climate models and never, lifting up your head to look up into the actual weather/climate system swirling all around us and what we're seeing. You know back last winter when I first entered the "determinism" discuss, once I figured out what you folks were talking about with all this "great determinism debate", all it really offered me, was a walk down a hall of infinity mirrors and end regressions. OK determisms plenty true, but …, but … Because when I popped out the other end I still had to negotiate the moment by moment activities that make up my day and my existence. And to me that's what important, meditating on my actual actions and interactions in the now and going forward. What's important to me is understanding that moment of living 'here, right now" dealing with the 'cards' presented with all their choices. It's more than just reacting, it's the tenor and substance of how you react… All that cascading into tomorrow's adventures and how I will behave through those. and all the unanticipated unintended consequence that then become part of my life against the backdrop of who what I am The Flesh and The Spirit and all that. And always the wild cards coming in from unexpected directions, etc., and so on and so forth… That's where the intellectual adventure is for me. That why I was never too good at long winded books, too much time slipping by, on an existential level, we only have today to live and I always wanted to live as much of it as I could given my circumstances and limitations and assets.
But in actuality this particular discussion is more than intellectual (as Stephen pointed out) because the implications are huge. There is a storehouse of knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that no one has addressed until now. :gulp: This knowledge can change the quality of our every day lives, so this discussion does have extreme significance.:blank: Can you give a concise summary ? U WOT M8?? It is blasphemy and high treason to summarize the words of the prophet. Hey I'm a shit head - I got a voucher now I gotta go and figure out what the heck U WOT M8 is, but don't worry I got my handy google, I'll be onto your game in a couple moments. ;-P