The question comes down to the definition of determinism and free will. If you say that any influence, no matter how slight, that affects a decision and is deterministic, then that is the end of the discussion. If you claim that you can only have free will if every decision is free of any influence, you have also ended the discussion. However there is a possibility that both influences and decision making lie on a spectrum and where each decision falls on this spectrum will determine whether the decision was made freely or not. For example is it possible that a decision could only be slightly influenced and therefore made relatively freely? Is it possible that most decisions are not completely free or completely determined?That is nonsense. Everything is full determined (ok, except QM ...). The question is, if somebody clearly shows that libertarian free will does not exist, do we have to change our practice of assigning people responsibility? Do, e.g. Lois and peacegirl not think that they are responsible for their actions? I could do an offer to Lois and peacegirl: I will not call compabilist free will 'free will' anymore. When we say 'free will' we mean libertarian free will. So: yes, we agree in the end! Free will does not exist! I confess! But how do we call this daily, 'I did it from my own free will' now? OK, let's call it volition. Now my question is: what do we need for assigning responsibility: free will or volition? Do I punish somebody who killed a person per accident? Do I punish somebody who killed somebody voluntarily? Why? Remember, from the viewpoint of determinism both actions are exactly the same: both followed from factors over which they had no control. How do you differentiate free will and volition? "Related to VOLITION Synonyms accord, autonomy, choice, self-determination, free will, will " from this definition, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/volition There is no such thing as free will. It doesn't matter what other words you come up with. Our thoughts and actions are determined. What you call volition is also determined.
How do you differentiate free will and volition?Yes. I never denied that. So you think there is no difference between a voluntary action and a coerced action? Both are determined, and for both actions the actor is equally responsible (i.e. not responsible according to you, I assume). If there is a difference, what is it?"Related to VOLITION Synonyms accord, autonomy, choice, self-determination, free will, will " from this definition, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/volitionOur thoughts and actions are determined. What you call volition is also determined.
That is the paradox, yet no one seems interested in how this occurs. People seem only to want to hear their own voices.The problem is that you or your father have never explained how this occurs, you only assert that it does.
How do you differentiate free will and volition?Yes. I never denied that. So you think there is no difference between a voluntary action and a coerced action? Both are determined, and for both actions the actor is equally responsible (i.e. not responsible according to you, I assume). If there is a difference, what is it? Yes but does of "our own volition" mean the same thing as of "our own free will"? If so, you have to wonder why hang on to the term free will."Related to VOLITION Synonyms accord, autonomy, choice, self-determination, free will, will " from this definition, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/volitionOur thoughts and actions are determined. What you call volition is also determined.
That is the paradox, yet no one seems interested in how this occurs. People seem only to want to hear their own voices.The problem is that you or your father have never explained how this occurs, you only assert that it does. You didn't read the book Spacemonkey. Why do you love following me around everywhere I go?
That is the paradox, yet no one seems interested in how this occurs. People seem only to want to hear their own voices.The problem is that you or your father have never explained how this occurs, you only assert that it does. You didn't read the book Spacemonkey. Why do you love following me around everywhere I go? I have the 2011 edition of the book as a PDF on my computer, and I have read it. It's mind numbingly incoherent, I was constantly saying how did he get this from that? BTW, I'm not spacemonkey, but you are still entertaining, go fish.
Janis, have you changed your tactics at all in the last 13 years? Or are you still making the same mistakes.
Poor peacegirl.
Poor peacegirl.NA, thank god this thread is moderated. You can't do to me what you did in the other forum. Why are you following me around? Why don't you leave me alone?
peacegirl, no disrespect, but I just can’t get over how little you’ve changed your show. It is a marvel and a wonder as to why you do it. Way, way beyond normal healthy behavior. On the internet, where ever you land there is the equivalent of a massive traffic accident. It’s gonna attract gawkers and hangers on.
peacegirl, no disrespect, but I just can't get over how little you've changed your show. It is a marvel and a wonder as to why you do it. Way, way beyond normal healthy behavior. On the internet, where ever you land there is the equivalent of a massive traffic accident. It's gonna attract gawkers and hangers on.NA, I'm not even staying here because no one has taken me up on reading the book. You don't even know what the discovery is; you were too busy calling me names. I'm sorry you found me for your sick pleasure.
peacegirl, in all your years of going from forum to forum using the same approach, how many people in your opinion have read the book?
peacegirl, in all your years of going from forum to forum using the same approach, how many people in your opinion have read the book?You don't understand this book at all, so don't go spouting off that you do. This book has not been widely distributed, which I'm trying to change.
That bad? Zero?
What are you gonna tell yourself when it soon becomes two decades of this futile quest of yours?
. You said you listened to the audio, but from your response to my inquiry as to what it was about, I can tell that you did not. If I am wrong, correct me. Give me a reason to believe that you really did listen. I am not insisting that you agree or even understand this body of work, and I'm willing to help educate, but I can't help anyone if they refuse to meet me half way.Let me translate this from Lessanese to English, if you have read the book and understand what it says then you must agree 100%. Even a slight disagreement is proof that you don't understand and did not even read the book, or whatever section Peacegirl has condescended to make available.
It is for this reason that I asked peacegirl if she could tell me the number of people she thinks have read the book. I know that a number of people have read some parts and even fewer the entire book, but anyone with the stamina to stick with the book’s both turgid and grandiose style, will find little actual content and close to nothing to agree with. And when they confront peacegirl with any number of reasonable objections, her immediate response is to exclaim that they have not read the book.
So from peacegirl’s perspective almost two decades of effort with zero to show for it, since no one has read the book.
The question comes down to the definition of determinism and free will. If you say that any influence, no matter how slight, that affects a decision and is deterministic, then that is the end of the discussion. If you claim that you can only have free will if every decision is free of any influence, you have also ended the discussion. However there is a possibility that both influences and decision making lie on a spectrum and where each decision falls on this spectrum will determine whether the decision was made freely or not. For example is it possible that a decision could only be slightly influenced and therefore made relatively freely? Is it possible that most decisions are not completely free or completely determined?There are no decisions that are made without an influence from one's biology or biography. True all decisions are influenced by something, but that does not negate the freedom to choose. The greater satisfaction principle has been asserted but not proven.
And ultimately one could always choose based on the outcome of a random event. And if it is random, then the outcome is not predicable, no matter how many things may influence you personally.
J. von Neumann postulated this sort of thing to give his automatons “free will”.
It is for this reason that I asked peacegirl if she could tell me the number of people she thinks have read the book. I know that a number of people have read some parts and even fewer the entire book, but anyone with the stamina to stick with the book's both turgid and grandiose style, will find little actual content and close to nothing to agree with. And when they confront peacegirl with any number of reasonable objections, her immediate response is to exclaim that they have not read the book. So from peacegirl's perspective almost two decades of effort with zero to show for it, since no one has read the book.Well I am certainly glad that you have clarified that the time I spent staring at the screen with the PDF up was not actually reading? So what was I doing? So I actually wasn't reading when I thought I was, who'da thought.
I’m sure you read it, but unless you agree with peacegirl, then SHE doesn’t think you have read it. From her perspective nobody has read it.
Hence she has spent more than a decade and not one person has read the book as far as she is concerned.