Revolution In Thought

Philosophy
201
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.
NA, you never had a question. All you did was throw ad hominems at me. You don't have a clue what this book is about. I hope people can see through you. I asked you what the discovery is, and you haven't answered because you don't know.
202

I’ve asked you a simple question. And I’ll ask it again, how many people have read your dad’s book on any of the forums you have been on?

203
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.
Janis believes a lot of things that have no basis in reality, so what's one more? She believes her fathers book was not a joke.
204
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.
I think if interpreted correctly it's proved because it's a necessary condition of choosing. It means you must pick the best option. If you don't it's not a choice at all, no selection takes place.
205
Janis, have you changed your tactics at all in the last 13 years? Or are you still making the same mistakes.
I don't see any errors really. Disputes over semantics and I think exaggeration of the benefits of accepting determinism but that's about it. And if peacegirl is making mistakes they are determined which produces a different atttitude. Also understanding it might be you who is determined to make mistakes produces a different attitude.
206
True all decisions are influenced by something, but that does not negate the freedom to choose.
This depends upon how you define it. Peacegirl is talking about contra causal free will which can be put in the form of a denial of two statements. 1) Circumstances not of my choosing would have had to have been different for me to have done otherwise. 2) If circumstances not of my choosing had been appropriately different I would have done
207
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.
I think if interpreted correctly it's proved because it's a necessary condition of choosing. It means you must pick the best option. If you don't it's not a choice at all, no selection takes place. A machine chooses the best option given available information. Does that give it freedom to choose?
208
let's call it volition.
Good idea :-)
209
This is where this knowledge demonstrates how not holding anyone ultimately responsible (because we now know that they can only move in one direction) actually makes responsibility go up, not down. That is the paradox, yet no one seems interested in how this occurs.
It occurs because we can't say "it's their own fault they deserve it", and because we realise thy can't simply free will themselves out of the situation. They are the first two thoughts that occur, Is there more?
210
So why are you arguing over a completely different point which is if you're justified in using the label free will for what you have in mind.
Because she denies nothing when she denies the existence of libertarian free will. It is as interesting as saying that there are no square circles. Of course, when people show silly behaviour because they think that square circles exist, we must show it to them. But to say that there are no circles at all is definitely false. OK, so we agree on the facts but....... The reason to disbelieve in CCFW is it's impossible but that doesn't mean belief in it isn't having a tremendous influence. I think we can see what this impossible none existent thing is by putting it in the form of a denial. It's the denial of these two statements: 1) Circumstances not of our choosing would have had to have been different for us to have done otherwise. 2) If circumstances not of our choosing had been appropriately different we would have done otherwise It's unfair to deny this, we should accept it, it does make a difference to blame, guilt, praise and so on.
211
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.
I think if interpreted correctly it's proved because it's a necessary condition of choosing. It means you must pick the best option. If you don't it's not a choice at all, no selection takes place. A machine chooses the best option given available information. Does that give it freedom to choose? The point is selecting the best option is a necessary condition of choice. If you don't do that you just don't make a choice at all which is why "freedom of indifference"is nonsense.
212

naturalist.atheist and BreakUp,
I think it a bit distasteful to follow peacegirl through several fora. If your only reason for posting here is to thwart her, I would suggest you let it be. The proofstone of her (father’s) ideas is a rational discussion, not the condemnation of a mob. The more independent similar criticisms she gets, the better. She should at least be convinced that there is no conspiracy against her ideas, but that the criticism comes from honest rational considerations.
peacegirl,
Having said above, it is clear to me that your argumentation always runs according the same scheme:

  1. My father and I are right.
  2. If you say something against it, then:
  3. you haven’t read the book, so you do not know what you are talking about
  4. your thoughts are contradictory. (In fact you mean: ‘contradict my ideas, and therefore they are wrong’.)
  5. If you have read the book and do not agree then you did not understand it.
  6. It is stupid not to take note from the idea that would abolish all evil.
  7. Compatibilists are stubborn, but I am not.
    I admire your persistence in advertising you father’s books and ideas. But I am afraid you get caught in the idea that the ideas are not recognised due to bad faith, where the truth is that these ideas do not stand rational scrutiny. (But of course: 3!) You were friendly invited to expose your ideas here, but if the basics already do not get accepted, what hope is there for the rest of the idea? I think it is time to open your mind for the possibility that these ideas are not that great as you always thought they were.
213
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.
Because I don't like the corollary of 'there is no free will': that we are not responsible for our actions.
let's call it volition.
Good idea :-) :question: Ehh? Do you agree now or are you just being ironical?
The reason to disbelieve in CCFW is it's impossible but that doesn't mean belief in it isn't having a tremendous influence. I think we can see what this impossible none existent thing is by putting it in the form of a denial. It's the denial of these two statements: 1) Circumstances not of our choosing would have had to have been different for us to have done otherwise. 2) If circumstances not of our choosing had been appropriately different we would have done otherwise It's unfair to deny this, we should accept it, it does make a difference to blame, guilt, praise and so on.
Sorry Stephen, I can't care less, this whole 'CHDO' stuff. 'CDHO' means there were several options to choose from: in the restaurant there were other options, in the cantina there were not. That is an objective fact about the past, and that's it. I will take the devil's definition of responsibility (Sam Harris, Free Will):
To say that I was responsible for my behavior is simply to say that what I did was sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to be considered an extension of them.
That's it. No CDHO necessary.
214
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".
No idea what 'non-predictability' has to do with free will. Maybe you can explain.
A machine chooses the best option given available information. Does that give it freedom to choose?
Of course. Say a chess computer is standing mate: there are two possibilities to escape it: moving the king to d1, or moving it to or c3. So it has some freedom: there are two options to get out of the situation. This differs from the situation where it can only move its king to d1. Here there is no freedom. To make the computer morally responsible for its moves (absurd SciFi example: because its ingenious move to c3 it wins the match in the end, and an interplanetary war between two robot civilisations breaks out), it needs much more capabilities, like knowing about the consequences outside the chess game, about expectations from its surroundings (humans, robots, or other programs), etc etc.
215
You are determined to do what you do based on nature and nurture. Some of those determining factors are part of your genetics and make-up and part are determined by your experiences (from childhood on up). Ultimately, our choices come from our brain because that's where our decision making takes place. Having a will unlike a stone does not change the fact that will is not free. If will is not free, it cannot be a necessary condition for free will. That is twisted logic.
Nothing what you say here has something to do with my argument. Try again.
What you just said is a contradiction: "All my actions are caused, free or not." If your actions are caused, they are not free. :ohh:
An example of argument 4].
Maybe not, but you do believe that a person could have done otherwise by trying to make the present, past, and future appear synonymous.
You think that following sentences, except the tense, express different facts? 1. Tomorrow I will be able to choose dish 7. 2. I now can choose dish 7. 3. Yesterday I could have chosen dish 7. Be my guest...
You did no such thing. Having reasons does not render you free; it renders you UNFREE! You have no understanding of "greater satisfaction"; it makes absolute sense unlike your explanation which is total folly!
So not acting according my own reasons would be an example of free will? Is that a free will worth wanting?
216
That's it. No CDHO necessary
Here you take things too far. We are interested in how a person could have done what they should have done, otherwise everybody in court is morally responsible. CHDO is a central issue for CFW too.
217
Sorry Stephen, I can't care less, this whole 'CHDO' stuff. 'CDHO' means there were several options to choose from: in the restaurant there were other options, in the cantina there were not. That is an objective fact about the past, and that's it.
Well that's what Peacegirl's thread is about. She needs to be able to say we don't have contra causal free will, since that's what the term commonly refers to. All you're saying is you define free will differently. Well she doesn't and that's all there is to it.
218
That's it. No CDHO necessary
Here you take things too far. We are interested in how a person could have done what they should have done, otherwise everybody in court is morally responsible. CHDO is a central issue for CFW too. I am taking it as far as I presented it to peacegirl: the question if dish 7 was a real option, and if she is a psychologically healthy person, and was not coerced at the moment of her action of choosing dish 5.
219
So why are you arguing over a completely different point which is if you're justified in using the label free will for what you have in mind.
Because she denies nothing when she denies the existence of libertarian free will. It is as interesting as saying that there are no square circles. Of course, when people show silly behaviour because they think that square circles exist, we must show it to them. But to say that there are no circles at all is definitely false. OK, so we agree on the facts but....... The reason to disbelieve in CCFW is it's impossible but that doesn't mean belief in it isn't having a tremendous influence. I think we can see what this impossible none existent thing is by putting it in the form of a denial. It's the denial of these two statements: 1) Circumstances not of our choosing would have had to have been different for us to have done otherwise. 2) If circumstances not of our choosing had been appropriately different we would have done otherwise It's unfair to deny this, we should accept it, it does make a difference to blame, guilt, praise and so on. Exactly. The belief in free will has an important benefit, especially when blame and punishment are necessary in our present environment?
220
That's it. No CDHO necessary
Here you take things too far. We are interested in how a person could have done what they should have done, otherwise everybody in court is morally responsible. CHDO is a central issue for CFW too. I am taking it as far as I presented it to peacegirl: the question if dish 7 was a real option, and if she is a psychologically healthy person, and was not coerced at the moment of her action of choosing dish 5. Ok well there is a flaw. Free will is also the ability to select a different option. Could have if she'd chosen to is not enough for even compatibilist free will. That's just choice by definition.