Peacegirl, Don't feed the trolls and don't let them piss you off too much. Belief in determinism helps with that. :-)peacegirl is doomed. She has no free will. Again you just want to upset her. Anyhow you misunderstand. What having no free will means to peacegirl and any of us that disbelieve In Contra causal free will is the denial of the following statements. 1) To have done otherwise circumstances not of our choosing would have had to have been different. 2) If circumstances not of our choosing had been appropriately different I would have selected a different option. So the illusion is we can gain complete control of the choice in a way we couldn't do if those statements are true. This is something a naturalist atheist would accept.
But at that point we have a pot of rock soup.The old Hungarian tale about "Stone Soup", where an itinerant traveler comes upon a village of people reluctant to share any food with him. So he pulls out a stone and places in a pot of boiling water. He loudly exclaims how great the soup will be and he will be glad to share it, but it would be a whole lot better if there were potatoes in it. This goes on as villagers bring actual ingredients to the pot. And eventually a great meal is had by all even though what started it all is rather useless.
Peacegirl, Don't feed the trolls and don't let them piss you off too much. Belief in determinism helps with that. :-)peacegirl is doomed. She has no free will. Again you just want to upset her. Anyhow you misunderstand. What having no free will means to peacegirl and any of us that disbelieve In Contra causal free will is the denial of the following statements. 1) To have done otherwise circumstances not of our choosing would have had to have been different. 2) If circumstances not of our choosing had been appropriately different I would have selected a different option. So the illusion is we can gain complete control of the choice in a way we couldn't do if those statements are true. This is something a naturalist atheist would accept. Sorry, but you don't know peacegirl as I do. She may be the first reverse troll you have ever encountered. She feeds off tolling by going around and creating people that then want to troll her. It is quite amazing.
As Pec pointed out, "free will" is an oxymoron.Pec is you obviously.
As Pec pointed out, "free will" is an oxymoron.Pec is you obviously. I suppose we are all little peccers.
S.L. and GdB, please tread lightly with Janis. If you agree too much, and treat her too nicely, you will destroy her ability to play the Martyr, and she will leave and you will loose the entertainment value of the thread.
Yes, as odd as this may seem, she is in it for the abuse. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to get her help. I even volunteered to go with her to a mental health checkup. But nothing. She went for over three years at FF, going through the same routine. Then she would reset and begin all over again. I’ve never seen anything like it.
It has been stated that Janis believes “1. My father and I are right.” and that is all that needs to be said about her. You really need to read the book to get the full effect of what she believes.
How are you all finding me? DavidM you're the last person I want to talk to.Gosh peacegirl, we told you a long time ago that on the internet there is no place to hide. Everybody can see just how crazy you've been over the last decade. Seems to me we have an unpleasant troll following peacegirl around trying to upset her for his pleasure. That's sick, sad and hopefully against the rules here. Also peacegirl does not appear to be crazy she understandably sees what a problem belief in CCFW is. She tries to do something about it in a decent way. Actually everyone involved for any significant length of time has expressed the concern for Janis' mental health, and has expressed the desire that she get professional help. so far as I know all these suggestions have been rejected, sometimes in a most abusive and disagreeable manner by Janis. So far this thread has dealt with the free will determinism debate and that is probably the most innocent of her beliefs. The really good ones that are most indicative of her delusions are elsewhere in the book and have been raised before, hence her persistent ignoring of those topics. Ask her about "instant vision", or spaghetti for Monday eve. dinner (AKA the right of way principle).
Peacegirl, Don't feed the trolls and don't let them piss you off too much. Belief in determinism helps with that. :-)peacegirl is doomed. She has no free will. Nor do you, so you if she is doomed you are doomed along with her. Be careful! Lois
Peacegirl, Don't feed the trolls and don't let them piss you off too much. Belief in determinism helps with that. :-)I've gotten pretty thick skinned from having to deal with all kinds of attacks against me and Lessans over the years. More importantly, I don't want them to convince people not to study this work. I don't think they will because they're making fools of themselves.
I've gotten pretty thick skinned from having to deal with all kinds of attacks against me and Lessans over the years. More importantly, I don't want them to convince people not to study this work. I don't think they will because they're making fools of themselves.Janis has never really dealt with criticism of the book, except to throw a Hissy Fit and accuse the other person of not reading the book and not understanding. Actually I would encourage people to read the book, it's the only good way to see what Lessans ideas really are, Janis is very inadequate on explanations. I would suggest that telling the truth is not making a fool of ones-self.
... if she is doomed you are doomed along with her. Be careful! LoisAren't we all doomed?
Peacegirl, Don't feed the trolls and don't let them piss you off too much. Belief in determinism helps with that. :-)I've gotten pretty thick skinned from having to deal with all kinds of attacks against me and Lessans over the years. More importantly, I don't want them to convince people not to study this work. I don't think they will because they're making fools of themselves. Yes, very thin skinned. Apparently simply asking her how many people she thinks had read the book on all the forums is an attack. And I suppose it would be an attack if she was in major denial.
I've gotten pretty thick skinned from having to deal with all kinds of attacks against me and Lessans over the years. More importantly, I don't want them to convince people not to study this work. I don't think they will because they're making fools of themselves.Janis has never really dealt with criticism of the book, except to throw a Hissy Fit and accuse the other person of not reading the book and not understanding. Actually I would encourage people to read the book, it's the only good way to see what Lessans ideas really are, Janis is very inadequate on explanations. I would suggest that telling the truth is not making a fool of ones-self. I don't know if they have an ignore button. I cannot deal with such ignorance. These people have a vendetta against my father because he claimed the eyes are not a sense organ. They then took everything in the book out of context and tried to make a joke out of this major work. Anyway, I cannot believe I am even stooping this low to answer them. I hope that they won't ruin this thread by making me the focus and not the book. I think this would be reason for the moderators to step in. If anyone wants to read the book they can get it on Amazon Kindle and come to their own conclusions. http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-All-Evil-Important-ebook/dp/B00ONA7JVQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427901038&sr=8-1&keywords=decline+and+fall+of+all+evil+ebook
Ya gotta hand it to peacegirl. It’s all publicity, say anything you like, just make sure you spell her name right.
I just hope that K. Greene didn’t have to buy the book himself, or was able to write it off as a professional expense. His review certainly was in line with my impressions of the book. And apparently Janis was using a “nom de plume” to write a review as Todd P. Brandes, or she put a friend up to it. I wonder what she had to do for that review?
I really don't care about libertarian vs compatibilist free will. I only care about human agency as it exists in the wild.Well, if you aim at mechanising free will, and a pseudo randomiser is enough, then whatever your exact definition of free will, then you are factually a compatibilist. That you are not interested in the discussion anymore does not change that. I think that compatibilism shows that the so called free will problem is a pseudo problem.
I really don't care about libertarian vs compatibilist free will. I only care about human agency as it exists in the wild.Well, if you aim at mechanising free will, and a pseudo randomiser is enough, then whatever your exact definition of free will, then you are factually a compatibilist. That you are not interested in the discussion anymore does not change that. I think that compatibilism shows that the so called free will problem is a pseudo problem. I am definitely interested in the problem of independent agency towards a self directed goal. The philosophical topic of "free will", not so much.
Maybe you should read some of his posts and the excellent links that he has already provided in the short time that he has been here, rather than acting like a condescending, entitled prima donna, in the manner of GdF, who fortunately seems to be improving a little right now.Hmm, if you mean me... It was naturalist.atheist who started giving normal, non-cynical 'read-it-somewhere-else' answers that made a normal discussion possible. Have you guys any idea what an impression it makes when we are already dealing for a while with somebody who presents a theory (and a book!) that has a strong odour of being a crackpot theory, and then suddenly a swarm of Mr Knowalls arrives in this forum, continuing their 13 year old quarrel? That being said, I think you had a quite soft approach in your first posting]. If I were peacegirl, I would take the offer you made. But I assume she is not interested in a real investigation in her father's ideas. Too much time and meaning of her life invested in it. It is pretty tragic. But I think it is useless to follow her everywhere on the internet. She will find out in the end. Or not. But it is not your problem.