Well, I have not had a 13-year-old quarrel with her, the non-existent God forbid!
But, yes, she constantly challenges others to explain the “discovery,” i.e., the “two-sided equation”; when they do she says they’ve got it wrong and when they don’t, she says they don’t understand it. But never, ever, will she explain it herself, in her own words.
So I formalized her father’s argument for her, and she hasn’t commented at all. What does that tell you?
It tells me she doesn’t understand her father’s argument herself. She supports the argument because he wrote it, not because of its content. And that is pretty sad indeed.
But, yes, she constantly challenges others to explain the "discovery," i.e., the "two-sided equation"; when they do she says they've got it wrong and when they don't, she says they don't understand it. But never, ever, will she explain it herself, in her own words. So I formalized her father's argument for her, and she hasn't commented at all. What does that tell you? It tells me she doesn't understand her father's argument herself. She supports the argument because he wrote it, not because of its content. And that is pretty sad indeed.That might be possible, yes. I am also wondering why she calls it mathematical, but not logical. Doesn't make sense to me. At least it is clear you haven't understood it, because there is no math in your formalisation. ;-) Peacegirl? Is Pec's formalisation correct? If not, where should it be corrected?
The reverse troll strikes again!
Well, I have not had a 13-year-old quarrel with her, the non-existent God forbid! But, yes, she constantly challenges others to explain the "discovery," i.e., the "two-sided equation"; when they do she says they've got it wrong and when they don't, she says they don't understand it. But never, ever, will she explain it herself, in her own words. So I formalized her father's argument for her, and she hasn't commented at all. What does that tell you? It tells me she doesn't understand her father's argument herself. She supports the argument because he wrote it, not because of its content. And that is pretty sad indeed.David, you never formalized the argument. You only accused it of being a "modal fallacy" which it isn't.
Belief in CCFW is unkind and harmful.
If we do or don’t do what we should do is 100% luck. We should recognise it. It does matter.
Rather than get a conversation about that, we get a conversation about everything besides that.
I now think the answer is to argue against compatibilism. Almost no one gets it, they just read it as CCFW is compatible with determinism.
It’s not needed, people understand the need for rules with penalties they aren’t daft.
But believing people who’s only physically possible future is to pay the penalty also deserve it, is very unhelpful.
Obviously everyone experiences the free will illusion that we CHDO with our history just as it was, so that we alone were to blame, rather than causal chains stretching back to our distant past would have had to have been different to have produced different behaviour.
Philosophers should tell it like it is rather than try to pull the wool over people’s eyes.
But, yes, she constantly challenges others to explain the "discovery," i.e., the "two-sided equation"; when they do she says they've got it wrong and when they don't, she says they don't understand it. But never, ever, will she explain it herself, in her own words. So I formalized her father's argument for her, and she hasn't commented at all. What does that tell you? It tells me she doesn't understand her father's argument herself. She supports the argument because he wrote it, not because of its content. And that is pretty sad indeed.That might be possible, yes. I am also wondering why she calls it mathematical, but not logical. Doesn't make sense to me. At least it is clear you haven't understood it, because there is no math in your formalisation. ;-) Peacegirl? Is Pec's formalisation correct? If not, where should it be corrected? GdB, I am sorry but the fact that you don't understand why man's will is not free, according to Lessans, and are positive that compatibilism is the only answer, makes it not worth it to me to go any further because I know you will refute me. Your idea that we need determinism in order to be free does not add up. I just can't take the time to argue with people who are not already on the side of determinism. These trolls who have followed me here are trying to defame me. They are entitled to disagree with the book but in order to do that they have to prove that his observations were unsound and invalid. They can't do that because he was spot on in his observations and reasoning but they won't let up. That's why I cannot continue here. They will continue to focus on me because that's where they get their lulz.
I just can't take the time to argue with people who are not already on the side of determinism.I am on the side of determinism. You just have a false impression of what free will really is. And yes, you are committing the modal fallacy. I guarantee you, you will get the same kind of reactions everywhere. It is time you draw your conclusions from that fact.
Obviously everyone experiences the free will illusion that we CHDO with our history just as it was, so that we alone were to blame, rather than causal chains stretching back to our distant past would have had to have been different to have produced different behaviour.No Stephen, that is not true. If people would really investigate their experience, they would not find such a thing. CHDO cannot be an experience, simply because what is past is passed. The only experience people have is that their choices matter. The rest is metaphysical mumbo jumbo, created by some language spell, under which you obviously still stand heavily.
I just can't take the time to argue with people who are not already on the side of determinism.I am on the side of determinism. You just have a false impression of what free will really is. And yes, you are committing the modal fallacy. I guarantee you, you will get the same kind of reactions everywhere. It is time you draw your conclusions from that fact. I have no false impression of what free will actually is. I already told you that it's okay to say I did something of my own free will meaning that I did something without coersion, but this doesn't mean my will is free. It is YOU that doesn't get it GdB, and I'm not willing to argue about it. There are many people who would be willing to study this work because they already know that man's will is not free. You just met me and you already have rushed to judgment. :long: I'm sure this gets the trolls excited.
Obviously everyone experiences the free will illusion that we CHDO with our history just as it was, so that we alone were to blame, rather than causal chains stretching back to our distant past would have had to have been different to have produced different behaviour.No Stephen, that is not true. If people would really investigate their experience, they would not find such a thing. CHDO cannot be an experience, simply because what is past is passed. The only experience people have is that their choices matter. The rest is metaphysical mumbo jumbo, created by some language spell, under which you obviously still stand heavily. Stephen you are correct that man's will is not free, but you are missing the other side of this equation which is what everyone against determinism is up in arms about. If we are caused to do what we do by previous experiences and therefore can't be blamed, then what happens to moral responsibility? No one has understood how we can reconcile these two opposing ideologies, which ends up increasing responsibility, not decreasing it, as many philosophers falsely conclude. I came here because this is supposed to be a center for inquiry, yet no one wants to investigate this revolutionary knowledge. How ironic is that?
I just can't take the time to argue with people who are not already on the side of determinism.I am on the side of determinism. You just have a false impression of what free will really is. Rubbish. People are deluded, they believe on mass that we have magic power.
And yes, you are committing the modal fallacy.Again rubbish. All that's happening is peacegirl is defining "the circumstances" as the circumstances with the past just as it was. She also agrees that if causal antecedents had been different there would have been a different outcome.
No Stephen, that is not true. If people would really investigate their experience, they would not find such a thingI agree that is how we see through the illusion
CHDO cannot be an experience, simply because what is past is passed. The only experience people have is that their choices matter. The rest is metaphysical mumbo jumbo, created by some language spell, under which you obviously still stand heavily.No. We judge people as if they could have done what they should have done in an impossible way. No language spell.
Stephen you are correct that man's will is not free, but you are missing the other side of this equation which is what everyone against determinism is up in arms about. If we are caused to do what we do by previous experiences and therefore can't be blamed, then what happens to moral responsibility? No one has understood how we can reconcile these two opposing ideologies, which ends up increasing responsibility, not decreasing it, as many philosophers falsely conclude. I came here because this is supposed to be a center for inquiry, yet no one wants to investigate this revolutionary knowledge. How ironic is that?I partially see how we become more responsibility once we don't let ourselves off the hook by thinking people deserve what happens to them. What am I missing.
The rest is metaphysical mumbo jumbo, created by some language spell, under which you obviously still stand heavily.We are puppets. The only thing wrong with that analogy is it leaves out what happens inside our heads. But the puppet strings are real. People think we are morally responsible in a way we just couldn't be with the puppet strings we have. No language spell.
There are many people who would be willing to study this work because they already know that man's will is not free. You just met me and you already have rushed to judgment.Just how many people are willing to study this work after reading it once or twice. Actually every time they read it they become more convinced of how wrong it is. "Rushing to Judgment" the typical Peacegirl whine about people who don't immediately agree.
We are puppets. The only thing wrong with that analogy is it leaves out what happens inside our heads. But the puppet strings are real.Who is at the other end of the strings?
People think we are morally responsible in a way we just couldn't be with the puppet strings we have.Exactly. That is the spell. We are responsible because we are acting prediction machines, that can oversee possible consequences of our possible actions. No CHDO necessary. Everybody in his right mind is responsible for his actions. But not ultimate responsible.
At least it is clear you haven't understood it, because there is no math in your formalisation. ;-)How can you formalize the math in the book when there is no math in the book. Lessans had no idea what math was or what Logic was because there is none of either in the book. FYI, Lessans left school in the 7th grade, and I'm guessing that he didn't leave because he was doing well. However he was good at hustling pool, look it up.
No one has understood how we can reconcile these two opposing ideologies, which ends up increasing responsibility, not decreasing it, as many philosophers falsely conclude.When people do something wrong they are punished, sometimes by putting them away, out of society so they can't do it again, what's wrong with that? Increased responsibility has stated but never demonstrated, and no way has it been proven to be so. I have a reasonably good understanding of human nature, Lessans had none at all.
Well, I have not had a 13-year-old quarrel with her, the non-existent God forbid! But, yes, she constantly challenges others to explain the "discovery," i.e., the "two-sided equation"; when they do she says they've got it wrong and when they don't, she says they don't understand it. But never, ever, will she explain it herself, in her own words. So I formalized her father's argument for her, and she hasn't commented at all. What does that tell you? It tells me she doesn't understand her father's argument herself. She supports the argument because he wrote it, not because of its content. And that is pretty sad indeed.David, you never formalized the argument. You only accused it of being a "modal fallacy" which it isn't. Oh, no? What is this, then?] Why do you lie like this, peacegirl? Do you think you are fooling anyone? Please deal with the linked formalization of your argument, and stop whining.
David, you never formalized the argument. You only accused it of being a "modal fallacy" which it isn't.Out of a very lengthy and well written critique, he pointed out one thing that you said and said it was modal fallacy. If you take a criticism of one piece of what you say and respond with "you only", that shows an extreme disinclination to criticism. If you can't accept criticism, you can't improve. I don't know if the critique is accurate or not, but lacking your response, what should I think?