Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-03-2011, 02:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Hi everyone,

I started this thread so we can separate the discussions. This thread is intended to help people understand Lessans' first discovery, which is the key that unlocks the door to the Golden Age of man. All are welcome to participate, but please try to keep the topic under discussion in mind when posting. Because these principles are not easy to grasp, it is my hope that people will be group minded when responding. Thank you very much for taking my suggestions into consideration.

Last edited by peacegirl; 11-03-2011 at 04:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (11-03-2011)
  #2  
Old 11-03-2011, 02:13 PM
JoeP's Avatar
JoeP JoeP is offline
Wielder of the secret flame of spamhammer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: England/Miisaland
Gender: Male
Posts: XXVCLXXIII
Images: 18
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

A new thread! Thank you peacegirl.
__________________

:roadrun:
Free thought! Please take one!

:unitedkingdom:   :southafrica:   :unitedkingdom::finland:       :eur:       :m&ms::m&ms::twix::twix: (rotated 180°):m&ms::m&ms:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (11-03-2011), Pan Narrans (11-03-2011)
  #3  
Old 11-03-2011, 02:29 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMDXXXIV
Images: 8
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Great, maybe peacegirl would now like to explain how the modal fallacy does not apply to Lessans proof.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-09-2013)
  #4  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Great, maybe peacegirl would now like to explain how the modal fallacy does not apply to Lessans proof.
I already posted the proof, but if you're not willing to even listen to what it says instead of attacking what it says the minute I speak, we're going to be in trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
A new thread! Thank you peacegirl.
You're very welcome. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-03-2011, 02:29 PM
Deadlokd's Avatar
Deadlokd Deadlokd is offline
Not as smart as Adam
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Queensland
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCXXIX
Images: 21
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo
__________________
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlokd View Post
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo
Deadlord, who are you to come here and tell me Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Do you think that changes anything?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-03-2011, 02:29 PM
Deadlokd's Avatar
Deadlokd Deadlokd is offline
Not as smart as Adam
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Queensland
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCXXIX
Images: 21
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I mean WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO
__________________
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-03-2011, 03:40 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (11-03-2011), Crumb (11-03-2011), Goliath (11-03-2011), Gooch's dad (11-03-2011), Spacemonkey (11-03-2011), specious_reasons (11-03-2011), traumaturgist (03-18-2013)
  #10  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:32 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.
No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that. You will never grasp this knowledge if all you want to do is argue even before you even understand what he's talking about. That's exactly what's happening.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:35 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Oh, look, a new thread by peacegirl! A Revolution in Thought, Part Two! :lecher:

Is this going to be like Part One, in which we learned that we see in real time, even though we don't? :popcorn:

Oh, well, every dark cloud has a silver lining, as they say!

In this thread we can explore the usual objections to free will, which broadly fit into three categories: Causal or Laplacean determinism, logical determinism (Aristotle's problem of future contingents) and epistemic determinism (the problem of God's foreknowledge) and see why none of them impede free will. :wave:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (11-03-2011), Gooch's dad (11-03-2011), Spacemonkey (11-03-2011)
  #12  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:36 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.
No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that.
Yes, I do appreciate it. :yup: Lessans' book was a great source of humor, albeit all of it unintended to be humorous.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:39 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.
No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that.
Yes, I do appreciate it. :yup: Lessans' book was a great source of humor, albeit all of it unintended to be humorous.
No David, you're just really angry at Lessans. It makes me sad. :sadcheer:
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:51 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.
No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that.
Yes, I do appreciate it. :yup: Lessans' book was a great source of humor, albeit all of it unintended to be humorous.
No David, you're just really angry at Lessans. It makes me sad. :sadcheer:
:pat: :halftroll:
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-03-2011, 05:32 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMDXXXIV
Images: 8
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I think that we functionally have free will, even though we don't. You could probably predict the actions of any individual at any point in time provided you knew enough about that person's past and current experience.

The trouble as I see it, is knowing enough. The more universal the behavior, the easier it will be to predict. A simple example: If I'm taking with a person, and I point at something, I can predict with a reasonable confidence that a person will look at where I'm pointing.

Yet, there's a small chance that the person won't. Maybe that person knows that I have a habit of pointing to people's plumber cracks, dead things, or other unhappy occurrences. Maybe they just didn't happen to be looking at me when I was pointing, or maybe they have some form of social disfunction.

Unless I know all of this, I can't predict with 100% certainty. I generally treat free will as an information problem.

This is a reason why I have a problem with Lessans. Understanding that I don't really have free will generally doesn't affect how I behave, because I can't always predict how my actions will affect others. I have some idea, because I can predict based on reasonable assumptions, but I can't possibly eliminate all risks.

...and sometimes, I'm just resigned to the fact that I'm not always a nice person.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kael (11-03-2011), LadyShea (11-03-2011), Vivisectus (11-11-2011)
  #16  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:48 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate.

If your primary, or only, means of explaining the concepts is to quote the book, then you have lost already. The book is unclear and insufficent to the purpose. If you can't restate clearly and explain bit by bit, Lessans ideas will be lost to the world and it will be your fault. The responsability is entirely on you to present the material in a way that readers can understand.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (11-03-2011)
  #17  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:07 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I have to agree with thedoc. You need to lay out a summary of the finding, without Lessans confusing fake dialog interjections, butthurt at "the establishment" and self congratulating.

Make it read like a true work of scholarship rather than a stream of consciousness experiment. This is the only way you will be seen as someone with something serious to offer. If you can't summarize it then you must not understand it yourself.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (11-03-2011), specious_reasons (11-03-2011)
  #18  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:33 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I have to agree with thedoc. You need to lay out a summary of the finding, without Lessans confusing fake dialog interjections, butthurt at "the establishment" and self congratulating.

Make it read like a true work of scholarship rather than a stream of consciousness experiment. This is the only way you will be seen as someone with something serious to offer. If you can't summarize it then you must not understand it yourself.
I already did summarize it. We all move in the direction of GREATER satisfaction, which leaves us only one choice at each moment in time. What are you so in disagreement with to conclude that this is all bullshit?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:50 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I have to agree with thedoc. You need to lay out a summary of the finding, without Lessans confusing fake dialog interjections, butthurt at "the establishment" and self congratulating.

Make it read like a true work of scholarship rather than a stream of consciousness experiment. This is the only way you will be seen as someone with something serious to offer. If you can't summarize it then you must not understand it yourself.
I already did summarize it. We all move in the direction of GREATER satisfaction, which leaves us only one choice at each moment in time. What are you so in disagreement with to conclude that this is all bullshit?
We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST. To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.

I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic. Peacegirl's stuff can be ignored because it has already been refuted.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (11-03-2011), SharonDee (11-03-2011), Spacemonkey (11-03-2011)
  #20  
Old 11-03-2011, 05:11 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic.
I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (11-03-2011)
  #21  
Old 11-03-2011, 05:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic.
I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?
Your flippant response indicates to me that you don't want to be here. Go find other books. I can't even begin to discuss this discovery with people who are so disrespectful in every way. Just go Kael.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-03-2011, 09:48 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic.
I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?
Here is one possible definition of free will: That I have the genuine ability to choose among genuinely available alternatives, in any given situation.

Here are some possible objections, running the gamut from theistic to naturalistic:

1. Today it is true that tomorrow there will be a sea battle. If its true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, nobody can do anything to prevent the sea battle from happening. So the participants in the battle have no option to refrain from doing battle.

2. Today God knows that tomorrow I will kill x. In fact, God knew this fact before I was ever born, indeed an eternity ago. Therefore I must kill x because I cannot do other than what the omniscient God infallibly foreknows, and have no genuine ability to refrain from killing x.

3. When he made the world, God knew all counterfactual worlds. There were worlds in which I kill x and worlds in which I dont. God chose to make the world in which I kill x, and not the world in which I refrain from killing x. Therefore I have no choice but to kill x.

4. The world is causally deterministic. It is governed by physical law. If one could trace all the workings of cause and effect, one could predict in advance what I would do. Therefore I must do as the laws of physics dictate and have no genuine option to do otherwise.

5. The future exists, along with the past and present (indicated by relativity theory.) This means the future, just as much as the past, is fixed and unchangeable. I can no more change or affect the future than I can the past. So I have no free will.

6. The I does not exist. The Cartesian I is a convenient illusion cobbled up by brain states. What I choose to do, is decided by my subconscious even before I am aware of my choice. Free will presupposes a free agent, an I. If the I does not exist, then neither does free will.

And from here, one could start by wondering whether the definition of free will is a good one, and whether any of the arguments presented above against that definition, or perhaps against some modified definition, are successful arguments against free will.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (11-03-2011), LadyShea (11-03-2011), Pan Narrans (11-03-2011), Stephen Maturin (11-03-2011)
  #23  
Old 01-06-2012, 12:58 AM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic.
I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?
Free Will and determinism, a dialogue, is a good place to start. You can buy it at Amazon Books for 7$
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-04-2012, 03:40 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST. To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (02-04-2012), Spacemonkey (02-04-2012)
  #25  
Old 02-04-2012, 03:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST.
Thank you for this refutation but I have to disagree. We cannot DO if we don't move in this direction naturally. We cannot LadyShea. We can only DO what our desire is telling us to DO. Desire is the impetus here. I am trying to come from your position in order to show you where you're confused, so don't give up, okay?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.
That's an assertion that keeps your worldview safe. I can't fight someone who sets up a premise that cannot be disputed, which is what you're doing. :(

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted
There is no modal fallacy.

Last edited by peacegirl; 02-04-2012 at 09:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 5.76948 seconds with 14 queries