#49676  
Old 01-04-2017, 12:54 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I read them. We are not in disagreement.
You did not clearly react on my statement:

But you realise this is exactly what compatibilism is saying?

Just to show you:
  1. You are opposing compatibilism.
  2. I describe your viewpoint, translating a few concepts in your direction (e.g. compatbilist free will => volition)
  3. However, doing this it shows that your viewpoint is compatibilism
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He is responsible for his actions in that he performed the action, no one else.
Yep. And that makes it morally relevant.
I am not implying that a person's actions are not morally relevant when they infringe on another. But there is a better way to achieve this end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Any thought process to determine which choice is the better one is limited to one's environment, experiences, and heredity and each and every moment only one choice is possible when there are meaningful differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB
Yep. But here you are using the categorical meaning of 'one choice is possible'.
That's not what is meant by "one choice is possible". It is not categorical because the one possible choice involves reflection and contemplation. This is hypothetical, not categorical but this ability, this freedom to choose amongst alternatives, does not give us the freedom to make the "right" moral choice unless that choice is the choice of preference. The best way to get a person to make the moral choice is the issue here, not that moral responsibility isn't important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB
What you choose however is dependent on your capability to reflect the options for different actions, using your capability to foresee possible consequences of your actions, including its moral dimensions. But that shows that it is enough that you reflect on possible choices, which means we only need the hypothetical meaning of 'which choices are possible'. And, as said before, the hypothetical reading is not in contradiction with determinism.
Again: this makes you morally responsible for your actions.
Once again, no one is denying this but the question becomes what is the better means to achieving this end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I cannot move on unless you read Chapter One.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "GdB
I cannot move on until you have unambiguously presented your position. Therefore we need clear definitions, and consistent use of them.
I'm doing my best to make sure we're on the same page.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #49677  
Old 01-04-2017, 05:59 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not implying that a person's actions are not morally relevant when they infringe on another.
Great. But do you realise that you are a compatibilist then? You agreed with my slogans, and with my description of your viewpoint. But they are essentially the same! You did not correct my slogans, and you agreed with my description of your view point.

Now the thing is that volition (=compatibilist free will) is simply not the same as libertarian free will. So the kind of responsibility that is associated with it, is also not the same. So the idea of ultimate responsibility, the idea that everybody has a complete free will, is nonsense. Instead we should see responsibility associated with the capability people have to oversee the consequences of their actions and their power of will. And these capabilities are not developed the same in everybody, and also the circumstances can vary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's not what is meant by "one choice is possible". It is not categorical because the one possible choice involves reflection and contemplation.
The only relevant meaning in relation to volition is the hypothetical one, and in this meaning there are several possible choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The best way to get a person to make the moral choice is the issue here, not that moral responsibility isn't important.
The best way would be to see that other people suffer just as you do, and have the same striving for happiness. So I assume teaching Buddhism and meditation is the way to go. :embuddha:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm doing my best to make sure we're on the same page.
I don't know. If you see that you are in fact a compatibilist, then we might have achieved a certain level of understanding.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), Dragar (01-04-2017), The Man (01-04-2017), thedoc (01-08-2017)
  #49678  
Old 01-04-2017, 07:19 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCDLXVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because he's :kookoo:
lol it just occurred to me.

Look at peacegirl dismissing people as loons! Just because she doesn't like what they say. It's a form of bullying :ouch: :ouch: :ouch:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), Dragar (01-04-2017), Stephen Maturin (01-04-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-04-2017), The Man (01-04-2017), thedoc (01-08-2017)
  #49679  
Old 01-04-2017, 07:45 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

It may not be bullying so much as peacegirl attempting to cover up her inability to address the merits of your statements, issued in your capacity as True Steward of the Authentic Text.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), ChuckF (01-04-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-04-2017), The Man (01-04-2017), thedoc (01-08-2017)
  #49680  
Old 01-04-2017, 07:56 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not implying that a person's actions are not morally relevant when they infringe on another.
Great. But do you realise that you are a compatibilist then? You agreed with my slogans, and with my description of your viewpoint. But they are essentially the same! You did not correct my slogans, and you agreed with my description of your view point.
I already said that the way you use the term "free will" is fine. The assigning of responsibility is also necessary if a person breaks the law. This is where mankind is in his stage of development.

p. 53 The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free.
In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’


Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
Now the thing is that volition (=compatibilist free will) is simply not the same as libertarian free will. So the kind of responsibility that is associated with it, is also not the same. So the idea of ultimate responsibility, the idea that everybody has a complete free will, is nonsense. Instead we should see responsibility associated with the capability people have to oversee the consequences of their actions and their power of will. And these capabilities are not developed the same in everybody, and also the circumstances can vary.
These capabilities vary because we are all different based on our genetics, predispositions, environment and immediate circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's not what is meant by "one choice is possible". It is not categorical because the one possible choice involves reflection and contemplation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
The only relevant meaning in relation to volition is the hypothetical one, and in this meaning there are several possible choices.
There are a myriad of choices to pick from, otherwise there would be nothing to contemplate. It would be like choosing between A and A. What I believe you are saying is that a person is free to pick the moral choice as long as he is capable of understanding the consequences of his actions. But what if someone has to steal in order to feed his family because there is no other option available? He knows he may get punished, but what choice does he really have? He actually has a choice, but is it a free one? Under these circumstances can he actually choose not to steal (the moral act) as the preferable option? In this case his actions would not be considered immoral because people can see the reasons for his choice. This would be considered a mitigating circumstance in a court of law. Therefore what separates immorality from morality is not the choice per se, but the fact that we, as outsiders looking in, can understand the reasons behind the act. But what if that is not possible?

IOW, is it possible that there could be clear reasons for why a person makes a particular choice that we don't understand because we are not in his shoes? Another example would be a person who is retaliating against someone who just murdered a family member. In this hypothetical scenario, we are not privy to his life's circumstances that have led to his desire to pay this person back. Maybe he didn't trust the legal system and decided to take the law in his own hands as a result. In society's eyes, he didn't have to do what he did, but he wanted to based on the factors that led up to his decision. Please understand, I am not condoning actions that hurt others. I am just trying to establish the fact that there are always reasons why someone may make a choice deemed wrong or immoral by others. So where does that leave us? In the same spot we've always been. Continue to punish people for making the "wrong" choice, as this is the only deterrent we have. But there is a better way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The best way to get a person to make the moral choice is the issue here, not that moral responsibility isn't important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
The best way would be to see that other people suffer just as you do, and have the same striving for happiness. So I assume teaching Buddhism and meditation is the way to go. :embuddha:
Teaching compassion for others would certainly go a long way. Children who have been hurt often grow up to hurt others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm doing my best to make sure we're on the same page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
I don't know. If you see that you are in fact a compatibilist, then we might have achieved a certain level of understanding.
I already told you that the term "free will" is okay to use if it means "I made this choice of my own free will or desire." Nothing forced me to make the choice that I did.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-04-2017 at 10:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49681  
Old 01-05-2017, 03:02 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

In chapter five on premarital relations, Lessans has reduced the complexity of a human relationship to that of a pair of wild animals mating. It seems that Lessans didn't have time for the complex human relationship, so he attempted to reduce it to something he could understand, otherwise being too busy hustling pool and selling aluminum siding. In his mind a relationship is formed instantly, perhaps this is where he got the idea that vision is instant as well. He must have been observing his own dog and it's relations with other dogs, as animals are most attracted to the smell of another's genitals. Perhaps observing his own dog is where he got the idea that dogs couldn't recognize individual humans from sight alone, he must have owned a particularly stupid dog, but that would fit nicely with his own uneducated state.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #49682  
Old 01-07-2017, 02:03 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already said that the way you use the term "free will" is fine.
So you are a compatibilist. Why are you attacking compatibilism then so strong? Because you think that compatibilist free will is the same as libertarian free will? Why do you think that Daniel Dennet, as a compatibilist, criticises the penal system of the USA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But what if someone has to steal in order to feed his family because there is no other option available? He knows he may get punished, but what choice does he really have? He actually has a choice, but is it a free one? Under these circumstances can he actually choose not to steal (the moral act) as the preferable option?
You are confusing 'being responsible' and 'doing the morally correct thing'. The first is a more or less empirical fact: if somebody can oversee the consequences of his action, he can be held responsible. But of course we can decide not to blame him for his action.

In this case one could say that he was forced to steal a bread. It was that: stealing a bread, or starve. But do realise that only people who are responsible can make such a choice. People who have no idea that they are not allowed to take a bread are not culpable.

An enlightened society will take all such factors in account to decide if a person is responsible for his action, and if he is, if he should be punished. You are throwing the question if somebody has free will on the same heap as the question if he does morally wrong, and should be punished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Teaching compassion for others would certainly go a long way.
And you think that a 'logical insight' works immediately?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm doing my best to make sure we're on the same page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
I don't know. If you see that you are in fact a compatibilist, then we might have achieved a certain level of understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already told you that the term "free will" is okay to use if it means "I made this choice of my own free will or desire." Nothing forced me to make the choice that I did.
Right. You really are a compatibilist.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), Dragar (01-07-2017), The Man (01-07-2017), thedoc (01-08-2017)
  #49683  
Old 01-07-2017, 05:22 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already said that the way you use the term "free will" is fine.
So you are a compatibilist. Why are you attacking compatibilism then so strong? Because you think that compatibilist free will is the same as libertarian free will? Why do you think that Daniel Dennet, as a compatibilist, criticises the penal system of the USA?
Daniel Dennet believes punishment should be even harsher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But what if someone has to steal in order to feed his family because there is no other option available? He knows he may get punished, but what choice does he really have? He actually has a choice, but is it a free one? Under these circumstances can he actually choose not to steal (the moral act) as the preferable option?
You are confusing 'being responsible' and 'doing the morally correct thing'. The first is a more or less empirical fact: if somebody can oversee the consequences of his action, he can be held responsible. But of course we can decide not to blame him for his action.

In this case one could say that he was forced to steal a bread. It was that: stealing a bread, or starve. But do realise that only people who are responsible can make such a choice. People who have no idea that they are not allowed to take a bread are not culpable.

An enlightened society will take all such factors in account to decide if a person is responsible for his action, and if he is, if he should be punished. You are throwing the question if somebody has free will on the same heap as the question if he does morally wrong, and should be punished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Teaching compassion for others would certainly go a long way.
And you think that a 'logical insight' works immediately?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm doing my best to make sure we're on the same page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
I don't know. If you see that you are in fact a compatibilist, then we might have achieved a certain level of understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already told you that the term "free will" is okay to use if it means "I made this choice of my own free will or desire." Nothing forced me to make the choice that I did.
Right. You really are a compatibilist.[/QUOTE]
GdB, you are a very thoughtful person and I appreciate where you are coming from, but I am only asking you to delay judgment on whether there is anything new to what I am offering. You bring up Dennet. I agree that as far as we have come in our development, we have to use threats of the worst punishment possible to deter people from hurting others. I GET IT! But there is a better way. You can defend your belief system until the cows come home, and that's okay. I am only asking you to take a break and hear what Lessans has (had) to say about determinism and the extension of this finding.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-08-2017 at 01:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49684  
Old 01-07-2017, 06:02 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am only asking you to take a break and hear what Lessans has (had) to say about determinism and the extension of this finding.
Lessans had very little to say directly about determinism, he mainly claimed that humans did not have free will at all, and therefore could not be blamed for anything they did. He went on to claim that without blame and punishment the conscience would operate perfectly and no-one would hurt anyone else. His main claim about determinism was that we didn't have free will and everything that we did was determined.

As far as delaying judgement, Peacegirl has been hawking her fathers book for more than 12 years on the internet, and about 5 years on this forum. I would say the ideas have been hashed over many times and no-one is rushing to judgement. A few of us have read the book through, and some parts several times. Lessans ideas are not hard to understand, but most people who are exposed to them disagree with them, and this is what Peacegirl is really upset about. In her mind the ideas and claims are self evident, and cannot be understood and not agreed with.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-07-2017), The Man (01-07-2017)
  #49685  
Old 01-08-2017, 08:27 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is online now
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCLXXXIV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hey PG look at this:

Learn Online Marketing - Free Training Course From Google

Free online marketing courses from google! They look kinda fun too.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), The Man (01-08-2017)
  #49686  
Old 01-08-2017, 08:29 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is online now
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCLXXXIV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hmmm that would make for an interesting challenge - can we take that rather sepulchral, early 90's looking site of yours and somehow give it some traffic?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), The Man (01-08-2017)
  #49687  
Old 01-08-2017, 01:26 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
GdB, you are a very thoughtful person and I appreciate where you are coming from, but I am only asking you to delay judgment on whether there is anything new to what I am offering. You bring up Dennet. I agree that as far as we have come in our development, we have to use threats of the worst punishment possible to deter people from hurting others. I GET IT! But there is a better way. You can defend your belief system until the cows come home, and that's okay. I am only asking you to take a break and hear what Lessans has (had) to say about determinism and the extension of this finding.
We can only go on when we are, as you say, on the same page. As long as you do not explicitly say that you discovered that you are in fact a compatibilist, we are not on the same page.

If you do, we can go on:
  • Investigate what the consequence for (moral) responsibility is, given a realistic concept of free will, i.e. volition (CFW!) as as basis instead of libertarian free will.
  • Try to find other ways how to cope with misbehaviour.
  • Try to find ways how to avoid that people do misbehave.
  • And how to implement these better ways.

If you want to go on with me, we must be sure that we are on the same page step by step. It makes no sense to yell your version of the truth from the roofs. That is not philosophising, that is proselytising.

So, are we on the same page until here?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-08-2017), The Man (01-08-2017), thedoc (01-08-2017)
  #49688  
Old 01-08-2017, 01:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Hey PG look at this:

Learn Online Marketing - Free Training Course From Google

Free online marketing courses from google! They look kinda fun too.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #49689  
Old 01-08-2017, 01:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
GdB, you are a very thoughtful person and I appreciate where you are coming from, but I am only asking you to delay judgment on whether there is anything new to what I am offering. You bring up Dennet. I agree that as far as we have come in our development, we have to use threats of the worst punishment possible to deter people from hurting others. I GET IT! But there is a better way. You can defend your belief system until the cows come home, and that's okay. I am only asking you to take a break and hear what Lessans has (had) to say about determinism and the extension of this finding.
We can only go on when we are, as you say, on the same page. As long as you do not explicitly say that you discovered that you are in fact a compatibilist, we are not on the same page.

If you do, we can go on:
  • Investigate what the consequence for (moral) responsibility is, given a realistic concept of free will, i.e. volition (CFW!) as as basis instead of libertarian free will.
  • Try to find other ways how to cope with misbehaviour.
  • Try to find ways how to avoid that people do misbehave.
  • And how to implement these better ways.

If you want to go on with me, we must be sure that we are on the same page step by step. It makes no sense to yell your version of the truth from the roofs. That is not philosophising, that is proselytising.

So, are we on the same page until here?
I already answered you GdB. Lessans said that using the term "free will" in the way you're using it is fine: I did something of my own VOLITION, of my own DESIRE; nothing made me do it. I agree that we must be sure that we are on the same page step by step. That's all Lessans ever wanted.

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks
no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet.

__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #49690  
Old 01-08-2017, 03:01 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already answered you GdB.
No, you did not. You always are answering by using your own wording, and do not use the word 'YES'.

Here is the question again: do you agree that you discovered that you are in fact a compatibilist?

If you say 'no' I know that we are not on the same page.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), thedoc (01-08-2017)
  #49691  
Old 01-08-2017, 05:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already answered you GdB.
No, you did not. You always are answering by using your own wording, and do not use the word 'YES'.

Here is the question again: do you agree that you discovered that you are in fact a compatibilist?

If you say 'no' I know that we are not on the same page.
I could care less what words are used. If it makes you happy to say I'm a compatibilist, so be it. The saddest thing would be if semantics precluded us from moving forward.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #49692  
Old 01-08-2017, 06:24 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already answered you GdB.
No, you did not. You always are answering by using your own wording, and do not use the word 'YES'.

Here is the question again: do you agree that you discovered that you are in fact a compatibilist?

If you say 'no' I know that we are not on the same page.
I could care less what words are used. If it makes you happy to say I'm a compatibilist, so be it. The saddest thing would be if semantics precluded us from moving forward.
Hello, dear, itís Flo. :wave: I hope you enjoyed a nice, vaccination-free Holiday Season, in your world where pi equals two or four or something like that, where time is not a dimension, where time doesnít slow down even though clocks do, and where Sandy Hook was a false flag operation and where we should take medical advice from people who confer with billion-year-old Gods from Andromeda. :nod:

So now you are a compatibilist? You do realize, donít you, that that nice spacemonkey :monkey: has spent 10 years on various Internet fora explaining compatibilism to you? With you resisting every step of the way. Flo is just saying here Ö
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), But (01-08-2017), Pan Narrans (01-10-2017), Stephen Maturin (01-08-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-08-2017), The Man (01-08-2017), thedoc (01-08-2017)
  #49693  
Old 01-08-2017, 09:30 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks
no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.
It's called "poisoning the well", and it is a logical fallacy. Lessans is denying the validity of everything that he isn't, he didn't have any education, credentials or I.Q. so he denied that these were of any value, and indeed with his ideas they would be of no value, because it doesn't take any of those to evaluate his nonsense.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-08-2017), The Man (01-08-2017)
  #49694  
Old 01-08-2017, 10:25 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I could care less what words are used. If it makes you happy to say I'm a compatibilist, so be it. The saddest thing would be if semantics precluded us from moving forward.
So now Peacegirl is saying that it doesn't matter what word you use or what definition you apply to it. And for so many years she has been adamant that the accepted definitions were wrong and Her's and Lessans were the only correct ones. The really sad thing is that she doesn't have any understanding of semantics at all.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-08-2017), The Man (01-08-2017)
  #49695  
Old 01-08-2017, 10:32 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

This post in Trick Slattery's blog clarifies certain points regarding how the term free will of "could have done otherwise" is often used in a colloquial sense but does not mean that once a choice is actualized, there could have been any other possibility. Although my father explains it a little differently, Trick does a great job at explaining the logistical problem when it comes to assigning moral responsibility (in the just just desert sense) in a determined universe.

The Important Context of "Could Have Done Otherwise" (for the Free Will Debate) -
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #49696  
Old 01-08-2017, 11:06 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I am still waiting to hear what a "logistical problem" is in the context of this discussion.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (01-08-2017)
  #49697  
Old 01-09-2017, 11:47 AM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I could care less what words are used. If it makes you happy to say I'm a compatibilist, so be it. The saddest thing would be if semantics precluded us from moving forward.
The saddest thing is that you do not understand the concepts, so you can't see through the semantics. Just exchange 'compatibilist free will' with 'volition' and we see that you are in fact a compatibilist. But your 'could (not!) care less' does not suffice for me. So I need a full, deep from your heart, confession: 'Yes, I realise now that I am in fact a compatibilist.'

And then I do not want to have any problems about 'could have done otherwise' anymore. The only way this phrase makes sense is in its hypothetical reading, which is:
- fully compatible with determinism
- a sufficient base for assigning (compabilist) free will (i.e. we do not need something that would correspond with the categorical reading of 'CHDO'
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-10-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-09-2017), The Man (01-09-2017)
  #49698  
Old 01-09-2017, 12:48 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I could care less what words are used. If it makes you happy to say I'm a compatibilist, so be it. The saddest thing would be if semantics precluded us from moving forward.
The saddest thing is that you do not understand the concepts, so you can't see through the semantics. Just exchange 'compatibilist free will' with 'volition' and we see that you are in fact a compatibilist. But your 'could (not!) care less' does not suffice for me. So I need a full, deep from your heart, confession: 'Yes, I realise now that I am in fact a compatibilist.'

And then I do not want to have any problems about 'could have done otherwise' anymore. The only way this phrase makes sense is in its hypothetical reading, which is:
- fully compatible with determinism
- a sufficient base for assigning (compabilist) free will (i.e. we do not need something that would correspond with the categorical reading of 'CHDO'
This is as far as I will go. I understand your hypothetical reading is what matters in your account. I see how you use the word compatible. I understand why you believe this type of freedom does not conflict with determinism in assigning responsibility. I also understand that without the knowledge of consequences as a deterrent, we would have a worse situation because people would do whatever they want without anything controlling their behavior. This should be enough to allow me to present my side. If not, there's nowhere to go from here.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #49699  
Old 01-09-2017, 02:18 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is as far as I will go. I understand your hypothetical reading is what matters in your account. I see how you use the word compatible. I understand why you believe this type of freedom does not conflict with determinism in assigning responsibility. I also understand that without the knowledge of consequences as a deterrent, we would have a worse situation because people would do whatever they want without anything controlling their behavior. This should be enough to allow me to present my side. If not, there's nowhere to go from here.
Then there is no way to go further. I asked you about volition and its moral relevance. We agreed that we both do not believe in categorical CHDO. We agreed that volition is what compatibilists understand under free will. We agreed that the responsibility that goes with volition is not ultimate responsibility. We agreed that the hypothetical reading of CHDO does not contradict determinism, and that it is enough to assign people responsibility (not ultimate responsibility!). That is compatibilism. But you refuse to call yourself a compabilist???

Then I can be sure we get in conceptual trouble again. So make up your mind, please.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-10-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-09-2017), The Man (01-09-2017)
  #49700  
Old 01-09-2017, 04:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is as far as I will go. I understand your hypothetical reading is what matters in your account. I see how you use the word compatible. I understand why you believe this type of freedom does not conflict with determinism in assigning responsibility. I also understand that without the knowledge of consequences as a deterrent, we would have a worse situation because people would do whatever they want without anything controlling their behavior. This should be enough to allow me to present my side. If not, there's nowhere to go from here.
Then there is no way to go further. I asked you about volition and its moral relevance. We agreed that we both do not believe in categorical CHDO. We agreed that volition is what compatibilists understand under free will. We agreed that the responsibility that goes with volition is not ultimate responsibility. We agreed that the hypothetical reading of CHDO does not contradict determinism, and that it is enough to assign people responsibility (not ultimate responsibility!). That is compatibilism. But you refuse to call yourself a compabilist???

Then I can be sure we get in conceptual trouble again. So make up your mind, please.
I did my best but there is nowhere to go from here. I wish you the best GDB. Bye for now.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (0 members and 10 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 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 2.88446 seconds with 14 queries