#25876  
Old 05-04-2013, 01:03 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
until this discovery is confirmed
Confirmed by whom? Any authoritative confirmation process will include these same questions, and if you can't answer them Lessans book will be dismissed as crackpottery...so you might as well try to answer them.
Reply With Quote
  #25877  
Old 05-04-2013, 01:32 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If no conceivable options are ruled out, then there can't be any compulsion.
But they are ruled out. I swear you understanding nothing. :doh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If any options are ruled out, then the satisfaction principle isn't the necessary tautology you said it was, because it would then fail to hold in the conceivably possible scenarios where such options are selected.
All options that someone is contemplating are fair game Spacemonkey, but the choice that is made is limited to what gives that person GREATER satisfaction in comparison. The necessary tautology is that any choice under consideration is possible, so whatever choice that is, is the preferred choice. The purpose of considering our options is to determine which choice is the most preferable when weighing the pros and cons. The choice that IS made is the ONLY choice that could have been made at that moment with the knowledge that was available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It's consistent with principle because whatever choice is made is the only choice that could be made (necessary law = any choice made, by definition, is in the direction of greater satisfaction). Once the choice is made, it rules out any other conceivable option, not before. This poses no inconsistency with necessary truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No inconsistency? Your first sentence here is a flat contradiction. If any conceivable choice would be in the direction of satisfaction just by being made, then there cannot be only one choice that could be made in the direction of greater satisfaction. You are simultaneously saying both that only one choice and also all conceivable choices are consistent with the truth of his principle.
The word "choice" is misleading because it implies that all choices are equal. They are not equal. You cannot choose simultaneously more than one choice, therefore the word choice is a smokescreen because it confounds the truth. It is a mirage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Necessary truth is not saying they had to vote for Obama. All it is saying is that whever one chooses for President (not necessarily Obama before the fact) is the more preferable choice when comparing meaningful differences (to vote for Obama or Romney). Is is true that the President is whoever they happened to vote for, but this is a compulsion because they are driven to choose that which is the most favorable in their eyes, not that which is the least favorable. The options, therefore, are not equal in value in any situation where there are differences in those options that matter to an individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You are equivocating, just as your father did, between the empty tautological notion of greater satisfaction you can get, and the substantial empirical notion of greater satisfaction and compulsion which you need.
Your reasoning does not prove him wrong. The notion of greater satisfaction is not empty Spacemonkey because compulsion is a part of it. Just because we don't know in advance which choice will be made by each individual (because a justaposition of differences in each case creates alternatives that affect choice) doesn't remove the fact that one can only make one choice at each moment in time and that is determined by what is the most preferable, not the least preferable. He cannot move in the direction of what is less satisfying when a more satisfying option is available. You're failing to understand this and assuming that just because a number of options are open to a person does not mean that compulsion is not part of what drives him. You're logic is completely faulty here, not Lessans' observations, and there is no way that I can show you because of our obstinance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If you consider the full range of conceivable choices that could be made and decide that every one would be in the direction of greater satisfaction purely by being made, as a matter of logical or conceptual necessity, then you have simply defined greater satisfaction as whatever choice one happens to make.
That is true because he cannot choose what is less satisfying (which has been proven whether you see this or not), therefore whatever choice he makes has to be in the direction of greater satisfaction. No one can determine what choice that will be until it is made because it can change right up to the moment of choice if something enters into that decision that could change one's preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It then literally doesn't mean anything to say we are compelled to always move in this direction, because you are just saying that we will choose what we choose.
That is true, we choose what we choose, but what we choose when comparing MEANINGFUL differences compels us to choose only the option that we find the most preferable given the information that we have at our disposal. It doesn't mean it was the "right" choice looking back in hindsight. If it was a choice that had unexpected consequences, we will use that information the next time a similar situation presents itself. This is how we learn from previous mistakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What you must be doing in order to imagine that compulsion is involved, is imagining that in each of the full range of conceivable choices there will be a different compulsion towards that particular choice as more satisfying, making any other choice causally impossible. But then you have introduced some logically contingent empirical and psychological notion of greater satisfaction differing from the tautological one, and which does not hold the same across all conceivable choices. And this second notion of satisfaction is the one you have failed to define or provide any evidence for.
Look, this is a no win here. You are giving me no options in either universal law or necessary truth. There is a compulsion Spacemonkey, and it's your logic that is off, not these observations. Logic can be dangerous because it bases its reasoning on premises that are inaccurate. There is no empirical notion of greater satisfaction because we cannot point empirically and say this is a movement in this direction. This is not how he came to his conclusions. It does hold across all conceivable choices that one moves in one direction, therefore, according to your definition, it is tautological but that does not mean it is meaningless, and if you took the time to see why it's not meaningless by studying these principles you would not be so sure of yourself. It's your assuredness that is ruining it for you because you think your logic is more sound than Lessans' observations, which is false, but you will hold onto your logic for dear life because you want him to be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Of course I could be wrong. Why can't you admit that your father could have been wrong? No-one is infallible, but the difference is that I can identify and describe your father's mistakes while all you can do is whine and assert that there must be as yet unidentified flaws in my reasoning.
You are not identifying his mistakes. What hubris you have Spacemonkey. You think your logic has disproved his mathematics (and you know by now what I mean by mathematics in this contest; his undeniable observations which don't require logic). I am trying to point out your flaws in reasoning, but you have to be open to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It is not hubris to claim to be smarter than Lessans, for Lessans was not very smart. Hubris would be claiming, with no evidence for any of his claims, that his observations were infallible, and refusing to acknowledge that he could have been wrong. You call him a mathematician when he didn't even understand how to correctly use the word 'mathematics'.
Yes he did. He explained that each word meant "undeniable". That was enough. You are purposely using this against him, when there is no reason to use this against him othen than for your own purposes. Anyway, whether you agree with my refutations or not, my point was that when I criticize his reasoning I can tell you exactly how and where I consider it to be flawed.[/quote]

But it is not flawed so your pointing this out means nothing at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You don't do that. In post after post all you do is assert that my reasoning is flawed/out the door/completely lost without being able to explain your reasons for thinking this.
Yes it is. It is 100% flawed. I have tried to show you where but you are so intent on being right you don't consider anything I'm saying. Believe what you want Spacemonkey. I can't spend all this time trying to show you where your logic is off when you will not leave any room for this possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Who made this stuff up that a universal law (which has no exceptions) has to have exceptions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Universal scientific laws of nature are empirical and falsifiable, meaning they may be true in all actual circumstances, but we can still specify the conceivably possible circumstances in which they would be false. So universal laws of nature have possible but not actual exceptions. You have repeatedly said that his satisfaction principle has neither actual nor possible exceptions. It is therefore a tautology and cannot possibly be a universal law of nature. It would be a law of logic rather than a law of nature.
This has nothing to do with laws of logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And there is compulsion entailed by this law (call it what you want) because it DOES rule out certain choices, but the law doesn't demand what choice that is. That can only be seen after the choice is made, whichever choice it turns out to be. This is contingent on each individual's background, experiences, thought processes, heredity, present circumstances, and cannot be decided in advance which this law is not doing. All it is doing is stating that whatever choice is made had to be made because there was a compulsion involved, but it cannot tell you what choice that will be in advance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If the truth of the satisfaction principle doesn't determine one particular choice to the exclusion of others
What have I been saying this whole time? It does determine one particular choice to the exclusion of others. Where have you been Spacemonkey? :sadcheer: The rest of your logic is meaningless as a result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
, then it isn't the truth of the satisfaction principle which renders contra-causal free will impossible. It must instead be some more specific compulsion employing a non-tautological and as yet unexplained and undefined notion of preference or satisfaction.
But don't you see, it does render contra-causal free will impossible. Amazing how you can twist your logic to justify your beliefs because you don't want to accept that you could be wrong. That would mean a total overhaul of the way you view the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, he didn't fail. No one else but you and others who want to find reasons to dismiss his discovery will find a problem with this. Yes, he assumed that the people reading this book knows what satisfaction means. This is not what you're defining it as. Putting the word "greater" in front of satisfaction does not change the meaning or conflate it. It just shows that there is a gradation involved when it comes to what someone finds satisfying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Whether you view it as a failure or not, he didn't explicitly define the most important term in his argument. And as a result, he has left himself wide open to the charge of equivocation - something that would not have been possible had he properly defined his terms.
He did more than explain in detail every one of his observations. You are nitpicking because, once again, you are looking for flaws that really aren't there. That is because your goal is to prove him wrong which is why you can't follow his reasoning. You have set up a fallacious syllogism, which is failing you, but you are blind to your errors. What can I say? There's no way I can progress because you won't let me. It's your loss because this book is very enlightening and you're going to dismiss it just like Nageli dismissed Mendel's discovery because he thought the core of Mendel's discovery was wrong. Mendel was just an amateur and he was the authority (the very father of genetics), so that gave him justification to believe that his opinion was more valuable than Mendel's). History has taught us to be beware of prematurely judging someone else's work, for fear that there will be many more Nageli's.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-04-2013 at 04:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25878  
Old 05-04-2013, 01:45 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

How is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction a limitation or elimination of our will rather than an exercise of our will? Why would somebody will themselves to be less satisfied?

I actually accept that humans make choices that they prefer in their pursuit of happiness. I just don't understand how you go from that to "no free will".

Here's a serious question for you to consider. How would having free will look any different than not having free will? Even if we had the most extreme form of free will ever posited by anyone...would that somehow lead to people choosing what they don't prefer? How would you know they are not choosing that which is most preferable freely?

With other laws of nature, we can describe a world in which that law doesn't hold. Can you do so with this law of nature?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (05-04-2013)
  #25879  
Old 05-04-2013, 02:10 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All options that someone is contemplating are fair game Spacemonkey, but the choice that is made is limited to what gives that person GREATER satisfaction in comparison. The necessary tautology is that any choice under consideration is possible, so whatever choice that is, is the preferred choice.
That's still contradictory. You can't have a choice that is limited to absolutely any choice whatsoever, because that isn't a limitation. For his principle to render the actual choice as the only possible choice, there has to be some kind of compulsion generated by his notion of satisfaction such that a scenario - where that compulsion exists and yet some different choice is made - will be specifiable and yet ruled out by his principle. And that requires his satisfaction principle to not be the tautology you say it is, for the above conceivable scenario would be one where it doesn't hold. What you would need to do is describe such a scenario in a way that explains greater satisfaction without making it logically equivalent to whatever choice one makes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The word "choice" is misleading because it implies that all choices are equal. They are not equal. You cannot choose simultaneously more than one choice, therefore the word choice is a smokescreen because it confounds the truth. It is a mirage.
If you think that, then you don't understand the word 'choice'. It doesn't imply that all choices are equal, and it doesn't imply that one can choose two options simultaneously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Your reasoning does not prove him wrong. The notion of greater satisfaction is not empty Spacemonkey because compulsion is a part of it.
If that were true then his satisfaction principle wouldn't be the tautology you've said it is. There would instead be specifiable and conceivable circumstances under which it would fail. You would be able to describe a case where the principle is true and compulsion towards choice X is present, and yet the person chooses Y. This doesn't have to be causally possible, but it does need to be logically possible (i.e. describable without contradiction or conceptual error).

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Just because we don't know in advance which choice will be made by each individual (because a justaposition of differences in each case affects chocie) doesn't remove the fact that one can only make one choice at each moment in time and that is determined by what is the most preferable, not the least preferable. He cannot move in the direction of what is less satisfying when a more satisfying option is available. You're failing to understand this and assuming that just because a number of options are open to a person does not mean that compulsion is not part of what drives his choices.
You are again confusing epistemic and metaphysical/causal considerations. You keep speaking of whether a choice is predictable, and of many options seeming to be equally possible to the person before the choice. But these are epistemic points which are wholly irrelevant to the causal/metaphysical question of whether only one choice is actually possible for the person.

My point isn't that the choice is unpredictable, and it isn't that many options seem equally possible before the choice is made. My point is that his principle being a tautology means all choices remain actually possible, regardless of what is or is not knowable to the person making the choice. Because a tautology doesn't rule out anything.

The rest of your post fragmented my points to such an extent, while interjected nothing but denials, that it isn't worth bothering to reply to it.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-04-2013)
  #25880  
Old 05-04-2013, 03:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All options that someone is contemplating are fair game Spacemonkey, but the choice that is made is limited to what gives that person GREATER satisfaction in comparison. The necessary tautology is that any choice under consideration is possible, so whatever choice that is, is the preferred choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
That's still contradictory. You can't have a choice that is limited to absolutely any choice whatsoever, because that isn't a limitation.
It very well is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
For his principle to render the actual choice as the only possible choice, there has to be some kind of compulsion generated by his notion of satisfaction such that a scenario - where that compulsion exists and yet some different choice is made - will be specifiable and yet ruled out by his principle.
There is no such thing, which makes this law a necessary truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And that requires his satisfaction principle to not be the tautology you say it is, for the above conceivable scenario would be one where it doesn't hold. What you would need to do is describe such a scenario in a way that explains greater satisfaction without making it logically equivalent to whatever choice one makes.
You're trapping me by definition only, not by truth, and for anyone listening who is not keen on these ideas, would immediately give you credit, and reject any of Lessans' very carefully constructed observationsl

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The word "choice" is misleading because it implies that all choices are equal. They are not equal. You cannot choose simultaneously more than one choice, therefore the word choice is a smokescreen because it confounds the truth. It is a mirage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If you think that, then you don't understand the word 'choice'. It doesn't imply that all choices are equal, and it doesn't imply that one can choose two options simultaneously.
I do understand it and it is a misnomer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Your reasoning does not prove him wrong. The notion of greater satisfaction is not empty Spacemonkey because compulsion is a part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If that were true then his satisfaction principle wouldn't be the tautology you've said it is. There would instead be specifiable and conceivable circumstances under which it would fail. You would be able to describe a case where the principle is true and compulsion towards choice X is present, and yet the person chooses Y. This doesn't have to be causally possible, but it does need to be logically possible (i.e. describable without contradiction or conceptual error).
It is very much causally necessary, not just plausible as you suggest.

to be cont...
Reply With Quote
  #25881  
Old 05-04-2013, 03:18 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
That's still contradictory. You can't have a choice that is limited to absolutely any choice whatsoever, because that isn't a limitation.
It very well is.
Don't be ridiculous. That contradicts the meaning of the word 'limitation'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
For his principle to render the actual choice as the only possible choice, there has to be some kind of compulsion generated by his notion of satisfaction such that a scenario - where that compulsion exists and yet some different choice is made - will be specifiable and yet ruled out by his principle.
There is no such thing, which makes this law a necessary truth.
Then his principle fails to render the actual choice as the only possible choice, as I just explained to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And that requires his satisfaction principle to not be the tautology you say it is, for the above conceivable scenario would be one where it doesn't hold. What you would need to do is describe such a scenario in a way that explains greater satisfaction without making it logically equivalent to whatever choice one makes.
You're trapping me by definition only, not by truth, and for anyone listening who is not keen on these ideas, would immediately give you credit, and reject any of Lessans' very carefully constructed observationsl
You're not even trying to address or even comprehend what I just explained and wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If you think that, then you don't understand the word 'choice'. It doesn't imply that all choices are equal, and it doesn't imply that one can choose two options simultaneously.
I do understand it and it is a misnomer.
If you understood the word then you wouldn't make these false claims about what it implies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If that were true then his satisfaction principle wouldn't be the tautology you've said it is. There would instead be specifiable and conceivable circumstances under which it would fail. You would be able to describe a case where the principle is true and compulsion towards choice X is present, and yet the person chooses Y. This doesn't have to be causally possible, but it does need to be logically possible (i.e. describable without contradiction or conceptual error).
It is very much causally necessary, not just plausible as you suggest.
I didn't say anything about causal necessity or plausibility. You've again failed to properly read and comprehend what you are replying to.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25882  
Old 05-04-2013, 06:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction a limitation or elimination of our will rather than an exercise of our will? Why would somebody will themselves to be less satisfied?

I actually accept that humans make choices that they prefer in their pursuit of happiness. I just don't understand how you go from that to "no free will".
Because they can only choose one option at each moment in time. You think that just because we have options we have a free choice. But, as explained, the word choice is misleading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Here's a serious question for you to consider. How would having free will look any different than not having free will? Even if we had the most extreme form of free will ever posited by anyone...would that somehow lead to people choosing what they don't prefer? How would you know they are not choosing that which is most preferable freely?
Once again, we can compare options but our choice is not free because we cannot choose that which is less preferable. That is why the word "choice" is misleading. If our will was free we could choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available, but that is an impossibility. Free will implies that we can choose one thing just as equally (or freely) as another; it does not mean that we don't have options. You're confusing options with being free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
With other laws of nature, we can describe a world in which that law doesn't hold. Can you do so with this law of nature?
I can't think of any because animals and insects are also not free. There is nothing in the universe that is not controlled by this law of our nature, which is life in motion. Therefore, anything that is alive is moving in this direction. We don't move from being satisfied to a position that is less satisfying [in our view, not someone else's]. Only when the position we're in is uncomfortable do we try to move to a position that is more satisfying or comfortable, not less satisfying, even if our choices are limited. The confusion has only been with humans because humans have the ability to contemplate, but this doesn't change the direction of life. It would be an anomaly if humans could choose freely while no other species can. Can't you see the absurdity here? A dog, given a choice of eating a steak or dry kibble, will most likely choose the steak without thinking about it. He just chooses the food that appeals to him more. We, on the other hand, may mull over the choice to determine which is the more satisfying given our situation. We may have a choice between steak or canned soup, but if we can't afford the steak, we may choose what appears to give us less satisfaction, but in reality it gives us more satisfaction because it fits within our budget.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-04-2013 at 07:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25883  
Old 05-04-2013, 08:00 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I can't think of any because animals and insects are also not free. There is nothing in the universe that is not controlled by this law of our nature, which is life in motion. Therefore, anything that is alive is moving in this direction. We don't move from being satisfied to a position that is less satisfying [in our view, not someone else's]. Only when the position we're in is uncomfortable do we try to move to a position that is more satisfying or comfortable, not less satisfying, even if our choices are limited. The confusion has only been with humans because humans have the ability to contemplate, but this doesn't change the direction of life. It would be an anomaly if humans could choose freely while no other species can. Can't you see the absurdity here? A dog, given a choice of eating a steak or dry kibble, will most likely choose the steak without thinking about it. He just chooses the food that appeals to him more. We, on the other hand, may mull over the choice to determine which is the more satisfying given our situation. We may have a choice between steak or canned soup, but if we can't afford the steak, we may choose what appears to give us less satisfaction, but in reality it gives us more satisfaction because it fits within our budget.
This would be called rationalization, and I would think that is a function of 'free will', without 'free will' there is no need to rationalize. People rationalize their actions and decisions all the time, therefore they have 'Free Will'.
Reply With Quote
  #25884  
Old 05-05-2013, 01:38 AM
ZEZOZE's Avatar
ZEZOZE ZEZOZE is offline
you're next
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMCXXVI
Images: 147
Default Re: A revolution in thought

two threads consisting of 37000 replies...wow.

why?
__________________
paranoid fringe dweller
Reply With Quote
  #25885  
Old 05-05-2013, 01:42 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction a limitation or elimination of our will rather than an exercise of our will? Why would somebody will themselves to be less satisfied?

I actually accept that humans make choices that they prefer in their pursuit of happiness. I just don't understand how you go from that to "no free will".
Because they can only choose one option at each moment in time. You think that just because we have options we have a free choice. But, as explained, the word choice is misleading.
How is that an answer to my question? Only being able to choose one option at each moment of time doesn't in any way preclude the possibility that the choice is made freely as an exercise of a human will.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Here's a serious question for you to consider. How would having free will look any different than not having free will? Even if we had the most extreme form of free will ever posited by anyone...would that somehow lead to people choosing what they don't prefer? How would you know they are not choosing that which is most preferable freely?
Once again, we can compare options but our choice is not free because we cannot choose that which is less preferable.
How can/could you tell whether a choice was freely made in the direction of greater satisfaction or whether the choice was forced in the direction of greater satisfaction?

How does an observer differentiate between a freely made choice and a compelled choice if both are in the direction of greater satisfaction?

Quote:
If our will was free we could choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available, but that is an impossibility
.
This is what I am asking about, and you seem to be ignoring my question.

Let's say our will is totally free, but people always, without fail, choose that which they prefer because there is no motivation to choose that which they don't prefer. How can you, or anyone, determine that the choices made due to preference or because they are perceived to be better are compelled and not freely made?

Quote:
Free will implies that we can choose one thing just as equally (or freely) as another; it does not mean that we don't have options. You're confusing options with being free.
No, I am not. My question is how an observer can meaningfully differentiate between a freely made choice in the direction of greater satisfaction and a compelled choice in the same direction.

Just because people could choose what is worse for themselves doesn't mean anyone ever would. And, even if they could, you as a biased observer would simply label their choice in the direction of greater satisfaction anyway. So there is no meaningful way I can see to differentiate between free will and compulsion using Lessans reasoning or logic. Can you help out with some answers to the questions I have asked rather than irrelevant comments?

Last edited by LadyShea; 05-05-2013 at 02:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25886  
Old 05-05-2013, 09:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction a limitation or elimination of our will rather than an exercise of our will? Why would somebody will themselves to be less satisfied?

I actually accept that humans make choices that they prefer in their pursuit of happiness. I just don't understand how you go from that to "no free will".
Because they can only choose one option at each moment in time. You think that just because we have options we have a free choice. But, as explained, the word choice is misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How is that an answer to my question? Only being able to choose one option at each moment of time doesn't in any way preclude the possibility that the choice is made freely as an exercise of a human will.
Just because we have options doesn't mean these options are chosen freely, which is why the word "choice" is misleading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Here's a serious question for you to consider. How would having free will look any different than not having free will? Even if we had the most extreme form of free will ever posited by anyone...would that somehow lead to people choosing what they don't prefer? How would you know they are not choosing that which is most preferable freely?
Once again, we can compare options but our choice is not free because we cannot choose that which is less preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How can/could you tell whether a choice was freely made in the direction of greater satisfaction or whether the choice was forced in the direction of greater satisfaction?
I've said this a hundred times, every movement from a to b is away from that which dissatisfies to something more satisfying, otherwise we wouldn't have moved to b. I don't know what you mean by forced in the direction of greater satisfaction. We are not forced to do anything unless we want to do it, and I'm not talking about physical restraint where we have no control because someone else is forcing something on us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How does an observer differentiate between a freely made choice and a compelled choice if both are in the direction of greater satisfaction?
There ARE no freely made choices. It's a delusion. That does not mean that we cannot compare possible options, but the choice is not free otherwise we could choose something evil (i.e., killing someone) just as easily as choosing something good (i.e., not killing someone), but if it is impossible to choose (a) when (b) is an option because choosing (a) gives us less satisfaction under the circumstances, how can (b) be a free choice?
Quote:
If our will was free we could choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available, but that is an impossibility
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This is what I am asking about, and you seem to be ignoring my question.

Let's say our will is totally free, but people always, without fail, choose that which they prefer because there is no motivation to choose that which they don't prefer. How can you, or anyone, determine that the choices made due to preference or because they are perceived to be better are compelled and not freely made?
It's a contradiction to say that will is totally free yet we always move in one direction. Being compelled to move in one direction of preference removes free will from the equation. There is no choice that can be freely made if choice is under a compulsion to choose that which is most preferable when there are meaningful differences to compare. The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A.

Quote:
Free will implies that we can choose one thing just as equally (or freely) as another; it does not mean that we don't have options. You're confusing options with being free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, I am not. My question is how an observer can meaningfully differentiate between a freely made choice in the direction of greater satisfaction and a compelled choice in the same direction.
There are no freely made choices when there are meaningful differences. If the differences are not meaningful, then the compulsion to choose one thing over another is not there. You could flip a coin because it would be like choosing A or A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Just because people could choose what is worse for themselves doesn't mean anyone ever would.
They could choose what appears to be worse for themselves if by choosing to save someone's life, they put their own life in jeaporday, but this is still in the direction of what gives them greater satisfaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And, even if they could, you as a biased observer would simply label their choice in the direction of greater satisfaction anyway.
This has nothing to do with bias. I'm just following this immutable law, which states that everyone is moving in this direction, even if to an outside observer it looks like a terrible choice. Every choice is labeled this way because this is the direction everyone is compelled to move. You cannot say he moved in the direction of dissatisfaction because you cannot move from a position of being satisfied to a position that gives less satisfaction than what the present position offers. You can say moving from a to b, he chose the lesser of two evils, but it was still in the direction of greater satisfaction. For example, I am hungry and I'm moving off the spot called a (hunger) to spot b (filling my stomach). I don't like any of the choices available (eggs for dinner or a hot dog). I'll choose the hot dog as the least undesirable (e.g., neither choice is a good one), which is still in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So there is no meaningful way I can see to differentiate between free will and compulsion using Lessans reasoning or logic. Can you help out with some answers to the questions I have asked rather than irrelevant comments?
You cannot differentiate between free will and compulsion because there is no free will regardless of the choices someone makes or how many options are at his disposal. What choice he makes will ultimately depend on his life circumstances (heredity, environment, background, experiences, etc.) which are the determinants that push him in a particular direction, so how can his will be free if he is compelled to choose that which he considers to be the most preferable when comparing meaningful differences? There is no free will whatsoever. This IS a universal law and it cannot be broken.
Reply With Quote
  #25887  
Old 05-05-2013, 10:20 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMCMXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Let's say our will is totally free, but people always, without fail, choose that which they prefer because there is no motivation to choose that which they don't prefer.
Our will can't be totally (all) free, and people choose what they prefer if there's no motivation (force) to compel (impart momentum on) them to choose that which they don't prefer. But what they prefer is different at every particular moment (location) on the path they are on, as witnessed by outside observers through the trace over their apparent path. The path they are following is, in general, a sum of the possible paths starting from their current location (state, time), weighted by complex amplitudes, which can be negative. This is a path integral that is not constrained to paths that diverge, but can be reasonably generalized to paths that converge, even against the so-called second Law of Thermodynamics, which in essence states only relative probabilities. That's where the two-state-vector formalism comes into play. A system is described by a "two-state vector" made up from one vector evolving forward in time and one evolving backward in time. (Aharonov et al.)
Reply With Quote
  #25888  
Old 05-06-2013, 01:22 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction a limitation or elimination of our will rather than an exercise of our will? Why would somebody will themselves to be less satisfied?

I actually accept that humans make choices that they prefer in their pursuit of happiness. I just don't understand how you go from that to "no free will".
Because they can only choose one option at each moment in time. You think that just because we have options we have a free choice. But, as explained, the word choice is misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How is that an answer to my question? Only being able to choose one option at each moment of time doesn't in any way preclude the possibility that the choice is made freely as an exercise of a human will.
Just because we have options doesn't mean these options are chosen freely, which is why the word "choice" is misleading.
It doesn't mean they aren't chosen freely, either. I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions. If you can't answer the question, then you have no basis on which to conclude a lack of free will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Here's a serious question for you to consider. How would having free will look any different than not having free will? Even if we had the most extreme form of free will ever posited by anyone...would that somehow lead to people choosing what they don't prefer? How would you know they are not choosing that which is most preferable freely?
Once again, we can compare options but our choice is not free because we cannot choose that which is less preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How can/could you tell whether a choice was freely made in the direction of greater satisfaction or whether the choice was forced in the direction of greater satisfaction?
I've said this a hundred times, every movement from a to b is away from that which dissatisfies to something more satisfying, otherwise we wouldn't have moved to b. I don't know what you mean by forced in the direction of greater satisfaction.
You know what I mean by force because that is what the word compel means. Lessans may have inferred a can't from a mere don't or conversely a must from a mere do.

It's certainly possible that people always do move in the direction they find more satisfying freely, without being compelled to do so. You need to make a case for the existence of this compulsion

Again, I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We are not forced to do anything unless we want to do it,
The word compelled means forced
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How does an observer differentiate between a freely made choice and a compelled choice if both are in the direction of greater satisfaction?
There ARE no freely made choices. It's a delusion.
I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If our will was free we could choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available, but that is an impossibility
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This is what I am asking about, and you seem to be ignoring my question.

Let's say our will is totally free, but people always, without fail, choose that which they prefer because there is no motivation to choose that which they don't prefer. How can you, or anyone, determine that the choices made due to preference or because they are perceived to be better are compelled and not freely made?
It's a contradiction to say that will is totally free yet we always move in one direction.
I am not saying that, I am positing a hypothetical to test your claim. And, it's not contradictory at all. There is nothing I can think of that makes it logically or physically impossible for people to freely choose that which they find preferable in all circumstances, because there is simply no reason at all to think that they wouldn't choose the most preferable option with their free will should it exist.

I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.

Quote:
Being compelled to move in one direction of preference removes free will from the equation.
You need to support the existence of compulsion otherwise it may be a mistaken inference. I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.

I deleted the rest of your post because you seem confused as to the question I am asking. I have repeated it several times above so maybe you will address it this time.
Reply With Quote
  #25889  
Old 05-06-2013, 01:58 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMCMXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.
LadyShea, I hope you realize that if you ask questions like that, you will always get some answer from something, somewhere.

It's called "what comes up, comes down again". Conic sections basically.
Reply With Quote
  #25890  
Old 05-06-2013, 12:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I can't think of any because animals and insects are also not free. There is nothing in the universe that is not controlled by this law of our nature, which is life in motion. Therefore, anything that is alive is moving in this direction. We don't move from being satisfied to a position that is less satisfying [in our view, not someone else's]. Only when the position we're in is uncomfortable do we try to move to a position that is more satisfying or comfortable, not less satisfying, even if our choices are limited. The confusion has only been with humans because humans have the ability to contemplate, but this doesn't change the direction of life. It would be an anomaly if humans could choose freely while no other species can. Can't you see the absurdity here? A dog, given a choice of eating a steak or dry kibble, will most likely choose the steak without thinking about it. He just chooses the food that appeals to him more. We, on the other hand, may mull over the choice to determine which is the more satisfying given our situation. We may have a choice between steak or canned soup, but if we can't afford the steak, we may choose what appears to give us less satisfaction, but in reality it gives us more satisfaction because it fits within our budget.
This would be called rationalization, and I would think that is a function of 'free will', without 'free will' there is no need to rationalize. People rationalize their actions and decisions all the time, therefore they have 'Free Will'.
Totally lost!
Reply With Quote
  #25891  
Old 05-06-2013, 12:19 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I can't think of any because animals and insects are also not free. There is nothing in the universe that is not controlled by this law of our nature, which is life in motion. Therefore, anything that is alive is moving in this direction. We don't move from being satisfied to a position that is less satisfying [in our view, not someone else's]. Only when the position we're in is uncomfortable do we try to move to a position that is more satisfying or comfortable, not less satisfying, even if our choices are limited. The confusion has only been with humans because humans have the ability to contemplate, but this doesn't change the direction of life. It would be an anomaly if humans could choose freely while no other species can. Can't you see the absurdity here? A dog, given a choice of eating a steak or dry kibble, will most likely choose the steak without thinking about it. He just chooses the food that appeals to him more. We, on the other hand, may mull over the choice to determine which is the more satisfying given our situation. We may have a choice between steak or canned soup, but if we can't afford the steak, we may choose what appears to give us less satisfaction, but in reality it gives us more satisfaction because it fits within our budget.
This would be called rationalization, and I would think that is a function of 'free will', without 'free will' there is no need to rationalize. People rationalize their actions and decisions all the time, therefore they have 'Free Will'.
Totally lost!
Are you describing your cause?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25892  
Old 05-06-2013, 12:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction a limitation or elimination of our will rather than an exercise of our will? Why would somebody will themselves to be less satisfied?

I actually accept that humans make choices that they prefer in their pursuit of happiness. I just don't understand how you go from that to "no free will".
Because they can only choose one option at each moment in time. You think that just because we have options we have a free choice. But, as explained, the word choice is misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How is that an answer to my question? Only being able to choose one option at each moment of time doesn't in any way preclude the possibility that the choice is made freely as an exercise of a human will.
Just because we have options doesn't mean these options are chosen freely, which is why the word "choice" is misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It doesn't mean they aren't chosen freely, either.
It most certainly does LadyShea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions. If you can't answer the question, then you have no basis on which to conclude a lack of free will.
I have explained why. Do you understand the term "meaningful difference"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Here's a serious question for you to consider. How would having free will look any different than not having free will? Even if we had the most extreme form of free will ever posited by anyone...would that somehow lead to people choosing what they don't prefer? How would you know they are not choosing that which is most preferable freely?
Once again, we can compare options but our choice is not free because we cannot choose that which is less preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How can/could you tell whether a choice was freely made in the direction of greater satisfaction or whether the choice was forced in the direction of greater satisfaction?
I've said this a hundred times, every movement from a to b is away from that which dissatisfies to something more satisfying, otherwise we wouldn't have moved to b. I don't know what you mean by forced in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You know what I mean by force because that is what the word compel means. Lessans may have inferred a can't from a mere don't or conversely a must from a mere do.
You are getting confused again by the word force. We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies. Compelled and force are synonymous but you have to understand what is meant by these terms and where the confusion lies. These words do not mean that something is causing or compelling us to make choices without our consent. This is a huge misinterpretation which Lessans is trying to clear up. Nothing can make us to what we don't want to do, but that does not mean that we have free will. It is a fact that we are compelled TO PREFER the choice that offers the greatest satisfaction, but again this does not mean that something other than ourselves is making us do what we don't really want to do. Instead of telling me he is wrong, try to understand what he is saying or you're never going to get it.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much
confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely nothing,
not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes him to
do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him
to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire
is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but
remember his particular environment is different because he himself
is different otherwise everybody would desire to commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a minor or more
serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because
I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent
him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will
only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions considered
wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of
guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not
all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a
world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity
since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really
didn’t want to do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's certainly possible that people always do move in the direction they find more satisfying freely, without being compelled to do so. You need to make a case for the existence of this compulsion

Again, I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.
I answered you LadyShea. It is this difference in preference after comparing meaningful differences that compels you to prefer the choice that offers you the greatest satisfaction, which is the only direction you can go. You are not free to choose what you prefer less, or what gives you less satisfaction under the circumstances. It's impossible to move in this direction. Maybe if you give me an example I can try to show you, but I don't know if you're going to understand it because you are so convinced that we have some degree of free will, and that this is a modal fallacy, tautology, or an immaterial concept, that I don't know if I can through to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We are not forced to do anything unless we want to do it,
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The word compelled means forced
Scroll up, I explained that as long as you're not using this term as being forced to do something against your will, then, yes, it is synonymous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How does an observer differentiate between a freely made choice and a compelled choice if both are in the direction of greater satisfaction?
There ARE no freely made choices. It's a delusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.
That's what I've been doing. You better read the last post LadyShea because my explanations are not registering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If our will was free we could choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is available, but that is an impossibility
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This is what I am asking about, and you seem to be ignoring my question.
I am not ignoring your questions, but what you are asking of me (finding an example where this knowledge can be falsified) is not possible because this is a necessary truth and there are no exceptions where it is possible that this truth can be falsified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Let's say our will is totally free, but people always, without fail, choose that which they prefer because there is no motivation to choose that which they don't prefer. How can you, or anyone, determine that the choices made due to preference or because they are perceived to be better are compelled and not freely made?
Quote:
It's a contradiction to say that will is totally free yet we always move in one direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am not saying that, I am positing a hypothetical to test your claim. And, it's not contradictory at all. There is nothing I can think of that makes it logically or physically impossible for people to freely choose that which they find preferable in all circumstances, because there is simply no reason at all to think that they wouldn't choose the most preferable option with their free will should it exist.
The term "free" is misleading. You cannot freely choose anything if there is a favorable difference, because this would rule out the choice that is the least favorable. These are not free choices. If they were free you could choose what is less preferable just as easily as what is more preferable, but it cannot be done. It is impossible to freely choose that which you find preferable if you're preference leans in a particular direction. The standard definition of free will states that you are free if there is no strong compulsion one way or the other, but there are constaints bound by this law of greater preference or satisfaction. Freedom of the will is the ability to choose one thing over another WITHOUT COMPULSION, but that's what Lessans is trying to clear up. There is compulsion therefore having options open to you does not make will free; it's a delusion because there really is no choice in the matter as long as there is a preference. These are not equal choices. You cannot go against your nature to choose what you prefer in favor of what you don't prefer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.
How many times do I have to tell you that you cannot observe "greater satisfaction" this way. This knowledge came from observing thousands of accounts to see this pattern. But you cannot point to something and say this doesn't look any different from a free choice. It doesn't work that way, therefore there is no one account that can be observed that you could say this is greater satisfaction. That doesn't mean this universal law doesn't have significance and that it's an empty tautology because whatever we choose is in this direction.

Quote:
Being compelled to move in one direction of preference removes free will from the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You need to support the existence of compulsion otherwise it may be a mistaken inference. I am asking you to explain how freely chosen actions would differ in any observable way from compelled actions.
He has explained his observations, and they can be eventually supported by putting this law into action, but to support it empirically by showing where it differs from a freely chosen action is impossible to do, because there are no freely chosen actions. The only thing that can come close to what you consider a freely chosen action is when there is no compulsion as when choosing A and A. Either choice would be acceptable because there is no real meaningful difference, therefore his desire would not be compelled to prefer one specific choice, or move in one specific direction until he flipped a coin or his brain just pointed to the right (orange juice) or the left (grape juice) without any compulsion. But let me state once again that whatever he chooses in his motion from a to b, even if he desires to flip a coin at that moment because there is no compulsion to choose orange juice over grape juice, is also in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-06-2013 at 01:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25893  
Old 05-06-2013, 12:50 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Where did the photons at the retina come from?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25894  
Old 05-06-2013, 12:52 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies.
The standard definition of determinism doesn't imply that at all. We've also corrected you on this many times before.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25895  
Old 05-06-2013, 01:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZEZOZE View Post
two threads consisting of 37000 replies...wow.

why?
Because this is a scientific discovery and it has major implications for the betterment of our world. If you're interested, read the first three chapters online and you will be welcome to participate, but don't participate if you haven't read anything because so many of your questions will be answered in the text.

Untitled Document.
Reply With Quote
  #25896  
Old 05-06-2013, 01:37 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMLXXV
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZEZOZE View Post
two threads consisting of 37000 replies...wow.

why?
Because people are curious to see if any amount of debate will fix the dysfunction in peacegirl's thinking.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #25897  
Old 05-06-2013, 03:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies.
The standard definition of determinism doesn't imply that at all. We've also corrected you on this many times before.
All I can say is thank you Butt.
Reply With Quote
  #25898  
Old 05-06-2013, 03:19 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

You are still not addressing my question so I will simplify it.

We agree on the following statement.

Humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. When choosing between various options they will always choose that which they find most preferable.

If you leave it at that, it is an observation. However, Lessans inferred from that observation that humans are compelled (forced) to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore had no form of free will.

There are other inferences that can be made, however. I want to know why we should accept Lessans' conclusion over these.

1. Humans always freely choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have free will
2. Humans always are motivated, but not compelled, to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have a compatibilist form of free will


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
but to support it empirically by showing where it differs from a freely chosen action is impossible to do, because there are no freely chosen actions.
If it is impossible to differentiate between the possible interpretations then they are all equally likely to be true, and Lessans conclusion is nothing more than opinion

There is no part of our Universe without the force of gravity, however we can say that a Universe without gravity would be flat and featureless. With Natural Laws we can describe the exceptions.
Reply With Quote
  #25899  
Old 05-06-2013, 03:51 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Let's say our will is totally free, but people always, without fail, choose that which they prefer because there is no motivation to choose that which they don't prefer.
Our will can't be totally (all) free, and people choose what they prefer if there's no motivation (force) to compel (impart momentum on) them to choose that which they don't prefer. But what they prefer is different at every particular moment (location) on the path they are on, as witnessed by outside observers through the trace over their apparent path. The path they are following is, in general, a sum of the possible paths starting from their current location (state, time), weighted by complex amplitudes, which can be negative. This is a path integral that is not constrained to paths that diverge, but can be reasonably generalized to paths that converge, even against the so-called second Law of Thermodynamics, which in essence states only relative probabilities. That's where the two-state-vector formalism comes into play. A system is described by a "two-state vector" made up from one vector evolving forward in time and one evolving backward in time. (Aharonov et al.)
Basically aharonov is saying the same thing but with a bunch of big words. Words like "converge", "diverge", "Law of Thermodynamics", relative probabilities, or what have you. What's your point Butt?
Reply With Quote
  #25900  
Old 05-06-2013, 03:53 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
You are still not addressing my question so I will simplify it.
Quote:
We agree on the following statement.

Humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. When choosing between various options they will always choose that which they find most preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If you leave it at that, it is an observation. However, Lessans inferred from that observation that humans are compelled (forced) to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore had no form of free will.
Oh my GOD, preferable and satisfaction in this context are synonymous. :doh::doh::doh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There are other inferences that can be made, however. I want to know why we should accept Lessans' conclusion over these.

1. Humans always freely choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have free will
What is the problem here LadyShea? I refuse to answer this if you can't tell me because I'm talking to a brick wall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
2. Humans always are motivated, but not compelled, to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have a compatibilist form of free will
I have to move on, seriously. You are so confused in your thought process that you actually believe you can determine truth from fiction. I have never seen a group of people so caught in their misconceptions in the name of truth that they are more confused than any woo I have ever met.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 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 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.54141 seconds with 14 queries