A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What do you mean with "seem to see"? Are you saying we do not see distant planets, but just seem to see them?

And if planets are not where we see them, how can instant sight be true?

I would like to know how it can be determined that planets are not where we see them? Just curious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

My iPhone messed up and I had no time to fix it. Now it's fixed.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My iPhone messed up and I had no time to fix it. Now it's fixed.

Nope. Still nonsense babble.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would like to know how it can be determined that planets are not where we see them? Just curious.

One possibility would be to send space probes.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, I don't think that was the real reason. I was ousted before I had a chance to question his edict. Shoulda woulda is easy to think about but it doesn't change what is.

The whole thread was 74 pages.
A simple google search reveals following posts:

Several warnings (about page 53):
Here:

Please refrain from personal attacks and baseless innuendo, since they are against the rules. Continued rule violations can lead to banning. Thanks.

From page 61 and later:
Here:

According to THEIR TERMS OF USE the information cannot be copied, displayed, or mirrored. (It is also complete garbage “not intended as medical advice”, which is a separate issue). Since we do not have time to look into all your endless copying to be sure it is legal, please do not persist in copying material wholesale from other sites. If you wish to refer to other material please do so with at most a few sentences and a link, which is “fair use” as best we can determine. Further wholesale copying will be considered a rule violation, and can lead to banning.

And in the next post:

To be clear, we do not have time to check each of these sites for their Terms of Service. I checked the last one and found copying to be in violation, so further wholesale copy-and-paste jobs will NOT be allowed from these sites.

Here:

Sorry but this does not remotely count as “a few sentences and a link” as mentioned in my above post. Final warning on this.

And then:

Rule 3(c) has been in effect for years. We have been eminently fair—even frankly overlooking this rule—in allowing you to post material at length for purposes of investigation and inquiry. You have been warned twice on this. The message you cite however was not directed at you.

And this was a posting of one of your most virulent opponents:

I think you should be banned. You don;t know how to debate something rationally. You refuse to provide documentation to back up specific claims despite repeated requests and you post stuff that is categorically wrong on even the most basic indisputable level which is incredibly irresponsible. You are fortunate that Doug is more generous than I am and that I have no say in the matter. I have been on this forum for years and never once thought someone should be ejected but for you I make an exception

You see? He was not an administrator, he did not ban you.

Superfluous to say you did not stop copypasting.

And you were not the only one warned: another member was warned for the same; two other members, afaik people still posting here in this thread, were warned for abusive language. Your banning had nothing to do with the position you were defending.

You are plainly lying.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

GDB, I'm not going to continue if you tell me there's no point of discussion. We assign responsibility all the time and justify it on the grounds that the person had a free choice (the compatibilist kind) to do otherwise but failed. Now he must accept moral responsibility for his wrongdoing. But there's a better way to prevent the action before it takes place but you're not interested in the slightest to understand what that is. Oh well.

I will help you. I will present your position, as far as it has to do with the free will/determinism debate, in a few lines. If it is not your position, then correct me:

Libertarian free will does not exist: it is impossible 'to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, including one's inner state'. This would contradict determinism.

Some actions of people are voluntary, e.g. expressed in sentences like 'I came here from my own free will'. But this reference to free will is not to libertarian free will, but to people's capability to reflect on the actions they are planning.

If an action is voluntary or not is morally relevant, but certainly does not lead to ultimate responsibility: that would presuppose libertarian free will.

If not correct, please correct them, using unambiguous concepts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

The whole thread was 74 pages.
A simple google search reveals following posts:

Several warnings (about page 53):
Here:

From page 61 and later:
Here:

And in the next post:

Here:

And then:

And this was a posting of one of your most virulent opponents:

You see? He was not an administrator, he did not ban you.

Superfluous to say you did not stop copypasting.

And you were not the only one warned: another member was warned for the same; two other members, afaik people still posting here in this thread, were warned for abusive language. Your banning had nothing to do with the position you were defending.

You are plainly lying.

In response to the first link, I should not have written in all caps but this was not a personal attack. I was responding to this guy's self-righteous anger that I should dare challenge him. I will review the other links when I'm on my computer as my iPhone does not link back to ff which is a hassle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I will help you. I will present your position, as far as it has to do with the free will/determinism debate, in a few lines. If it is not your position, then correct me:

Libertarian free will does not exist: it is impossible 'to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, including one's inner state'. This would contradict determinism.

Some actions of people are voluntary, e.g. expressed in sentences like 'I came here from my own free will'. But this reference to free will is not to libertarian free will, but to people's capability to reflect on the actions they are planning.

If an action is voluntary or not is morally relevant, but certainly does not lead to ultimate responsibility: that would presuppose libertarian free will.

If not correct, please correct them, using unambiguous concepts.

So far, you're correct. A voluntary action does not lead to moral responsibility. In other words doing domething of ones own free will or volition does not translate to true freedom of the will if what one chooses (even though it is without external pressure) is done without a real choice in the matter. The capacity to reflect on ones choices is the standard definition of what free will is. I am challenging that definition.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So far, you're correct. A voluntary action does not lead to moral responsibility.

Sorry you are contradicting yourself here. On one side you say I represented your viewpoint correctly. But it contains the sentence:

If an action is voluntary or not is morally relevant

But you say:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A voluntary action does not lead to moral responsibility

So, what is it?

I correct the next sentences with the correct concepts:
Red is wrong, green is my correction/addition

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words doing domething of ones own free will or volition does not translate to true libertarian freedom of the will if what one chooses (even though it is without external pressure) is done without a real choice in the matter in the categorical meaning of 'could have done otherwise'. The capacity to reflect on ones choices is the standard definition of what free will is.

I thought the standard definition is libertarian free will? Now you suggest that the standard meaning is compatibilist free will? Why are you always making such a chaos?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am challenging that definition.

"Definitions have no meaning when reality is concerned."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Sorry you are contradicting yourself here. On one side you say I represented your viewpoint correctly. But it contains the sentence:

If an action is voluntary or not is morally relevant

But you say:

So, what is it?

I correct the next sentences with the correct concepts:
Red is wrong, green is my correction/addition

I thought the standard definition is libertarian free will? Now you suggest that the standard meaning is compatibilist free will? Why are you always making such a chaos?

I'm not making any chaos. I'm tired of defending why choice is something we have no control over. I realize the dilemma regarding punishment, accountability, justice, and redemption. You refuse to listen so there is nowhere to go from here. It's a dead end.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am challenging that definition.

Originally Posted by GdB

Definitions have no meaning when reality is concerned."

.
Very true!

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not making any chaos. I'm tired of defending why choice is something we have no control over. I realize the dilemma regarding punishment, accountability, justice, and redemption. You refuse to listen so there is nowhere to go from here. It's a dead end.

As long as you can't formulate your points unambiguously, it is a dead end. You always fear that other people state your point unambiguous, as you did with DavidM's outline of Lessans' argument. You never say if an outline is correct, but when it is not correct you do not improve the outline. You prefer to stay unclear.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

.
Very true!

Why would you challenge that definition then? You just replace them with your own!

I can tell you why we need definitions: to talk about reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

As long as you can't formulate your points unambiguously, it is a dead end. You always fear that other people state your point unambiguous, as you did with DavidM's outline of Lessans' argument. You never say if an outline is correct, but when it is not correct you do not improve the outline. You prefer to stay unclear.

All I am asking you is to not take anyone's quick summary of this knowledge. In all fairness, you need to read the first three chapters of the book, not Davids rendition. That is not asking too much, is it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

.
Very true!

Originally Posted by GDB

Why would you challenge that definition then? You just replace them with your own!

I can tell you why we need definitions: to talk about reality.

But in order to talk reality the definitions have to describe something real or they mean nothing where reality is concerned, like Lessans correctly said. At this point I can't utter the word definition without a backlash. Do you think that's objective on the part of this group? Of course not. It's a real shame!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would like to know how it can be determined that planets are not where we see them? Just curious.

In cases where there has been a probe orbiting the planet being observed, the displacement due to the delay of light has been verified by the probe that is on site. In other words the probe has verified that the planet is in a different position than what we see with out eyes, and the displacement in the position matches the expected difference in position expected if we see with afferent vision.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I am asking you is to not take anyone's quick summary of this knowledge. In all fairness, you need to read the first three chapters of the book, not Davids rendition. That is not asking too much, is it?

GdB: please be advised of the important differences between peacegirl's Corrupted Text, which peacegirl hawks online, and the Authentic Text, of which I am the True Steward. In no event should the former, which is replete with peacegirl's own Corruptions, be mistaken for the latter.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would like to know how it can be determined that planets are not where we see them? Just curious.

I am curious to know what it is you mean when you say "seem to see".

And we determine it on a regular basis, by shooting very, very expensive equipment right at where we don't see them, but do expect them to be... and getting it right with amazingly small margins of error!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

.
Very true!


But in order to talk reality the definitions have to describe something real or they mean nothing where reality is concerned, like Lessans correctly said. At this point I can't utter the word definition without a backlash. Do you think that's objective on the part of this group? Of course not. It's a real shame!

Words are labels applied to things and Ideas that occur in reality, definitions of those words are applied based on that reality. To deny that a definition is accurate is to deny reality. Your's and Lessans problem is not with the accepted definitions, it's that you are both too ignorant to find the correct word to say what you mean, so you take the incorrect word and then try to claim that the accepted definition is wrong, and apply your own incorrect definition.

I believe GdB is quoting Peacegirl, rather than stating his own position.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by GdB

I will help you. I will present your position, as far as it has to do with the free will/determinism debate, in a few lines. If it is not your position, then correct me:

Libertarian free will does not exist: it is impossible 'to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, including one's inner state'. This would contradict determinism.

Some actions of people are voluntary, e.g. expressed in sentences like 'I came here from my own free will'. But this reference to free will is not to libertarian free will, but to people's capability to reflect on the actions they are planning.

If an action is voluntary or not is morally relevant, but certainly does not lead to ultimate responsibility: that would presuppose libertarian free will.

If not correct, please correct them, using unambiguous concepts.

GdB, I believe there is a small problem here, Peacegirl probably believes that since you are stating these positions in your post, you are presenting them as your own position. I don't believe She has the capability to comprehend the difference, on occasion she has even argued with herself by contradicting her own posts. You are trying to hold a serious conversation with someone who is incapable of such a conversation. It's like trying to nail Jello to a wall.

Even if you were to use a lot of nails to form a basket on the wall and then try to put the Jello in, Peacegirl would find a way to slip through the tiny gaps and avoid addressing the nails. I've seen her do it before, and I've seen her leave a forum where people were supporting her ideas, and go to a forum where she encountered hostility and resistance to those ideas. She seems to crave hostility and abuse, rather than support.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I am asking you is to not take anyone's quick summary of this knowledge. In all fairness, you need to read the first three chapters of the book, not Davids rendition. That is not asking too much, is it?

Actually asking any sane person to read even part of the Corrupted Text is asking too much. Only a few of us crazies would slog through that eye bleeding drivel on purpose. But you are correct, no-one should take the word of anyone crazy enough to read the book and write a review, they are just as insane as we are.

One definition of insanity is repeatedly trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I have been trying to tell Peacegirl the truth about reality for 6 or 7 years and I haven't had any luck yet. Perhaps I should do a Peacegirl and start lying, she would understand lying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am curious to know what it is you mean when you say "seem to see".

And we determine it on a regular basis, by shooting very, very expensive equipment right at where we don't see them, but do expect them to be... and getting it right with amazingly small margins of error!

I am curious how you can compare the location of an object as seen from Earth (which can be misleading) with probes that can more accurately determine where the object is in the vastness of space?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I am asking you is to not take anyone's quick summary of this knowledge. In all fairness, you need to read the first three chapters of the book, not Davids rendition. That is not asking too much, is it?

In all fairness, you just have to correct my rendition of your view on free will. See my 'navy blue' lines above. Is this a correct outline of your position or not? When not, how should it be corrected?
I want your viewpoint in an unambiguous formulation, where the terms used have unambiguous meanings.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in order to talk reality the definitions have to describe something real or they mean nothing where reality is concerned, like Lessans correctly said. At this point I can't utter the word definition without a backlash. Do you think that's objective on the part of this group? Of course not. It's a real shame!

Ah! First you say that 'definitions mean nothing when reality is concerned'. But now they must describe something real. Well, do you think that the capability to act according your own intentions is a capability most people have? Is it real that people act because of their intentions? Whatever we call this capability?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

GdB: please be advised of the important differences between peacegirl's Corrupted Text, which peacegirl hawks online, and the Authentic Text, of which I am the True Steward. In no event should the former, which is replete with peacegirl's own Corruptions, be mistaken for the latter.

Thanks for the warning. But this privilege of yours has a consequence. ('Noblesse oblige') Please compare Lessans' views on free will between Peacegirl's test, and the Authentic Text.

PS
Ben je echt een Nederlander? Of doe je maar alsof?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe GdB is quoting Peacegirl, rather than stating his own position.

Yep.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It's like trying to nail Jello to a wall.

I had to look up Jello.

Now think you are right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I am asking you is to not take anyone's quick summary of this knowledge. In all fairness, you need to read the first three chapters of the book, not Davids rendition. That is not asking too much, is it?

I read them. We are not in disagreement.

Originally Posted by GdB View Post
I will help you. I will present your position, as far as it has to do with the free will/determinism debate, in a few lines. If it is not your position, then correct me:

Libertarian free will does not exist: it is impossible 'to do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, including one's inner state'. This would contradict determinism.

Some actions of people are voluntary, e.g. expressed in sentences like 'I came here from my own free will'. But this reference to free will is not to libertarian free will, but to people's capability to reflect on the actions they are planning.

If an action is voluntary or not is morally relevant, but certainly does not lead to ultimate responsibility: that would presuppose libertarian free will.

If not correct, please correct them, using unambiguous concepts.

My question to you is, if a person is not ultimately responsible, where does punishment or just desert come into play? Being able to reflect on one's actions is something humans are capable of doing. But what if the choice a person should be making is not the better choice in his eyes after pondering all the possibilities and the potential consequences? This is a hypothetical question at this point because I understand why threats of punishment are used as a deterrent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in order to talk reality the definitions have to describe something real or they mean nothing where reality is concerned, like Lessans correctly said. At this point I can't utter the word definition without a backlash. Do you think that's objective on the part of this group? Of course not. It's a real shame!

Originally Posted by GdB

Ah! First you say that 'definitions mean nothing when reality is concerned'. But now they must describe something real. Well, do you think that the capability to act according your own intentions is a capability most people have? Is it real that people act because of their intentions? Whatever we call this capability?

Absolutely GDB. The problem is that these intentions and consequent actions (based on the compatibilist definition of free will) could be any different than what they are.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am curious how you can compare the location of an object as seen from Earth (which can be misleading) with probes that can more accurately determine where the object is in the vastness of space?

You linked to an article. Haven't you read it?

Just kidding, of course you haven't.