A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, if you learn nothing else from your 10+ years on the internet, could please at least try to learn how to use quote tags correctly?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thus "free will" is not formally defined in the book: seemingly on the assumption that it's meaning is self-evident, that there is only one thing that can be termed "free will" and that there can be no question about it's definition

He more or less defined free will as the opposite of determinism, so not determinism (~determinism), which then makes him correct due to tautology.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He more or less defined free will as the opposite of determinism, so not determinism (~determinism), which then makes him correct due to tautology.

I refuse to talk to you without you having a question. Your pompous attitude has gotten the best of me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, if you learn nothing else from your 10+ years on the internet, could please at least try to learn how to use quote tags correctly?

I'm doing the best I can Spacemonkey, and the quote tags I use should not affect anyone's understanding of the content. I'm sick and tired of form mattering more than what is being said. It's just another distraction among many.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's a false dilemma because it excludes compatibilism as well as other conceptions of both free will and determinism. Do you even know what a false dilemma is?

Lessans presented a textbook example of this fallacy with his "If determinism is true, free will is false" assertion.

This is anything but a false dilemma big shot. Stop coming off like you're the end all of all knowledge girl. You are not capable of figuring this out, so just admit it to yourself. I know you can't do that because your identify is in this forum. You have to be right in order to be relevant. You're not all that LadyShea, trust me. And I'm not trying to be mean, but the truth is you're not all that when it comes to reasoning ability. Can you be quiet for a second instead of interjecting stuff that you have no clue what you're even talking about? You didn't even know what a syllogism is, so you think that by looking it up you can now be on the same level as Lessans? You are doing an injustice not only to yourself, but to everyone who listens to you rattling on like you know what you're talking about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to talk to you without you having a question. Your pompous attitude has gotten the best of me.

Yet you are talking to me.

Anyway I was responding to Vivisectus and wasn't addressing you at all in this post.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is anything but a false dilemma big shot. Stop coming off like you're the end all of all knowledge girl. You are not capable of figuring this out, so just admit it to yourself. I know you can't do that because your identify is in this forum. You have to be right in order to be relevant. You're not all that LadyShea, trust me. And I'm not trying to be mean, but the truth is you're not all that when it comes to reasoning ability. Can you be quiet for a second instead of interjecting stuff that you have no clue what you're even talking about? You didn't even know what a syllogism is, so you think that by looking it up you can now be on the same level as Lessans? You are doing an injustice not only to yourself, but to everyone who listens to you rattling on like you know what you're talking about.

I just demonstrated that it is indeed a false dilemma. Other options, such as compatibilism, were excluded arbitrarily.

Hows about you demonstrate that it is not a false dilemma (aka fallacy of the excluded middle) rather than attacking me? Or maybe you prefer showing your ass instead of supporting your arguments and demonstrating your points?

And I have learned the term syllogism- though prior to that I knew the concept, just not the name- so why do you keep bringing it up as if this is some huge flaw in my character? I learned a new word and use it now. Lessans never learned the word photon and used molecules instead, so how is he better than me when it comes to using words?

[LadyShea]

You know, that attack on me in response to my very clear and simply made point, makes you look quite unhinged. I made a point and supported it. "Everyone who listens to (me) rattling on..." can decide for themselves whether I know what I am talking about or not- so how are they suffering from any kind of "injustice" whatsoever?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You know, that attack on me in response to my very clear and simply made point, makes you look quite unhinged. I made a point and supported it. "Everyone who listens to (me) rattling on..." can decide for themselves whether I know what I am talking about or not- so how are they suffering from any kind of "injustice" whatsoever?

Just ask a question, otherwise you are insisting that you are right, and you are not right at all LadyShea. In that sense, you are ruining it for others who are trying to understand the reasoning that was behind Lessans' observations. Please don't answer. I know that I'm right, and any rebuttal will only justify your ignorance. So leave it alone, and, like I just said, ask a question instead of telling me he is wrong because you have absolutely no idea whatsoever (based on your knowledge) whether he actually is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You know, that attack on me in response to my very clear and simply made point, makes you look quite unhinged. I made a point and supported it. "Everyone who listens to (me) rattling on..." can decide for themselves whether I know what I am talking about or not- so how are they suffering from any kind of "injustice" whatsoever?

You keep saying that your rattling on has no influence, but it has a major influence especially when you ARE (whether you want to be or not) the one that has been given the role of "person in charge". It is unspoken, but there is no doubt the role you play in this thread which has an effect on the reader, and don't tell me that it doesn't. You can't depend on past arguments to determine the truth LadyShea, and that is what you're doing. This has become a systemic problem (albeit an unconscious one) that can only be corrected by your awareness of what you, and other philosophers, are doing to impede progress. The reason? You are using fallacious reasoning that began years ago that you are holding onto for dear life, even though it's outdated.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just ask a question, otherwise you are insisting that you are right, and you are not right at all LadyShea. In that sense, you are ruining it for others who are trying to understand the reasoning that was behind Lessans' observations. Please don't answer. I know that I'm right, and any rebuttal will only justify your ignorance. So leave it alone, and, like I just said, ask a question instead of telling me he is wrong because you have absolutely no idea whatsoever (based on your knowledge) whether he is wrong or right.

Lessans, and you*, have absolutely committed the fallacy known as false dilemma and I have demonstrated this.

You can try to refute the charge, but you choose to act like a crazy person and throw a fit and make unreasonable demands.

How can I ruin it for others who are "trying to understand the reasoning" when you are the one who won't respond intelligently to the clear demonstration of fallacious reasoning? Seems to me you are the one doing the ruining, because my demonstration stands unrefuted and unchallenged as of this moment, and your histrionics look like sour grapes and a diversion. Are you going to rectify that?


*

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This also means that determinism cannot be proven false because that would prove free will true (which cannot be done), but this doesn't mean that determinism cannot be proven true, and free will false. His observations are absolutely spot on and his reasoning is pristine.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are using fallacious reasoning that began years ago that you are holding onto for dear life, even though it's outdated.

Fallacious reasoning can be demonstrated, the fallacies named, just as Lessans' fallacious reasoning has been demonstrated many times.

Can you demonstrate my fallacious reasoning...or are you just going to continue letting your ass talk for you?

[LadyShea]

The Alphabet of Fallacious Reasoning used by peacegirl:

A is for Assertion

Assertion: assertion itself isn't really a proof of anything, or even a real argument - assertion only demonstrates that the person making the statement believes in it. An inability to provide anything other than an argument by assertion may be the result of brainwashing, basing ones belief on blind faith or ignorance as to what forms a proper argument. Those who argue by assertion often do think that they're making a real argument. They might simply not realise where they haven't provided a full argument. The point of constructive debate or discourse is to draw attention to this sort of thing, and for people to further develop and evolve their arguments in response. A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just demonstrated that it is indeed a false dilemma. Other options, such as compatibilism, were excluded arbitrarily.

Hows about you demonstrate that it is not a false dilemma (aka fallacy of the excluded middle) rather than attacking me? Or maybe you prefer showing your ass instead of supporting your arguments and demonstrating your points?

And I have learned the term syllogism- though prior to that I knew the concept, just not the name- so why do you keep bringing it up as if this is some huge flaw in my character? I learned a new word and use it now. Lessans never learned the word photon and used molecules instead, so how is he better than me when it comes to using words?

Because you don't know as much as you pretend to know, that's why. How's about thinking before blurting out that he is making an assertion, which he is not. These are not assertions and I am tired of being put on the defensive. Compatibilism was never excluded, arbitrarily or any other way. You are so determined to prove him wrong that nothing I explain will penetrate. You are a very pompous individual and if you can't change your ways (by asking instead of telling), then don't participate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Alphabet of Fallacious Reasoning used by peacegirl:

A is for Assertion

Do you think this tells me anything new LadyShea? I know what an assertion is and it doesn't apply to him. Instead of admitting that you may be wrong, you keep insisting that he is guilty of doing something that he is not guilty of. You actually think this is not a proper argument and that you are more evolved by drawing attention to this sort of thing? I have explained to Spacemonkey very clearly why compatibilism is contradictory and why, in reality, there is no such thing as freedom of the will? Why doesn't anything you say surprise me?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fallacious reasoning can be demonstrated, the fallacies named, just as Lessans' fallacious reasoning has been demonstrated many times.

Can you demonstrate my fallacious reasoning...or are you just going to continue letting your ass talk for you?

I have no desire to address you or your fallacious reasoning. You continue to accuse him unfairly and prematurely, and then come off like Miss. Innocent.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you don't know as much as you pretend to know, that's why. How's about thinking before blurting out that he is making an assertion, which he is not. These are not assertions and I am tired of being put on the defensive.

LOL, so your defense against the charges of assertion and fallacious reasoning is to make more assertions. Yep, ass showing and talking.

Compatibilism was never excluded, arbitrarily or any other way.

Oh? Lessans included compatibilism in the passage below, somewhere? Is it invisible?

p. 30 “I’m not in the mood to argue that point but at least we have
arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable, for we have
just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any person to
prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is free yet a
moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that man’s will is
definitely free.”

“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the
consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something
false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it
is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this was
a matter of opinion.”

“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false. Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing
your belief in free will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge
that, when released, can remove the very things you would like to rid
the world of, things you preach against such as war, crime, sin, hate,
discrimination, etc., what would you say then?”

“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s
ways are mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking
with you, son, and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will
be driven from our lives.”

“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not
far away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts
pertaining to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is
God’s will.”

You are so determined to prove him wrong that nothing I explain will penetrate. You are a very pompous individual and if you can't change your ways (by asking instead of telling), then don't participate.

You could actually try to explain something rather than just making ad homs and asserting things. If not for my benefit then for the benefit of these supposed "Others" I am influenceing and doing injustice to.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no desire to address you or your fallacious reasoning. You continue to accuse him unfairly and prematurely, and then come off like Miss. Innocent.

Who is playing innocent? I just said you let your ass talk for you, and you proved me right. Why not prove me wrong and make some valid arguments and show me how very wrong I have been?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans, and you*, have absolutely committed the fallacy known as false dilemma and I have demonstrated this.

You have demonstrated no such thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can try to refute the charge, but you choose to act like a crazy person and throw a fit and make unreasonable demands.

I don't like that you have accused him of doing something he hasn't done. I am responding to a false charge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can I ruin it for others who are "trying to understand the reasoning" when you are the one who won't respond intelligently to the clear demonstration of fallacious reasoning?

I have not shown any fallacious reasoning. I hope you see this, and can apologize for your mistake.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seems to me you are the one doing the ruining, because my demonstration stands unrefuted and unchallenged as of this moment, and your histrionics look like sour grapes and a diversion. Are you going to rectify that?

There is nothing to rectify. I am responding quite appropriately to your false accusations. Your demonstration does not prove any fallacious reasoning.

*

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This also means that determinism cannot be proven false because that would prove free will true (which cannot be done), but this doesn't mean that determinism cannot be proven true, and free will false. His observations are absolutely spot on and his reasoning is pristine.

Freedom of the will cannot be proved true LadyShea because we can never go back in time to determine that someone could have chosen otherwise. You can surmise; you can believe with all your heart that someone could have made a different choice than the one he actually made, but you cannot prove it. And because it can never be proven true, determinism, as the opposite of free will, can never be proven false because that would automatically make free will true. This is accurate reasoning and it holds up under scrutiny.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think this tells me anything new LadyShea? I know what an assertion is and it doesn't apply to him.

Assertion.

Instead of admitting that you may be wrong, you keep insisting that he is guilty of doing something that he is not guilty of.

I am not wrong, and I have supported my arguments.

You actually think this is not a proper argument and that you are more evolved by drawing attention to this sort of thing?

What does this even mean?

I have explained to Spacemonkey very clearly why compatibilism is contradictory and why, in reality, there is no such thing as freedom of the will?

You never explained, you just stated it was so. You have failed to support your claims in both regards.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have demonstrated no such thing.

Demonstration

A false dilemma, or false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones. False dilemma - RationalWiki

By excluding compatibilism and different understandings of the concepts of both free will and determinism, Lessans, and later you yourself, presented a textbook example of this fallacy with his "If determinism is true, free will is false" assertion because those are not the only two possibilities.

[LadyShea]

Freedom of the will cannot be proved true LadyShea because we can never go back in time to determine that someone could have chosen other than what they chose at that exact moment.

I don't think free will can be proven or disproven at all, as I've told you many times. Also, you are using a definition of free will that is not universally accepted, and is too narrow.

You can surmise all you want, and you can believe with all your heart that someone could have made a different choice than the one he actually made, but you cannot prove it.

Of course I can't prove it, never claimed I could.

You cannot disprove it, either.

And because it can never be proven true, determinism, as the opposite of free will, can never be proven false. because that would automatically make free will true.

False dilemma YET AGAIN!

Free will and determinism are not objectively or universally understood as opposites and certainly are not considered the only two options associated with the issue. If you are defining them as opposites of each other (essentially what you are doing), you have created a trivially true tautology.

This is accurate reasoning and it holds up under scrutiny.

Whose scrutiny?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not shown any fallacious reasoning.

I have demonstrated that you have

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you see this, and can apologize for your mistake.

No mistake, I supported my claim that you have used and continue to use fallacious reasoning. I have nothing at all to apologize for.

[LadyShea]

B is for Burden of Proof

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Demonstration

By excluding compatibilism and different understandings of the concepts of both free will and determinism, Lessans, and later you yourself, presented a textbook example of this fallacy with his "If determinism is true, free will is false" assertion because those are not the only two possibilities.

Listen up LadyShea. That is not what he said. There is no textbook fallacy. He said if free will cannot be proven true, determinism, as the opposite of free will, cannot be proven false. That is different than what you just wrote. This was not an attempt to prove determinism true. It was an attempt to show that free will cannot prove it false. This means it still can still be proven true. Now apologize for a change. Tell me one time in your life that you were wrong. It will be music to my ears.