A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you're misunderstanding me. If a mirror is 5 miles away, we wouldn't be able to see the reflection of the lamp in that mirror. We would see the light on its return as it enters our eyes which is how he was able to calculate the speed of light. I'm not disputing this.

I don't remember the exact setup, but the lantern and possibly the observer were using optical equipment to focus the light.

If you are concerned about being able to see the light with the naked eye, You can replicate this experiment by putting the light 100 meters away or closer. You simply have to turn the gear wheel much faster.

[But]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I don't remember the exact setup, but the lantern and possibly the observer were using optical equipment to focus the light.

If you are concerned about being able to see the light with the naked eye, You can replicate this experiment by putting the light 100 meters away or closer. You simply have to turn the gear wheel much faster.

I think now she's saying that there are two different kinds of seeing: one in the usual way, with a delay, and efferent vision. We can only see detailed objects using efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I think now she's saying that there are two different kinds of seeing: one in the usual way, with a delay, and efferent vision. We can only see detailed objects using efferent vision.

We can only see objects (not necessarily detailed) if they are close enough to us; you know, in our field of view? Otherwise there would be no photons at our retina so how could we see? This would apply whether we see afferently or efferently. The only difference is that in the afferent account the light is traveling to reach the eye, and in the efferent account the photons are already at the eye if the object is seen since light is only a condition of sight, not a cause. I think people are making more out of this than need be.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that in the afferent account the light is traveling to reach the eye,

But you just said that that is what happens in the wheel experiment. So you are affirming the "afferent account"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

But you just said that that is what happens in the wheel experiment. So you are affirming the "afferent account"?

That is what happens. I never denied that we can only see light once it has arrived. I don't see morning before morning arrives, but seeing light does not discount the efferent view. Light does not contain matter. When we see matter, light's function is to reveal it when we are looking directly at it, not to travel to the eye through space/time, as presumed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would see the light on its return as it enters our eyes which is how he was able to calculate the speed of light. I'm not disputing this.

And vision is all about light entering the eye after it has traveled the distance from the object to the eye. There is nothing else to it in the real world, and because he was able to calculate the speed of light, depended on vision being afferent, if vision were efferent the experiment would have failed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think people are making more out of this than need be.

People are making only enough to say that Lessans version of efferent vision is nonsense. Lessans didn't even describe efferent vision correctly, another error to add to the list of his many mistakes due to a lack of education.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what happens. I never denied that we can only see light once it has arrived. I don't see morning before morning arrives, but seeing light does not discount the efferent view. Light does not contain matter. When we see matter, light's function is to reveal it when we are looking directly at it, not to travel to the eye through space/time, as presumed.

Fortunately this is one case where you can't have it both ways, afferent vision is true, the way the world works, and Lessans version of efferent vision is nonsense

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what happens. I never denied that we can only see light once it has arrived. I don't see morning before morning arrives, but seeing light does not discount the efferent view. Light does not contain matter. When we see matter, light's function is to reveal it when we are looking directly at it, not to travel to the eye through space/time, as presumed.

E=Mc2 states that energy and mass are interchangeable and are simply different forms of the same thing, and E=Mc2 has been proven to be true. So technically light (as energy) can be changed to mass, so your statement is fundamentally wrong.

Vision only happens when light (photons) enter the eye and react with the retina, and that only happens when the photons have traveled, (at c), to the eye from the object. Lessans was wrong, and science got it right.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can choose dish 7 is a true statement before the moment of choice. You could have chosen dish 7 once the choice is made is false.

You are confusing the real options I had or not with events in the future and in the past. As long as my choice 'has not occurred yet' what I will eat depends on my choice. That is what you mean with 'You can choose dish 7 is a true statement before the moment of choice'. That's fine.
But then you shift the meaning to what I would say 'the past cannot be undone': once you have chosen 'there are no possibilities anymore'. That is also true, but it is not the past tense of 'You can choose dish 7'. The past tense of this sentence is 'You could have chosen dish 7'. It does not mean 'Under exact the same circumstances, including you mental states, you could have chosen dish 7'. ' You could have chosen dish 7' means that there was a moment before my choice at which what I would eat depended on what I would choose. Nothing more. However, this meaning is enough ground for compatibilist free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not it at all. Having options does not grant us free will. It only gives us options. The only way free will would exist is if we could choose A or B equally which is impossible when we are comparing meaningful differences that push us [out of necessity] in one direction only. What is choice other than contemplating which option is most preferable? You are making a mockery out of choice?

True, having options is not a sufficient condition for free will. Look e.g. at a game of chess. Say it is white's turn: he has several options to get his king out of check. That means: according the rules of chess there are several possibilities. What possibility will be real depends on the player of white. Now assume that white is played by a computer, i.e a determined system. Has the meaning of 'several possibilities' suddenly vanished because the computer is determined, and even would do exactly the same in a new party in the same situation? Of course not.
Now white does its move, and looses. Somebody commenting on the game points out that white 'could have done another move' at the crucial moment, and white might have won. What does 'white could have done another move' mean? Of course that at that moment in the past, according to the rules of chess another move was possible.

It is funny how people when it is about free will they immediately add 'under exact the same circumstances, including the chess program/brain state' to 'could have done another move'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You could not have done otherwise given the same exact circumstances. This is the big fallacy and cannot be used to support the "free will" compatibilist view you are trying to convince me of.

It is only a fallacy when you use a false reading of 'could have done otherwise', as explained above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You seem to be of the belief that having options is equivalent to having free will.

No, I don't think that. But 'having options' is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. For free will we need other conditions on the part of the acting system, like consciousness of regularities in nature, anticipating of natural, moral and punitive consequences of the options you have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The confusion is with how free will is being defined.

Yep. And the confusion is yours, as all people who use the libertarian definition of free will. What hard determinists and libertarians have in common is that they use the same definition of free will: hard determinists deny that it exists, libertarians believe in it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm not yelling at you just because I have some words in caps. It's for emphasis only.

You can use italics, bold or underline for it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean by "at physical level there exist no possibilities?

I mean at physical level there are only regular processes running its course. You do not discover free will, responsibility, possibilities etc. by looking into the brain with a microscope. In the chess computer you only see currents influencing each other according the laws of electromagnetism, you do not find the possibility 'avoid checkmate' there. You see it only on the level where the physical structures represent meaning. A king in chess is physically just a piece of wood: in chess it is a king.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, fair enough.

A. It is determined what I will choose to eat, so I can only take the dish I will take: but I do not yet know what I will eat.

B. It was determined what I wold choose to eat, I could only take the dish that I took: but now I know what I've chosen.

You repeated just my sentences, that correct your 'difference before and after'. Now you suddenly agree?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by GdB

No, I am not lost. You say that we see a piece of paper only when light falls on it. So if the sun is turned on, it takes about 8 minutes before we see it. But we, and a camera see the sun immediately. But a camera is a technical artefact, so the capability of efferent vision must be built in. So what is built in into the camera that makes efferent vision possible?

Oh, and one other question: if I take a positive lens, and put the piece of paper exactly in the focal point for the sun. When the sun is turned on, does its light appear around the lens and in the focal point of the lens appear simultaneous? If it does, how are the mechanisms of the lens and photo camera different?

Still waiting, peacegirl. And for the second question, thedoc's extension is also very interesting: does the paper quickly starts to burn, or must we wait 8 minutes?

And then I have not seen any satisfactory answer on Lady Shea's question. To bring it to the point, you take as true that:

1. Instantaneous, efferent vision does not contradict the laws of physics.
2. The laws of physics say that no information, energy or mass can go faster than the speed of light.
3. Seeing the sun means transformation of information: that the sun has turned on, that it has a certain size, a certain colour, etc.

Sorry, but these tree do not go together.

And further I notice that you keep citing crackpot sites to support your ideas: about relativity, about neutrinos (and I could add about vaccination...).

And then I still miss an explanation of the mechanism of efferent vision. Normally, when people do not understand something, then somebody friendly enough explains it, instead of just saying that they do not understand it. So? How does efferent vision work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You are confusing the real options I had or not with events in the future and in the past. As long as my choice 'has not occurred yet' what I will eat depends on my choice.

Of course it does GdB, who is saying otherwise? The fact that it is determined looking back doesn't mean that we didn't have a choice.

Originally Posted by GdB

That is what you mean with 'You can choose dish 7 is a true statement before the moment of choice'. That's fine.

Of course it's fine. You have a choice, which is what the word "choice" means.

Originally Posted by GdB

But then you shift the meaning to what I would say 'the past cannot be undone': once you have chosen there are no possibilities anymore'. That is also true, but it is not the past tense of 'You can choose dish 7'. The past tense of this sentence is 'You could have chosen dish 7'. It does not mean 'Under exact the same circumstances, including you mental states, you could have chosen dish 7'. ' You could have chosen dish 7' means that there was a moment before my choice at which what I would eat depended on what I would choose. Nothing more. However, this meaning is enough ground for compatibilist free will.

Your answer perplexes me. There obviously was a moment in time that you could have chosen dish 7. That is the point of choice. I am trying to get you to see that having options allows a number of possibilities, but this does not mean that any of these options are actually possible. You are confused on this point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not it at all. Having options does not grant us free will. It only gives us options. The only way free will would exist is if we could choose A or B equally which is impossible when we are comparing meaningful differences that push us [out of necessity] in one direction only. What is choice other than contemplating which option is most preferable? You are making a mockery out of choice?

Originally Posted by GdB

True, having options is not a sufficient condition for free will. Look e.g. at a game of chess. Say it is white's turn: he has several options to get his king out of check. That means: according the rules of chess there are several possibilities. What possibility will be real depends on the player of white. Now assume that white is played by a computer, i.e a determined system. Has the meaning of 'several possibilities' suddenly vanished because the computer is determined, and even would do exactly the same in a new party in the same situation? Of course not.

Actually looking back it does. Human nature is a determined system just like a computer game of chess. The fact that choice is involved (which makes it appear that we are free to choose any option we want) doesn't change this fact.

Originally Posted by GdB

Now white does its move, and looses. Somebody commenting on the game points out that white 'could have done another move' at the crucial moment, and white might have won. What does 'white could have done another move' mean? Of course that at that moment in the past, according to the rules of chess another move was possible.

OMG, who is arguing with the fact that the person had another choice, but at that moment he didn't find that choice appealing, so he chose what he believed to be the best choice RENDERING ANY OTHER CHOICE AT THAT MOMENT IMPOSSIBLE.

Originally Posted by GdB

It is funny how people when it is about free will they immediately add 'under exact the same circumstances, including the chess program/brain state' to 'could have done another move'.

But that is the truest statement of all. If the circumstances were different, he may have compared the options differently thus choosing to move in a different direction which would have given him the winning position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You could not have done otherwise given the same exact circumstances. This is the big fallacy and cannot be used to support the "free will" compatibilist view you are trying to convince me of.

Originally Posted by GdB

It is only a fallacy when you use a false reading of 'could have done otherwise', as explained above.

There is no false reading. The only false reading is your confused interpretation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You seem to be of the belief that having options is equivalent to having free will.

Originally Posted by GdB

No, I don't think that. But 'having options' is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

What is that supposed to mean? We have options and those options are limited by what is available to us in our limited experience.

Originally Posted by GdB

For free will we need other conditions on the part of the acting system, like consciousness of regularities in nature, anticipating of natural, moral and punitive consequences of the options you have.

Anticipating the natural, moral and punitive consequences of the options available does nothing to solve this problem. There are no regularities in nature such that we can blame those who don't follow those regularities. You really need to study this book. I believe you will come out with a different perspective. Please don't tell me you're not interested because I'm not interested in whether you will or you won't. It was just a suggestion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The confusion is with how free will is being defined.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yep. And the confusion is yours, as all people who use the libertarian definition of free will. What hard determinists and libertarians have in common is that they use the same definition of free will: hard determinists deny that it exists, libertarians believe in it.

There is no confusion. Definition of free will is just that; a way to make it appear that a determined system can also be free. This is absurd, and a concerted effort to minimize the difficulty of this debate by creating a compatibilist view that is nothing more than fluff.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm not yelling at you just because I have some words in caps. It's for emphasis only.

Originally Posted by GdB

You can use italics, bold or underline for it.

No, throughout this book I capitalized important sentences. Why should this bother you? I can't kowtow to every person who has a bone to pick.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean by "at physical level there exist no possibilities?

Originally Posted by GdB

I mean at physical level there are only regular processes running its course. You do not discover free will, responsibility, possibilities etc. by looking into the brain with a microscope. In the chess computer you only see currents influencing each other according the laws of electromagnetism, you do not find the possibility 'avoid checkmate' there. You see it only on the level where the physical structures represent meaning. A king in chess is physically just a piece of wood: in chess it is a king.

Obviously, how we interpret something is what gives it meaning. You can't discover free will by looking at the brain with a microscope. If anything, determinism will be confirmed because it has been observed that before the action, the brain already made its decision. This has nothing to do with the proof that Lessans proposed. The fact that many of our choices are dependent on studying the pros and cons which help us ascertain which choice is the best option in no way grants us free will, not even the compatibilist kind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, fair enough.

A. It is determined what I will choose to eat, so I can only take the dish I will take: but I do not yet know what I will eat.

B. It was determined what I wold choose to eat, I could only take the dish that I took: but now I know what I've chosen.

Originally Posted by GdB

You repeated just my sentences, that correct your 'difference before and after'. Now you suddenly agree?

I agree that looking back we could not have done otherwise. In that sense it was determined, although we didn't know what we would choose at the time. I will repeat: Once a choice is made, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE GIVEN THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US. I am sorry if you don't like my caps. As I told you, I am not yelling but emphasizing the important points.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Still waiting, peacegirl. And for the second question, thedoc's extension is also very interesting: does the paper quickly starts to burn, or must we wait 8 minutes?

And then I have not seen any satisfactory answer on Lady Shea's question. To bring it to the point, you take as true that:

1. Instantaneous, efferent vision does not contradict the laws of physics.
2. The laws of physics say that no information, energy or mass can go faster than the speed of light.
3. Seeing the sun means transformation of information: that the sun has turned on, that it has a certain size, a certain colour, etc.

Sorry, but these tree do not go together.

And further I notice that you keep citing crackpot sites to support your ideas: about relativity, about neutrinos (and I could add about vaccination...).

And then I still miss an explanation of the mechanism of efferent vision. Normally, when people do not understand something, then somebody friendly enough explains it, instead of just saying that they do not understand it. So? How does efferent vision work?

Every site I offer is considered a crackpot site. If someone cited my father's book on the website I created it would be considered a crackpot site. Who are you to say who the real crackpots are? You are just mimicking what you have been taught. I am not saying that everything you have learned needs to be relearned, but some things do.

[GdB]

You have no answer on any of my questions?

I consider this as your confession that you know you were wrong on these topics all the time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every site I offer is considered a crackpot site. If someone cited my father's book on the website I created it would be considered a crackpot site. Who are you to say who the real crackpots are? You are just mimicking what you have been taught. I am not saying that everything you have learned needs to be relearned, but some things do.

Yes, it turns out that way. You defend viewpoints that contradict established science:

• Relativity has proven itself through and through: it is so basic to physics nowadays, that if it were not true, magnetism would not exist, gold would not have its yellowish glance, particle accelerators would work completely differently, etc etc.
• The existence of neutrinos has been proven in hundreds of experiments, and they fit exactly in the theory of beta-decay, and of all other processes seen in particle colliders, many elements would not exist if beta-decay would not be possible.
• And your links to anti-vaxxers are never based on serious science.

You cannot accept that established science shows you are wrong, so you have to look for anti-scientific sites, which then are per definition crackpot sites. You simply do not find any scientific site supporting you.

But now, answer my questions about vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every site I offer is considered a crackpot site.

because every site you quote is a crackpot site.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone cited my father's book on the website I created it would be considered a crackpot site.

that is quite true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who are you to say who the real crackpots are?

Several people on this thread have read the sites, and that they are crackpots is obvious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are just mimicking what you have been taught. I am not saying that everything you have learned needs to be relearned, but some things do.

When one has been taught the truth of reality, it is best to quote that truth in the face of obvious nonsense.

And actually you and Lessans are asking people unlearn everything, and relearn everything according to Lessans fantasies.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to get you to see that having options allows a number of possibilities, but this does not mean that any of these options are actually possible.

You seem to contradict yourself here. The only way to make sense of this sentence is that you use 'possibilities' and 'possible' in different meanings. In exact the same meaning it is a contradiction to say that something is possible but not actually possible. What one can say is that something is possible but that it did not occur. White could move its pawn to D5, but it did not. That does not mean that the chess computer really did it.

You are completely confused on this point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually looking back it does. Human nature is a determined system just like a computer game of chess. The fact that choice is involved (which makes it appear that we are free to choose any option we want) doesn't change this fact.

You do not even try to react on what I am saying. So it is obvious you do not understand what I am saying. You could try to refute me, but then you should react on what I say, and not on something different. My whole point is to show that possibilities, and the phrase 'could have done otherwise' make perfectly sense in a determinist sense, so it is not relevant that we are just as determined as a chess computer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is the truest statement of all. If the circumstances were different, he may have compared the options differently thus choosing to move in a different direction which would have given him the winning position.

So all I explained about what possibility means in a determined universe is replaced again by your silly libertarian view on free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anticipating the natural, moral and punitive consequences of the options available does nothing to solve this problem. There are no regularities in nature such that we can blame those who don't follow those regularities. You really need to study this book. I believe you will come out with a different perspective. Please don't tell me you're not interested because I'm not interested in whether you will or you won't. It was just a suggestion.

You should study my posts. You haven't understood one word of what I wrote here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Definition of free will is just that; a way to make it appear that a determined system can also be free. This is absurd, and a concerted effort to minimize the difficulty of this debate by creating a compatibilist view that is nothing more than fluff.

There is a way in which we, as determined systems seem to be free: that we, under exactly the same circumstances, could have done otherwise.
But there is also a way in which we, as determined systems, really are free: that we can act according our desires, motives and best insights. Determined, yes, but free. I am not free if I cannot act according to my motives.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that many of our choices are dependent on studying the pros and cons which help us ascertain which choice is the best option in no way grants us free will, not even the compatibilist kind.

Not your funny kind of libertarian free will of course. But show me where it contradicts the compatibilist concept of free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that looking back we could not have done otherwise. In that sense it was determined, although we didn't know what we would choose at the time. I will repeat: Once a choice is made, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE GIVEN THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US.

Here you go again: There is no difference 'once a choice is made': only in the sense that an event is in the past, and therefore cannot be changed anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You seem to contradict yourself here. The only way to make sense of this sentence is that you use 'possibilities' and 'possible' in different meanings. In exact the same meaning it is a contradiction to say that something is possible but not actually possible.

There is no contradiction. A possibility is something that could be chosen, or to phrase it differently: An option is possible because it is among one of the available choices. Is that not what you call free will?

Originally Posted by GdB

What one can say is that something is possible but that it did not occur. White could move its pawn to D5, but it did not. That does not mean that the chess computer really did it.

You are completely confused on this point.

I'm not confused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually looking back it does. Human nature is a determined system just like a computer game of chess. The fact that choice is involved (which makes it appear that we are free to choose any option we want) doesn't change this fact.

Originally Posted by GdB

You do not even try to react on what I am saying. So it is obvious you do not understand what I am saying. You could try to refute me, but then you should react on what I say, and not on something different. My whole point is to show that possibilities, and the phrase 'could have done otherwise' make perfectly sense in a determinist sense, so it is not relevant that we are just as determined as a chess computer.

I will repeat: No one is arguing that there aren't possibilities in a determined system. That is the whole point of contemplation. But the phrase "could have done otherwise" holds no meaning and certainly can't be used to hold people blameworthy as the term "choice" (the idea that all choices are equally possible) is an illusion given that only one choice (in a determined system) can be made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is the truest statement of all. If the circumstances were different, he may have compared the options differently thus choosing to move in a different direction which would have given him the winning position.

Originally Posted by GdB

So all I explained about what possibility means in a determined universe is replaced again by your silly libertarian view on free will.

I don't have a libertarian view on free will. If anything, it is YOU that has a silly and inaccurate notion of free will which you, as a compatibilist, are using to hold people accountable while still holding on to determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anticipating the natural, moral and punitive consequences of the options available does nothing to solve this problem. There are no regularities in nature such that we can blame those who don't follow those regularities. You really need to study this book. I believe you will come out with a different perspective. Please don't tell me you're not interested because I'm not interested in whether you will or you won't. It was just a suggestion.

Originally Posted by GdB

You should study my posts. You haven't understood one word of what I wrote here.

We can agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Definition of free will is just that; a way to make it appear that a determined system can also be free. This is absurd, and a concerted effort to minimize the difficulty of this debate by creating a compatibilist view that is nothing more than fluff.

Originally Posted by GdB

There is a way in which we, as determined systems seem to be free: that we, under exactly the same circumstances, could have done otherwise.

That is a complete illusion GdB. What makes it true that will is not free is that under the same exact conditions, the same outcome would occur. You are entitled to buy into the illusion of "free will" if it helps to relieve the cognitive/dissonance of holding people blameworthy in a determined world. I understand why compatibilism became a viable philosophy which seemed as credible as any and served a useful purpose. The fact remains: freedom of the will is the opposite of determinism and, as such, both cannot be true. That would be like saying you can be dead and alive at the same time.

Originally Posted by GdB

But there is also a way in which we, as determined systems, really are free: that we can act according our desires, motives and best insights. Determined, yes, but free. I am not free if I cannot act according to my motives.

Yes, it is true that we can act in accordance with our desires, motives and best insights. This in no way grants us free will. You are not free if you cannot act according to your motives, and you are not free if you can act according to your motives. The first is a physical constraint, which we know does not grant us freedom. The latter also does not grant free will. That is the conventional definition that says having a choice is what free will is. But that is false since our motives, desires, and best insights are part of the causal chain of antecedents that help us determine which choice we find most preferable, thus, there is no freedom whatsoever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that many of our choices are dependent on studying the pros and cons which help us ascertain which choice is the best option in no way grants us free will, not even the compatibilist kind.

Originally Posted by GdB

Not your funny kind of libertarian free will of course. But show me where it contradicts the compatibilist concept of free will.

Your charge that I have a funny kind of libertarian free will is humorous, as I have no belief in free will whatsoever. I already explained that the compatibilist definition of "free will" that suddenly transforms a determined action into a free action is done only to justify just desert; the blaming and punishment of the individual. That's why the phrase "could have done otherwise" brings up so much contention, for if a person could not have done otherwise, where does that leave us? I just want to say that I understand the conflict and for some it's the only option that makes sense. But that doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that looking back we could not have done otherwise. In that sense it was determined, although we didn't know what we would choose at the time. I will repeat: Once a choice is made, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE GIVEN THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US.

Originally Posted by GdB

Here you go again: There is no difference 'once a choice is made': only in the sense that an event is in the past, and therefore cannot be changed anymore.

Before a choice is made, the options on the table are all possibilities, but if there are meaningful differences between the choices that are under consideration, only one choice is ever possible which renders all the other choices an impossibility. That's why the word "choice" is misleading because it assumes that, given the exact same situation, we could have chosen otherwise (i.e., we could have chosen the "better" option according to those who are standing in judgment), which is utterly false.

[GdB]

It is obvious that in the most cases you do not react on my points at all. You just use my sentences as hooks to repeat your own views, without even understanding what I am saying. To give one example:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your charge that I have a funny kind of libertarian free will is humorous, as I have no belief in free will whatsoever.

I did not imply that you believe in libertarian free will. I said you use the concept of libertarian free will. I made it very clear: both libertarians and hard determinists use the same concept of free will. Libertarians believe it exists, hard determinists believe it does not exist.

(And just to add: compatibilists deny it too. But where the hard determinists see libertarian concept of free will as the only meaningful, compatibilists notice the libertarian concept of free will is incoherent from the beginning, and that we obviously mean something else when we say that we have free will. In the simplest words: the capability to do what we want. In this definition there is no contradiction with determinism.)

And for the rest you are just repeating yourself, including all your thinking errors. You just do the same a with the discussion on efferent vision: unclear thinking, not encountering arguments, evading questions.

Sorry to say, peacegirl, you will not live to see that your father's ideas will be accepted, because their are just plain wrong. And after you will have died, your father's book will disappear in oblivion. It is a waste of your time. Better enjoy the time that remains you with your grand children.

[Florence Jellem]

Hello, boys, it’s Flo.

I’m new here. This is my first post.

What a fascinating discussion, just based on reading the last one and a half pages.

I do have a question: shall I have to read all 1,684 pages, comprising 42,092 replies (not including this one), before I am allowed to express an opinion?

If not, is it OK if I wing it and spout off whatever pops into my head after less than a moment’s reflection? That would be much easier for me.

OK, that’s all for now.

You friend Flo Jellem

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

It is obvious that in the most cases you do not react on my points at all. You just use my sentences as hooks to repeat your own views, without even understanding what I am saying. To give one example:

Your charge that I have a funny kind of libertarian free will is humorous, as I have no belief in free will whatsoever.

Originally Posted by GdB

I did not imply that you believe in libertarian free will. I said you use the concept of libertarian free will. I made it very clear: both libertarians and hard determinists use the same concept of free will. Libertarians believe it exists, hard determinists believe it does not exist.

Because it doesn't.

Originally Posted by GdB

(And just to add: compatibilists deny it too. But where the hard determinists see libertarian concept of free will as the only meaningful, compatibilists notice the libertarian concept of free will is incoherent from the beginning,

Any definition of free will is inaccuate GdB. Please stop using these definitions that imply that one of them is correct. NONE, do you hear me, NONE of these definitions are symbolic of reality. You are way too big for your britches sir.

Originally Posted by GdB

and that we obviously mean something else when we say that we have free will. In the simplest words: the capability to do what we want. In this definition there is no contradiction with determinism.)

You are so blocked in your refusal to even hear my answer that there is no hope for conversation Gdb, because you lose, and you don't want to give up your belief that we are NOT (do you hear me, we are NOT) to blame for our choices. I get it. But I can't go along with your philosophy. If that means this is the end of the road with you, so be it.

Originally Posted by GdB

And for the rest you are just repeating yourself, including all your thinking errors. You just do the same a with the discussion on efferent vision: unclear thinking, not encountering arguments, evading questions.

Oh noooooooo, you cannot bring up another discussion entirely to justify the correctness of this discussion. What a sneak you are.

Originally Posted by GdB

Sorry to say, peacegirl, you will not live to see that your father's ideas will be accepted

I know that but this has nothing to do with the veracity of what he is demonstraing. Don't you see the difference?

Originally Posted by GdB

, because their are just plain wrong.

Oh really? You have yet to show me where. In fact, you never answered anything related to my post.

Originally Posted by GdB

And after you will have died, your father's book will disappear in oblivion. It is a waste of your time. Better enjoy the time that remains you with your grand children.

This is so sick, I don't know where to begin. What a ridiculous end of a ridiculous response to a genuine post. What can I say?

[peacegirl]

[quote=peacegirl;1231537]

Originally Posted by GdB

It is obvious that in the most cases you do not react on my points at all. You just use my sentences as hooks to repeat your own views, without even understanding what I am saying. To give one example:

Your charge that I have a funny kind of libertarian free will is humorous, as I have no belief in free will whatsoever.

Originally Posted by GdB

I did not imply that you believe in libertarian free will. I said you use the concept of libertarian free will. I made it very clear: both libertarians and hard determinists use the same concept of free will. Libertarians believe it exists, hard determinists believe it does not exist.

Because it doesn't.

Originally Posted by GdB

(And just to add: compatibilists deny it too. But where the hard determinists see libertarian concept of free will as the only meaningful, compatibilists notice the libertarian concept of free will is incoherent from the beginning,

Any definition of free will is inaccuate GdB. Please stop using these definitions that imply that one of them is correct. NONE, do you hear me, NONE of these definitions are symbolic of reality. You are way too big for your britches sir.

Originally Posted by GdB

and that we obviously mean something else when we say that we have free will. In the simplest words: the capability to do what we want. In this definition there is no contradiction with determinism.)

You are so blocked in your refusal to even hear my answer that there is no hope for conversation Gdb, because you lose, and you don't want to give up your belief that we are NOT (do you hear me, we are NOT) to blame for our choices. I get it. But I can't go along with your philosophy. If that means this is the end of the road with you, so be it.

Originally Posted by GdB

And for the rest you are just repeating yourself, including all your thinking errors. You just do the same a with the discussion on efferent vision: unclear thinking, not encountering arguments, evading questions.

Oh noooooooo, you cannot bring up another discussion entirely to justify the correctness of this discussion. What a sneak you are.

Originally Posted by GdB

Sorry to say, peacegirl, you will not live to see that your father's ideas will be accepted

According to you I may not live to see my father's discovery brought to light. But this has nothing to do with the veracity of what he is demonstrating. Don't you even see the difference or are you so blinded by your beliefs that you can't even separate the two?

Originally Posted by GdB

, because their are just plain wrong.

Oh really? You have yet to show me where. In fact, you never answered anything related to my post.

Originally Posted by GdB

And after you will have died, your father's book will disappear in oblivion. It is a waste of your time. Better enjoy the time that remains you with your grand children.

This is so sick, I don't know where to begin. What a ridiculous unthinking response to a genuine post. What can I say other than I give up if people consider you the cream of the crop!

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Any definition of free will is inaccuate GdB. Please stop using these definitions that imply that one of them is correct.

So you even don't know what you are denying.

Oh, btw. By not answering the questions about vision, you have for me confessed that you have no idea. Efferent vision is just a empty fantasy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Poor peacegirl...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

So you even don't know what you are denying.

Oh, btw. By not answering the questions about vision, you have for me confessed that you have no idea. Efferent vision is just a empty fantasy.

Poor peacegirl...

What an idiotic response. I would have thought you could have at least been more imaginative than this. Why don't you go back to CFI where everyone has to walk on tiptoes. You won't be opposed there, and all will be well in your world.

[But]

Hey peacegirl, please explain what's going on with the moons of Jupiter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Hey peacegirl, please explain what's going on with the moons of Jupiter.

First, explain to me why he came to the conclusions he did. What were his observations? You haven't a clue. It really doesn't surprise me how difficult it is to get people to really listen. Trick Slattery hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

Seemingly brilliant people--from philosophers, to scientists, to the most thoughtful laypersons--when prompted with the idea that their choices are not free like their intuition[ 2] tells them they are, not only strongly disagree, but after the case is made to them, they make contrivances around the case to curve that demand in their psyche. * Some twist and bend logic into a pretzel. Some make cases that quantum physics allows for free will. Some define free will in a way that is neither free nor willed. Some argue that without free will there can be no morality or ethics, and therefore we should believe in free will even if it does not exist. Others dismiss the subject as pointless and unimportant altogether. Each contrivance is far from the truth. And these untruths are not benign.

'Trick. Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind. Working Matter Publishing.