A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Hi everyone,

I started this thread so we can separate the discussions. This thread is intended to help people understand Lessans' first discovery, which is the key that unlocks the door to the Golden Age of man. All are welcome to participate, but please try to keep the topic under discussion in mind when posting. Because these principles are not easy to grasp, it is my hope that people will be group minded when responding. Thank you very much for taking my suggestions into consideration.

[JoeP]

A new thread! Thank you peacegirl.

[specious_reasons]

Great, maybe peacegirl would now like to explain how the modal fallacy does not apply to Lessans proof.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Great, maybe peacegirl would now like to explain how the modal fallacy does not apply to Lessans proof.

I already posted the proof, but if you're not willing to even listen to what it says instead of attacking what it says the minute I speak, we're going to be in trouble.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by JoeP

A new thread! Thank you peacegirl.

You're very welcome.

[Deadlokd]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo

Deadlord, who are you to come here and tell me Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Do you think that changes anything?

[Deadlokd]

I mean WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO

[thedoc]

Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.

No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that. You will never grasp this knowledge if all you want to do is argue even before you even understand what he's talking about. That's exactly what's happening.

[davidm]

Oh, look, a new thread by peacegirl! A Revolution in Thought, Part Two!

Is this going to be like Part One, in which we learned that we see in real time, even though we don't?

Oh, well, every dark cloud has a silver lining, as they say!

In this thread we can explore the usual objections to free will, which broadly fit into three categories: Causal or Laplacean determinism, logical determinism (Aristotle's problem of future contingents) and epistemic determinism (the problem of God's foreknowledge) and see why none of them impede free will.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that.

Yes, I do appreciate it. Lessans' book was a great source of humor, albeit all of it unintended to be humorous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, I do appreciate it. Lessans' book was a great source of humor, albeit all of it unintended to be humorous.

No David, you're just really angry at Lessans. It makes me sad.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, you're just really angry at Lessans. It makes me sad.

[specious_reasons]

I think that we functionally have free will, even though we don't. You could probably predict the actions of any individual at any point in time provided you knew enough about that person's past and current experience.

The trouble as I see it, is knowing enough. The more universal the behavior, the easier it will be to predict. A simple example: If I'm taking with a person, and I point at something, I can predict with a reasonable confidence that a person will look at where I'm pointing.

Yet, there's a small chance that the person won't. Maybe that person knows that I have a habit of pointing to people's plumber cracks, dead things, or other unhappy occurrences. Maybe they just didn't happen to be looking at me when I was pointing, or maybe they have some form of social disfunction.

Unless I know all of this, I can't predict with 100% certainty. I generally treat free will as an information problem.

This is a reason why I have a problem with Lessans. Understanding that I don't really have free will generally doesn't affect how I behave, because I can't always predict how my actions will affect others. I have some idea, because I can predict based on reasonable assumptions, but I can't possibly eliminate all risks.

...and sometimes, I'm just resigned to the fact that I'm not always a nice person.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate.

If your primary, or only, means of explaining the concepts is to quote the book, then you have lost already. The book is unclear and insufficent to the purpose. If you can't restate clearly and explain bit by bit, Lessans ideas will be lost to the world and it will be your fault. The responsability is entirely on you to present the material in a way that readers can understand.

[LadyShea]

I have to agree with thedoc. You need to lay out a summary of the finding, without Lessans confusing fake dialog interjections, butthurt at "the establishment" and self congratulating.

Make it read like a true work of scholarship rather than a stream of consciousness experiment. This is the only way you will be seen as someone with something serious to offer. If you can't summarize it then you must not understand it yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have to agree with thedoc. You need to lay out a summary of the finding, without Lessans confusing fake dialog interjections, butthurt at "the establishment" and self congratulating.

Make it read like a true work of scholarship rather than a stream of consciousness experiment. This is the only way you will be seen as someone with something serious to offer. If you can't summarize it then you must not understand it yourself.

I already did summarize it. We all move in the direction of GREATER satisfaction, which leaves us only one choice at each moment in time. What are you so in disagreement with to conclude that this is all bullshit?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already did summarize it. We all move in the direction of GREATER satisfaction, which leaves us only one choice at each moment in time. What are you so in disagreement with to conclude that this is all bullshit?

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST. To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.

I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic. Peacegirl's stuff can be ignored because it has already been refuted.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by davidm

I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic.

I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?

Your flippant response indicates to me that you don't want to be here. Go find other books. I can't even begin to discuss this discovery with people who are so disrespectful in every way. Just go Kael.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Kael

I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?

Here is one possible definition of free will: That I have the genuine ability to choose among genuinely available alternatives, in any given situation.

Here are some possible objections, running the gamut from theistic to naturalistic:

1. Today it is true that tomorrow there will be a sea battle. If it’s true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, nobody can do anything to prevent the sea battle from happening. So the participants in the battle have no option to refrain from doing battle.

2. Today God knows that tomorrow I will kill x. In fact, God knew this fact before I was ever born, indeed an eternity ago. Therefore I must kill x because I cannot do other than what the omniscient God infallibly foreknows, and have no genuine ability to refrain from killing x.

3. When he made the world, God knew all counterfactual worlds. There were worlds in which I kill x and worlds in which I don’t. God chose to make the world in which I kill x, and not the world in which I refrain from killing x. Therefore I have no choice but to kill x.

4. The world is causally deterministic. It is governed by physical law. If one could trace all the workings of cause and effect, one could predict in advance what I would do. Therefore I must do as the laws of physics dictate and have no genuine option to do otherwise.

5. The future exists, along with the past and present (indicated by relativity theory.) This means the future, just as much as the past, is fixed and unchangeable. I can no more change or affect the future than I can the past. So I have no free will.

6. The “I” does not exist. The Cartesian “I” is a convenient illusion cobbled up by brain states. What I choose to do, is decided by my subconscious even before I am aware of my choice. Free will presupposes a free agent, an “I”. If the “I” does not exist, then neither does free will.

And from here, one could start by wondering whether the definition of free will is a good one, and whether any of the arguments presented above against that definition, or perhaps against some modified definition, are successful arguments against free will.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by Kael

I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?

Free Will and determinism, a dialogue, is a good place to start. You can buy it at Amazon Books for 7$

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST. To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.

Here you go, first premise refuted

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST.

Thank you for this refutation but I have to disagree. We cannot DO if we don't move in this direction naturally. We cannot LadyShea. We can only DO what our desire is telling us to DO. Desire is the impetus here. I am trying to come from your position in order to show you where you're confused, so don't give up, okay?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

That's an assertion that keeps your worldview safe. I can't fight someone who sets up a premise that cannot be disputed, which is what you're doing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted

There is no modal fallacy.