#25901  
Old 05-06-2013, 07:48 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

dupe

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-06-2013 at 08:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25902  
Old 05-06-2013, 08:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
You are still not addressing my question so I will simplify it.

We agree on the following statement.

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

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

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

1. Humans always freely choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have free will
When you say humans free choose that which they find most preferable, it is a contradicion because you can't be free to choose, and only choose one set of options (the most preferable). If you were truly free you could choose A (kill someone) just as easily as B (not kill someone). I am using an extreme example so you'll understand it. If A is something you cannot do under your set of circumstances, then that leaves only one choice as a possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
2. Humans always are motivated, but not compelled, to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have a compatibilist form of free will
No they do not. Free will and determinism are opposites. You cannot have a little bit of free will. We are compelled to prefer whatever it is we choose.... That doesn't mean we are forced by something external. We choose whatever we choose, but our preference is limited to the choice that is the most desirable after weighing the pros and cons, not what is the least desirable, which is the purpose of contemplation. Being free to compare options does not mean you have free will. Being motivated doesn't enter into it. I can be motivated to clean my house, and give myself the option of deep cleaning one room each day, or straightening all the rooms without giving them a deep clean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
but to support it empirically by showing where it differs from a freely chosen action is impossible to do, because there are no freely chosen actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If it is impossible to differentiate between the possible interpretations then they are all equally likely to be true, and Lessans conclusion is nothing more than opinion
Possible interpretations, not when it comes to his explanation. You can interpret anything you want anyway you want, but it doesn't make his explanation any less true. This is not an opinion LadyShea, but if you want to believe it is, that's fine. I'm tired of arguing with you. You obviously didn't understand a thing I wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There is no part of our Universe without the force of gravity, however we can say that a Universe without gravity would be flat and featureless. With Natural Laws we can describe the exceptions.
A world that is free would allow us to shoot someone or not shoot someone. For example, you are free (according to the definition of free will) to hold up the bank down the street and hold a gun to someone's head or not to do this. You could choose the former just as easily as the latter. Could you do it? And don't tell me I haven't given you a choice.
Reply With Quote
  #25903  
Old 05-06-2013, 08:14 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Where did those photons come from?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25904  
Old 05-06-2013, 08:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies.
The standard definition of determinism doesn't imply that at all. We've also corrected you on this many times before.
One of the most glaring problems with determinism, according to contra-causal libertarians and compatibilists, is this problem of accountability. According to their logic, if our will is not free, we could always use this as an excuse to do whatever we want to do. We could just say that we couldn't help ourselves; that it was not our fault that we killed that person because we were caused or made to do what we did even though we didn't want to do it (this is where the two-sided equation comes into play), which would remove any moral responsibility.
Reply With Quote
  #25905  
Old 05-06-2013, 08:39 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies.
The standard definition of determinism doesn't imply that at all. We've also corrected you on this many times before.
One of the most glaring problems with determinism, according to contra-causal libertarians and compatibilists, is this problem of accountability. According to their logic, if our will is not free, we could always use this as an excuse to do whatever we want to do. We could just say that we couldn't help ourselves; that it was not our fault that we killed that person because we were caused or made to do what we did even though we didn't want to do it (this is where the two-sided equation comes into play), which would remove any moral responsibility.
Really? You think this is a problem according to compatibilists?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25906  
Old 05-06-2013, 11:47 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies.
The standard definition of determinism doesn't imply that at all. We've also corrected you on this many times before.
One of the most glaring problems with determinism, according to contra-causal libertarians and compatibilists, is this problem of accountability. According to their logic, if our will is not free, we could always use this as an excuse to do whatever we want to do. We could just say that we couldn't help ourselves; that it was not our fault that we killed that person because we were caused or made to do what we did even though we didn't want to do it (this is where the two-sided equation comes into play), which would remove any moral responsibility.
Really? You think this is a problem according to compatibilists?
I think the concern over moral responsibility is well-taken. They have defined free will in a way that they believe is compatible with determinism. But there is a better way Spacemonkey, and if you don't believe there is, and you believe Lessans' is wrong, that's your choice, but you're not entitled to call me names just because I don't agree with you. :glare:
Reply With Quote
  #25907  
Old 05-06-2013, 11:59 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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

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

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

1. Humans always freely choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have free will
What is the problem here LadyShea? I refuse to answer this if you can't tell me because I'm talking to a brick wall.
I can't be any clearer. You are using the word compelled, which means forced, which is your basis for using other words like impossible, and I want you to demonstrate that movement in the direction of greater satisfaction is compelled rather than freely chosen or influenced/motivated but not compelled.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
2. Humans always are motivated, but not compelled, to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have a compatibilist form of free will
I have to move on, seriously. You are so confused in your thought process that you actually believe you can determine truth from fiction. I have never seen a group of people so caught in their misconceptions in the name of truth that they are more confused than any woo I have ever met.
I am not at all confused. Lessans chose to interpret an element of necessity and I want to know on what he based that...this is about the word compelled
Reply With Quote
  #25908  
Old 05-07-2013, 05:51 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies.
The standard definition of determinism doesn't imply that at all. We've also corrected you on this many times before.
One of the most glaring problems with determinism, according to contra-causal libertarians and compatibilists, is this problem of accountability. According to their logic, if our will is not free, we could always use this as an excuse to do whatever we want to do. We could just say that we couldn't help ourselves; that it was not our fault that we killed that person because we were caused or made to do what we did even though we didn't want to do it (this is where the two-sided equation comes into play), which would remove any moral responsibility.
Really? You think this is a problem according to compatibilists?
I think the concern over moral responsibility is well-taken. They have defined free will in a way that they believe is compatible with determinism. But there is a better way Spacemonkey, and if you don't believe there is, and you believe Lessans' is wrong, that's your choice, but you're not entitled to call me names just because I don't agree with you. :glare:
Who's calling you names?

Why did you say that determinism implies we are caused to do things against our will?

Why did you say that compatibilists think there is a problem of accountability with determinism?

Why have you stopped replying to any of my previous posts (on photons, satisfaction, & conscience)?

You keep saying you want us to ask questions, but the more we do so the more it becomes apparent that you don't have any actual answers to what we want to ask.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25909  
Old 05-07-2013, 06:05 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

You are doing it wrong Spacemonkey. You are supposed to ask the questions to which she has answers and then you are supposed to accept that those answers are correct.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-07-2013), Spacemonkey (05-07-2013)
  #25910  
Old 05-07-2013, 01:02 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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

Humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. When choosing between various options they will always choose that which they find most preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If you leave it at that, it is an observation. However, Lessans inferred from that observation that humans are compelled (forced) to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore had no form of free will.
Oh my GOD, preferable and satisfaction in this context are synonymous. :doh::doh::doh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I understand that. The word I am asking you to explain and support is the word compelled.
I have answered you numerous times but it's not registering.

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

1. Humans always freely choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have free will
What is the problem here LadyShea? I refuse to answer this if you can't tell me because I'm talking to a brick wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I can't be any clearer. You are using the word compelled, which means forced, which is your basis for using other words like impossible, and I want you to demonstrate that movement in the direction of greater satisfaction is compelled rather than freely chosen or influenced/motivated but not compelled.
That's what I have been trying to show you, but you're cutting me off prematurely which is why I cannot continue. The two-sided equation shows why we are compelled, but not forced in the sense that something is making or causing us do what we do against our will, which the word "force" implies. This has been a serious stumbling block in reconciling these two opposing positions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
2. Humans always are motivated, but not compelled, to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have a compatibilist form of free will
Quote:
I have to move on, seriously. You are so confused in your thought process that you actually believe you can determine truth from fiction. I have never seen a group of people so caught in their misconceptions in the name of truth that they are more confused than any woo I have ever met.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am not at all confused. Lessans chose to interpret an element of necessity and I want to know on what he based that...this is about the word compelled
That's great that you want to understand what he means by the word compelled. But you are confused, and that is not meant to be an insult. I'm confused about a lot of things; just not this.
Reply With Quote
  #25911  
Old 05-07-2013, 01:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies.
The standard definition of determinism doesn't imply that at all. We've also corrected you on this many times before.
One of the most glaring problems with determinism, according to contra-causal libertarians and compatibilists, is this problem of accountability. According to their logic, if our will is not free, we could always use this as an excuse to do whatever we want to do. We could just say that we couldn't help ourselves; that it was not our fault that we killed that person because we were caused or made to do what we did even though we didn't want to do it (this is where the two-sided equation comes into play), which would remove any moral responsibility.
Really? You think this is a problem according to compatibilists?
I think the concern over moral responsibility is well-taken. They have defined free will in a way that they believe is compatible with determinism. But there is a better way Spacemonkey, and if you don't believe there is, and you believe Lessans' is wrong, that's your choice, but you're not entitled to call me names just because I don't agree with you. :glare:
Who's calling you names?

Why did you say that determinism implies we are caused to do things against our will?

Why did you say that compatibilists think there is a problem of accountability with determinism?

Why have you stopped replying to any of my previous posts (on photons, satisfaction, & conscience)?

You keep saying you want us to ask questions, but the more we do so the more it becomes apparent that you don't have any actual answers to what we want to ask.
I have to thank Butt again. Thank you Butt for confronting Spacemonkey. He called me a whiner and a complainer. It's a no-win situation unless there are people who will defend me (disclaimer: I sometimes feel the need to refute your comments as well, so don't take this compliment to mean that we are always in agreement) when it's justified. You are the only one that has come to my defense in a long time, which is literally keeping me going.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-07-2013 at 06:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25912  
Old 05-07-2013, 05:38 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If it is impossible to differentiate between the possible interpretations then they are all equally likely to be true, and Lessans conclusion is nothing more than opinion
Possible interpretations, not when it comes to his explanation. You can interpret anything you want anyway you want, but it doesn't make his explanation any less true.
It doesn't make any more true either, in fact it doesn't have anything to do with truth, because it can't be falsified.

Quote:
This is not an opinion LadyShea, but if you want to believe it is, that's fine. I'm tired of arguing with you. You obviously didn't understand a thing I wrote.
And you obviously don't understand the fallacious reasoning inherent in your use of words like cannot, impossible, compelled, etc. without any justification.
Reply With Quote
  #25913  
Old 05-07-2013, 06:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If it is impossible to differentiate between the possible interpretations then they are all equally likely to be true, and Lessans conclusion is nothing more than opinion
Possible interpretations, not when it comes to his explanation. You can interpret anything you want anyway you want, but it doesn't make his explanation any less true.
It doesn't make any more true either, in fact it doesn't have anything to do with truth, because it can't be falsified.

Quote:
This is not an opinion LadyShea, but if you want to believe it is, that's fine. I'm tired of arguing with you. You obviously didn't understand a thing I wrote.
And you obviously don't understand the fallacious reasoning inherent in your use of words like cannot, impossible, compelled, etc. without any justification.
Please don't patronize me. When I use the word cannot, that's what I mean. When I use the word impossible, that's what I mean. When I use the word compelled, that's what I mean. You have not given me a decent rebuttal because you have none, which is why you come back with a response like this. P.S. No reply necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #25914  
Old 05-07-2013, 06:08 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
When I use the word cannot, that's what I mean. When I say use the word impossible, that's what I mean. When I use the word compelled, that's what I mean. You have not given me a decent rebuttal because you have none, which is why you come back with a response like this.
I know you mean them, but you cannot justify them as the correct words to use. You don't understand my rebuttal at all, apparently.

Lessans chose to interpret an element of necessity and I want to know on what he based that. I want you to justify his conclusion that a compulsion exists when you agree it is not possible to differentiate at all between a compelled choice, a free choice, and a motivated/influenced choice.
Reply With Quote
  #25915  
Old 05-07-2013, 06:42 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We are not forced to do something against our will, which the standard definition of determinism implies.
The standard definition of determinism doesn't imply that at all. We've also corrected you on this many times before.
One of the most glaring problems with determinism, according to contra-causal libertarians and compatibilists, is this problem of accountability. According to their logic, if our will is not free, we could always use this as an excuse to do whatever we want to do. We could just say that we couldn't help ourselves; that it was not our fault that we killed that person because we were caused or made to do what we did even though we didn't want to do it (this is where the two-sided equation comes into play), which would remove any moral responsibility.
Really? You think this is a problem according to compatibilists?
I think the concern over moral responsibility is well-taken. They have defined free will in a way that they believe is compatible with determinism. But there is a better way Spacemonkey, and if you don't believe there is, and you believe Lessans' is wrong, that's your choice, but you're not entitled to call me names just because I don't agree with you. :glare:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Who's calling you names?
You

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why did you say that determinism implies we are caused to do things against our will?
Because that is the implication. Philosophers believe it could be used as an excuse. "I didn't want to kill that person but my nature made me do it." This implies that we did something against our will. Free will, on the other hand, implies that we did something because we wanted to do it.

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why did you say that compatibilists think there is a problem of accountability with determinism?
Based on present day understanding (which is incomplete) determinism would release everyone of responsibility since they couldn't do otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why have you stopped replying to any of my previous posts (on photons, satisfaction, & conscience)?
Because we're at a dead end. You keep telling me he's wrong and you're right, and you're not right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You keep saying you want us to ask questions, but the more we do so the more it becomes apparent that you don't have any actual answers to what we want to ask.
Admit that you could be wrong, and I might answer your questions although I'm going to be leaving soon. I have no need to defend this book. This knowledge is coming through me, but it's not mine.
Reply With Quote
  #25916  
Old 05-07-2013, 06:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Intermission: Inspiring woman

Alice Somer Herz - 108 Year Old Holocaust Survivor - Interviewed by Bernard Hiller - YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #25917  
Old 05-07-2013, 08:50 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The word "choice" is misleading because it implies that all choices are equal. They are not equal. You cannot choose simultaneously more than one choice, therefore the word choice is a smokescreen because it confounds the truth. It is a mirage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If you think that, then you don't understand the word 'choice'. It doesn't imply that all choices are equal, and it doesn't imply that one can choose two options simultaneously.
It means we have options to consider Spacemonkey. Superficially, it gives the appearance of being free because we can choose this or that. That's why people believe we have free will.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Just because we don't know in advance which choice will be made by each individual (because a justaposition of differences in each case affects chocie) doesn't remove the fact that one can only make one choice at each moment in time and that is determined by what is the most preferable, not the least preferable. He cannot move in the direction of what is less satisfying when a more satisfying option is available. You're failing to understand this and assuming that just because a number of options are open to a person does not mean that compulsion is not part of what drives his choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You are again confusing epistemic and metaphysical/causal considerations. You keep speaking of whether a choice is predictable, and of many options seeming to be equally possible to the person before the choice. But these are epistemic points which are wholly irrelevant to the causal/metaphysical question of whether only one choice is actually possible for the person.
That's true, and he explained why the word choice is misleading because it makes it appear that we can choose one thing over another without compulsion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
My point isn't that the choice is unpredictable, and it isn't that many options seem equally possible before the choice is made. My point is that his principle being a tautology means all choices remain actually possible, regardless of what is or is not knowable to the person making the choice. Because a tautology doesn't rule out anything.
I don't know why you can't get this. Any option is possible depending on one's preference up to the moment of choice. A thought could enter someone's mind that would compel him to prefer the option, that a moment ago, was not his preference. Regardless, whatever choice that is made at any given moment in time is under a compulsion, but only if there are meaningful differences, otherwise he wouldn't need to contemplate. He would just choose a or b because it wouldn't matter. But if there are meaningful differences, he cannot choose that which gives him less satisfaction when a better option is available. He can't do it. We do not move in the direction of lesser satisfaction. All through life we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction and just because we have options doesn't change the direction. That's why choice is a realistic mirage.
Reply With Quote
  #25918  
Old 05-07-2013, 08:53 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm going to be leaving soon. I have no need to defend this book.
:lolfruits:
Reply With Quote
  #25919  
Old 05-07-2013, 11:33 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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

Humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. When choosing between various options they will always choose that which they find most preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If you leave it at that, it is an observation. However, Lessans inferred from that observation that humans are compelled (forced) to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore had no form of free will.
Oh my GOD, preferable and satisfaction in this context are synonymous. :doh::doh::doh:
I understand that. The word I am asking you to explain and support is the word compelled.
When you use the word force it sounds like someone is being made to do something they don't want to do, but that's not true. No one can be made to do what they don't want to do, but that does not mean their will is free.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
1. Humans always freely choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have free will
Quote:
What is the problem here LadyShea? I refuse to answer this if you can't tell me because I'm talking to a brick wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I can't be any clearer. You are using the word compelled, which means forced, which is your basis for using other words like impossible, and I want you to demonstrate that movement in the direction of greater satisfaction is compelled rather than freely chosen or influenced/motivated but not compelled.
We are influenced by previous as well as present circumstances, which leads us to choosing what we choose in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is a compulsion, but we're not forced to choose this by something external to us. That is why I say "we are compelled to prefer", which means that we are doing the choosing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
2. Humans always are motivated, but not compelled, to choose that which they find most preferable and therefore have a compatibilist form of free will
I have to move on, seriously. You are so confused in your thought process that you actually believe you can determine truth from fiction. I have never seen a group of people so caught in their misconceptions in the name of truth that they are more confused than any woo I have ever met.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am not at all confused. Lessans chose to interpret an element of necessity and I want to know on what he based that...this is about the word compelled
There is absolutely an element of necessity, and if you read the first three chapters again it may begin to sink in why we're under a compulsion every moment of our existence to move off of spot a (because it is less satisfying) to spot b (which is more satisfying). This does not always require two choices, but when it does, we still are moving in this direction after contemplating which choice is the most satisfying.
Reply With Quote
  #25920  
Old 05-08-2013, 12:42 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

The word compelled means forced. I posted multiple different definitions for you previously. If you don't mean forced you need to use a different word other than compelled.
Reply With Quote
  #25921  
Old 05-08-2013, 12:46 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

From the other thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Our will is manifest in every choice we make. Again, the agent still makes choices they just aren't free ones
This negates the argument for compulsion, then. If our choices aren't forced, that means they are free from compulsion.
No, you are wrong again. Being compelled does not mean being forced by something external (which the word force implies), or being forced to do anything against one's will (which the word force implies).
That is exactly what compelled means, or are you again using some idiosyncratic definition that has not been agreed to and that nobody shares with you?
Quote:
com·pel
/kəmˈpel/
Verb

Force or oblige (someone) to do something.
Bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure.

Quote:
com·pel
[kuhm-pel] Show IPA verb, com·pelled, com·pel·ling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2.
to secure or bring about by force.
3.
to force to submit; subdue.
4.
to overpower.
Quote:
compel [kəmˈpɛl]
vb -pels, -pelling, -pelled (tr)
1. to cause (someone) by force (to be or do something)
2. to obtain by force; exact to compel obedience
3. to overpower or subdue


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Being compelled, in this context, means choosing what one is driven to prefer because it gives one greater satisfaction than anything it is being compared with.
You are defining the term by what it means only in a single specific instance? Really? That is fallacious reasoning as well, because there is no narrower definition than that.
Reply With Quote
  #25922  
Old 05-08-2013, 06:51 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It would fail if a person could choose what is less satisfying when a more satisfying option is available. For example, it would fail if a person could kill someone when there was a strong compulsion, in the direction of greater satisfaction, not to kill him. That would be a logically possible circumstance.
In the case of such a scenario you would simply claim that what the person ultimately chose to do was that which he believed would move him in the direction of greater satisfaction. Back to square one.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-08-2013)
  #25923  
Old 05-08-2013, 12:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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

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

Here's a serious question for you to consider. How would having free will look any different than not having free will? Even if we had the most extreme form of free will ever posited by anyone...would that somehow lead to people choosing what they don't prefer? How would you know they are not choosing that which is most preferable freely?
Added to previous post: There is no obvious difference in appearance between having free will or not having free will from a superficial standpoint, but the importance of knowing the truth; that we don't have free will is huge and has major implications for our world [which is the reason I'm working so hard to get people to understand]. Don't you think this is an important subject if knowing the truth about our nature can bring about world peace? What is more important than that?

This theory [of free will] is actually
preventing the decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door
to a vast storehouse of genuine knowledge.
Reply With Quote
  #25924  
Old 05-08-2013, 12:35 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Added to previous post: There is no obvious difference in appearance between having free will or not having free will from a superficial standpoint, but the importance of knowing the truth; that we don't have free will is huge and has major implications for our world [which is the reason I'm working so hard to get people to understand]. Don't you think this is an important subject if knowing the truth about our nature can bring about world peace? What is more important than that?

This theory [of free will] is actually
preventing the decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door
to a vast storehouse of genuine knowledge.
Fallacious reasoning: Appeal to Consequences
Reply With Quote
  #25925  
Old 05-08-2013, 12:36 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It would fail if a person could choose what is less satisfying when a more satisfying option is available. For example, it would fail if a person could kill someone when there was a strong compulsion, in the direction of greater satisfaction, not to kill him. That would be a logically possible circumstance.
In the case of such a scenario you would simply claim that what the person ultimately chose to do was that which he believed would move him in the direction of greater satisfaction. Back to square one.
It's not back to square one if you understood that this knowledge came from careful observation (not a syllogism), and that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is an immutable law of man's nature, not an empty, meaningless tautology.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.45286 seconds with 14 queries