A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will see how conscience is made stronger as we go through this chapter, so please be patient.

<COPYPASTA>

*yawn*

Well then please wake me when you start quoting something actually relevant...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm confident that he's right because I see for myself that these principles work.

Just where and in what context are you seeing these principles work.

[thedoc]

[QUOTE=Spacemonkey;1010273]
*yawn*
QUOTE]

Or, [Quote Henry].

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just where and in what context are you seeing these principles work.

Her imagination

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He imagination

I hope that's not anything like 'Effective Dreaming'.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You believe that they will work because you have completely unsupported faith that he was able to base his generalizations on specific yet completely unknown patterns of behaviour.

Why are you so completely blind to your own faith?

The part of her brain that processes new information is just about shut down. So as a result she is incapable of self reflection. You could day she has no free will.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I hope that's not anything like 'Effective Dreaming'.

More like "efferent dreaming".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well that's not what I asked for, is it Peacegirl? In fact it's pretty much the exact opposite of what I asked for...

I guess I'm not that serious about being understood because I'm not defining these terms again. They were explained clearly and I responded to each one. It's never going to be enough for you.

1. Determinism (as normally defined).
2. Causal indeterminism.
3. Lessans' version of determinism.
4. Libertarian free will.
5. Compatibilist free will.
6. Lessans' version of free will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then state which of these theses his account is and is not compatible with, and explain why.

I explained very clearly why Lessans' account is not compatible with these terms. You need to go back and reread what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Point (6) doesn't require Lessans to think we have free will, but is just asking for the meaning of the term as he uses it. It can be the meaning of free will in the sense that he thinks does not exist. If he uses the word in two ways then you may need two answers.

It was very clear in the book how this expression is used and does not contradict his definition of determinism. It supports it.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 54-55

The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have mathematical control. Since I can’t
be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will
free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals that man has
mathematical control over the former but absolutely none over the
latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater
satisfaction.

It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions.

The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone? Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any
discussion surrounding this issue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've also made the error of looking things up on a Christian website, meaning all your definitions are only formulated with reference to God and theological concepts.

Within the Christian framework, there is a lot of similarity with the basic assumptions and definitions of the secular community. I'm not going back and redoing it, so you're going to have to be satisfied with what I posted.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you try again, and this time provide what I actually asked you for? (In your own words, without quoting or referencing other websites.)

I told you that you have to meet me halfway. Now it's your turn to let me know that you understand where Lessans explains where his definition. I'll answer the one you set up for me, but I'm not answering any of the others again.

For each point just a simple:[/quote]

1. Determinism (as normally defined) is the thesis that...

we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events.

Lessans' account is incompatible with this thesis because...

we are not caused to do what we do by antecedent events. In other words, the environment does not cause someone to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused.

Read this excerpt again if you're truly interested in understanding this discovery because it explains the difference between the standard definition and Lessans' definition. If you're only interested in testing me to see if I understand the book, then don't read it, but if that's the case I won't be able to continue the conversation.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 55-56

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is
free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding
this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must
always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when
the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel
are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in
order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary
that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage.

These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from
previous experience.

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and
during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do
because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was
caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause’, like choice
and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than
man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two
plus two, it is that already.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

More like "efferent dreaming".

The reference was from "Lathe of Heaven", really scary if it were Peacegirl's dreams. I saw the movie but I think it was close to the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Lettice

So did he tell you that he saw patterns in Decline & Fall or have you just assumed that?
I find it strange that he never told his sole acolyte exactly what these patterns were and how he discovered them.

But I suppose being just a humble guy he didn't like to brag about it......

Oh my gosh, please don't post if you're going to be another doc or natural.atheist. I'll just put you on ignore. If you have a pertinent question, fine, but I'm not going to defend how he was able to come to these conclusions based on his keen observations. To break his train of thought to explain to me what these observations were would have been inappropriate. As a young child, I trusted him which allowed me to actually listen with an open mind, which you are not doing. The bottom line is that he was very insightful and was able to describe exactly how conscience works because of his voracious reading. He saw a common thread that is universal. I call that a pattern. The task of not only recognizing the significance of these observations but to get them down on paper was enormous. And you are demanding more of this man? I think you should not display your ignorance so blatantly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Her imagination

Do you see why I don't enjoy talking to you. Your sarcasm shows me you're really not interested in what I'm sharing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's a faith-based position because you are admitting you believe something you have no evidence for - i.e. that he saw particular patterns which justified his generalizations. That is faith on your part.

My trust in him allowed me to keep an open mind and hear him out (which you are failing at miserably), but my conviction of the truth of this knowledge is from my own understanding.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see why I don't enjoy talking to you. Your sarcasm shows me you're really not interested in what I'm sharing.

It's an accurate answer is it not? You said the only way to test the extension of the principles for oneself is to imagine how you would act under the changed conditions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To break his train of thought to explain to me what these observations were would have been inappropriate.

It would have been highly appropriate, however, to explain where he saw these patterns in his books. We have told you over and over again his failure to report and describe his actual observations- such as patterns found in historical writings- is a big problem with skeptics. All we have are his conclusions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As a young child, I trusted him which allowed me to actually listen with an open mind, which you are not doing. The bottom line is that he was very insightful and was able to describe exactly how conscience works because of his voracious reading. He saw a common thread that is universal.

This cannot be described as anything other than a faith claim!!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I call that a pattern. The task of not only recognizing the significance of these observations but to get them down on paper was enormous. And you are demanding more of this man?

Of course we are. That is what critical analysis of claims is all about.

I never thought I'd have to pull this out and dust it off, but Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lessans provided only his conclusions. We have no idea what he saw that led to them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you should not display your ignorance so blatantly.

It's a very astute and common sense question based on your very own position, peacegirl. You claimed he saw patterns while reading. You bragged about how many times he read the work. Lettice asked where she can see these same patterns (replicate the observation) and you go off the deep end.

And you dare to call it science.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. Determinism (as normally defined) is the thesis that...

we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events.

Lessans' account is incompatible with this thesis because...

we are not caused to do what we do by antecedent events. In other words, the environment does not cause someone to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused.

What you said could also be explained/worded as the environmental conditions led to (ie: caused) the desire being aroused. This is not incompatible.

When I stated how my view is compatible with the definition of determinism you said "this is closer to Lessans". Just because you can't accept that Lessans didn't "define it more accurately" due to your faith doesn't mean his definition doesn't fit the standard one already (which would make it non-revolutionary)

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not a joke; it was meant to belittle. Yes, it's definitely irrational and unscientific to expect a 100% proven negative, but who's doing that?

You did, Peacegirl. Several times during the discussions about light.

[Vivisectus]

Oh my gosh, please don't post if you're going to be another doc or natural.atheist. I'll just put you on ignore. If you have a pertinent question, fine, but I'm not going to defend how he was able to come to these conclusions based on his keen observations. To break his train of thought to explain to me what these observations were would have been inappropriate. As a young child, I trusted him which allowed me to actually listen with an open mind, which you are not doing. The bottom line is that he was very insightful and was able to describe exactly how conscience works because of his voracious reading. He saw a common thread that is universal. I call that a pattern. The task of not only recognizing the significance of these observations but to get them down on paper was enormous. And you are demanding more of this man? I think you should not display your ignorance so blatantly.

This tells you all you need to know I guess: Interrupting the Great Man to find out if any of his claims are actually true would have been completely out of line, as his Important Thoughts would have been interrupted!

The rest of the paragraph can be broken down to "and he was right because he was so enormously clever, and we know this because he said it and he was too clever to be wrong!"

What a sad git to use his own kid to get him the ego-stroking he craved.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by dictionary

Cause:
the reason or motive for some human action
a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect

Originally Posted by Lessans

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite

No, not absolutely necessary at all, except in theology...which is the only field where the term free will is defended and probably originated.

As I have stated, I personally don't think "free will" even has any use or meaning outside of a theological context

Originally Posted by Lessans

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage.

Nonsense. The complex interplay between emotions, thought processes, desires, and needs cause (motivate) people to do the things they do.

Originally Posted by Lessans

These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.

So this compulsion cannot also be correctly called the cause (reason or motivation)? This seems to contradict his point that people are not caused to do what they do.

Originally Posted by Lessans

Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from previous experience.

Adding knowledge gained from experiences of course informs the motivational factors, the reasons, that people do things. This learning is also part of the antecedent state of affairs that can be correctly termed as causal.

Originally Posted by Lessans

for the word ‘cause’, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions.

No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort

No incompatibility here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism is the theory that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the Will.

You switched the definition you were using to refute my point and you think that is not diversionary, dishonest, or weaseling?

Inclusive naturalism – the view that human beings and human behavior are completely included in the natural world – implies that we don’t have libertarian free will, the capacity to cause without being caused in turn. Under naturalism there are no causally privileged agents that could have done otherwise in situations exactly as they arose. Those sympathetic to naturalism often suppose that this view of human agents as only proximate, not ultimate, originators of their behavior will attenuate the tendency to place blame (or credit) solely on the individual. After all, factors unchosen by the person play an essential role in shaping action, and when those factors are appreciated, this can dampen our retributive impulses. And in turn, as the desire for retribution diminishes, we are better able to look outside the person to the wider causal context, with an eye to the more effective prevention of future offenses.
Criminal Justice

How is the above incompatible with Lessans ideas regarding determinism, the underlined seems especially in line with the "no blame" train of thought?

So, some forms of determinism are compatible with Lessans?

Then what is the "something other" if not an outside force or agent?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's an accurate answer is it not? You said the only way to test the extension of the principles for oneself is to imagine how you would act under the changed conditions.

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the changes that must be in place before this knowledge can be applied. One of the changes is the removal of all forms of institutional authority and control.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have mathematical control.

The previous events, circumstances, environment, genetics etc. (antecedent states of affairs) are the cause (reason for, motivation for, producer of) the desire to NOT do something, just as they are the cause of desires to do something.

So again, I don't see how Lessans ideas are incompatible with various other forms of determinism

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the changes that must be in place before this knowledge can be applied. One of the changes is the removal of all forms of institutional authority and control.

If not your imagination, then where and in what context are you seeing these principles work?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the changes that must be in place before this knowledge can be applied. One of the changes is the removal of all forms of institutional authority and control.

Except whatever institution takes up the job of deciding what terms need to be removed from our vocabulary (as though we wouldn't simply invent new ones), like "beautiful," "ugly," and "educated." Or is that going to be decided by a show of hands?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism is the theory that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the Will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You switched the definition you were using to refute my point and you think that is not diversionary, dishonest, or weaseling?

It is implied in the definition that there is no will, or agency, because all our decisions are made for us by previous antecedent events.

Maybe this will help.

For the hard determinist, humans are no different from other things. Your present actions are part of a causal chain that extends back far before your birth, and each link of the chain determines the next link on the chain. Hence, although it may appear to you that you have control over your present actions and mental states, you really have no control. And if you have no control, you certainly can't be held morally responsible for what you do. Thus hard determinism, if true, is important as an challenge to the very enterprise of normative ethics, which usually assumes people can be held responsible for at least some of their actions.

Free Will and Determinism

All of these definitions are lacking because they imply that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions. Someone could easily say "I couldn't help myself because I was just part of a causal chain of events that forced my hand." The difference boils down to the word "cause". Lessans makes a distinction that antecedent events don't cause our present actions, but rather create a desire to choose certain things [in the direction of greater satisfaction] based on our heredity, previous experiences, desires, emotions, and beliefs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The definition is not incompatible with my own view of the subject, as the agent, or individual, has a unique set of desires, thoughts, worldviews, tendencies, etc. etc. based on antecedent "states of affairs" including their genetic predisposition, experiences of all kinds, emotions, cognitive processes, etc.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the naturalistic approach to determinism.

Inclusive naturalism – the view that human beings and human behavior are completely included in the natural world – implies that we don’t have libertarian free will, the capacity to cause without being caused in turn. Under naturalism there are no causally privileged agents that could have done otherwise in situations exactly as they arose. Those sympathetic to naturalism often suppose that this view of human agents as only proximate, not ultimate, originators of their behavior will attenuate the tendency to place blame (or credit) solely on the individual. After all, factors unchosen by the person play an essential role in shaping action, and when those factors are appreciated, this can dampen our retributive impulses. And in turn, as the desire for retribution diminishes, we are better able to look outside the person to the wider causal context, with an eye to the more effective prevention of future offenses.
Criminal Justice

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is the above incompatible with Lessans ideas regarding determinism, the underlined seems especially in line with the "no blame" train of thought?

Anyone who believes in determinism would have a problem with retribution or the desire to get back at someone, but they don't understand how we can prevent these offenses from occurring. They even mention that there needs to be more effective prevention in the future, which is what Lessans' discovery provides.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

reacting to antecedents events without any say in the matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They react based on their unique brain and mind, which is in turn caused by their genes and experiences (or environment if you prefer). Absolutely they have say so in this model, as long as they are conscious and have thoughts and feelings because they can use these to change the "state of affairs" at any given time.

They can change "the state of affairs" as new experiences and information come in. That's why the standard definition is not adequate because it implies there is no going off the fixed course that has been set for us since we were born. Lessans' definition states that we are able to change our state of affairs every time we make a choice. But the word "choice" in reality is an illusion since we can only move in one direction (i.e. choosing that which gives us greater satisfaction).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree. This is closer to Lessans' definition because it does not remove the will, nor does it relieve one of responsibility.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, some forms of determinism are compatible with Lessans?

Every definition focuses on one aspect but misses another. It's like looking at a crystal from different angles but not seeing the whole. Lessans reconciled them all which allowed him to make this discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It also removes responsibility because the definition implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where is an outside force implied in the definition?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not talking about force.

Then what is the "something other" if not an outside force or agent?

If determinism states that something caused us to do what we did, that would mean something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions, but that's not true because (and this is the other principle) nothing can make us to do anything against our will. We do what we do because we want to do it, not because something made or forced us do it. Please read this again for clarification:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 58-59

The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom.

Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death...but this
doesn’t mean his will was free, it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will.

What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred as the lesser of
two evils to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils.

This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

[LadyShea]

It is implied that there is no will, or agency, if all our decisions are made for us by previous events.

If determinism states that something caused us to do what we did, that would mean something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions

There are multiple definitions of and schools of thought on determinism, and you are focusing on only one and concluding that all are incompatible with Lessans.

That's fallacious and unsound reasoning, and irrational argumentation.

They can change "the state of affairs" as new experiences and information come in. That's why the standard definition is not adequate because it implies there is no going off the fixed course that has been set for us since we were born.

Is this, or is this not a standard definition?

Determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

This definitions allows for going off the fixed course because the state of affairs are in a constant state of flux.