A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here's a perfect example of your fallacious reasoning. If you are imprisoned you are not free to do certain things, like travel to some different place, but you are perfectly free to do other things, like think and imagine.

There are many types of freedom you are not taking into consideration, nor are you securing agreement that your narrow definition is accepted in the context of the discussion. As I said in the other thread, You cannot dictate what other people understand free will to mean, so if your arguments rest on an agreed to meaning of the terms, you will need to get that agreement up front.

I am not dictating to anyone. This is not a narrow, but an accurate, definition LadyShea. As per the previous example, you cannot be in prison and consider yourself a free person just because you get to go to the commissary to get a snack. You're still locked up. By the same token, you cannot be compelled some of the time (when you show signs of an obsession), and not be compelled (or free) the rest of the time, just because one's choices don't have the kind of emotional constraint that a strong obsession has. There is a difference in degree [only], not in kind.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He failed to mention or include or consider any form of compatibilism in his argument...meaning it was excluded. As compatibilism is a big part of the free will/determinism discussion, this exclusion was arbitrary. It belongs there, but is not there, and Lessans failed to explain why. He also excluded every definition or understanding of both free will and determinism that were different from his own understanding/definitions.

I have explained this many times, why did you pretend you understood the charge when obviously you have no idea why one might see this as a false dilemma?

When I am wrong, yes, I admit to being wrong

Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.

So how is my charge of the false dilemma fallacy incorrect?

How do you figure you have no room to explain? Start explaining, you have all the room you need to type in a post and all the time in the world to do so.

There is a middle, it's called compatibilism.

Also, you are again changing the argument from free will vs. determinism to determinism vs. not determinism. As I stated if you are defining the terms as opposites, then your argument is nothing more than trivially true because you are saying "X and Not X cannot both be true".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course what is what? Of course our will is manifest by our choices? That is completely the opposite of what Lessans stated.

Seriously LadyShea, where have you been? Our will is manifest in every choice we make. Again, the agent still makes choices; they just aren't free ones.

[LadyShea]

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

There is no middle LadyShea. Free will is the opposite of determinism, period. If you want to believe that the definition that compatibilists use is accurate, then stick with them. I'm not telling you what definitions to accept or not to accept.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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). 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.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no middle LadyShea. Free will is the opposite of determinism, period.

This is an assertion Do you plan to support it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to believe that the definition that compatibilists use is accurate, then stick with them. I'm not telling you what definitions to accept or not to accept.

My argument is not about the accuracy of compatibilism nor am I arguing for compatibilism, nor are my beliefs about any of this relevant the point I am making. I am arguing that the concept of compatibilism exists and is a large part of the free will discussion and Lessans completely excluded it and shouldn't have. He created a false dilemma by this exclusion and that is fallacious reasoning.

[Spacemonkey]

What happened to answering my questions? You aren't answering anything at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

com·pel
/kəmˈpel/
Verb

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

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.

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

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.

[LadyShea]

Please address this point

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU are making false accusations that he excluded compatibilism arbitrarily.

Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.

So how is my charge of the false dilemma fallacy, or accusing him of excluding compatibilism arbitrarily, incorrect or "false" as you say?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say he was superior to anyone Spacemonkey. Why are you twisting my words? I said he was superior in his reasoning and analytical abilities, which he was. There's a difference. When this knowledge is confirmed valid, you will change your attitude. Until then, you will continue to criticize him and make every effort to discredit him.

You just said he was superior again. He wasn't. He hasn't been shown to possess any superior reasoning abilities, and you haven't shown sufficient ability to be capable of distinguishing superior from inferior reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not. Your logic is twisted and flawed Spacemonkey. If a premise is flawed, there is no accuracy in anything that follows. We can only move in one direction, and no matter how you try to tell me that this isn't true, your logic is the problem, not the observation. You can logically talk yourself out of anything you want, and it may sound perfectly reasonable, but if it's flawed thinkin, then it's stinkin thinkin.

That's an assertion again. It is a mere assertion because you are not saying anything to support the claim that my logic is flawed. You are merely asserting it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just another one of your flawed conclusions, which just shows me how wrong wrong can be.

I'll bet you one hundred US dollars (to charity) that one year from now you'll either still be here doing the same thing, or you'll have started all over at a new forum doing exactly the same thing. Deal?

[Spacemonkey]

Where did the photons come from?

Where did he define greater satisfaction?

Where did he support his claim of the innate potential perfection of conscience?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not dictating to anyone. This is not a narrow, but an accurate, definition LadyShea. As per the previous example, you cannot be in prison and consider yourself a free person just because you get to go to the commissary to get a snack.

Of course you are, you are dictating that everyone read the book and accept it, as is, without question or objection.

You are useing physical freedom as the only form, when in fact many people are physically restrained but free to think and imagine, and therefore are truly free in their minds. Your definitiions are narrow and extreme, but the extremes do not prove the mean, and therefore your arguments are without merit.

[But]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I deny his observations.

Damn, guess that was wrong too, peacegirl.

Yawn.. You're closer, Dragar. Read Mr. H.E's long thesis, go directly to page 29.

peacegirl, could your father do slingshots around stars? It's pretty easy, actually.

[But]

If you play enough billiards or pool, you notice what happens. Simple.

Dragar, what are the eyes? Spherical beamsplitters? Interferometers? Something like that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is an assertion Do you plan to support it?

My argument is not about the accuracy of compatibilism nor am I arguing for compatibilism, nor are my beliefs about any of this relevant the point I am making. I am arguing that the concept of compatibilism exists and is a large part of the free will discussion and Lessans completely excluded it and shouldn't have. He created a false dilemma by this exclusion and that is fallacious reasoning.

You are definitely arguing for compatibilism. The concept of combatibilism exists obviously, but so do many false concepts. So what? There is such thing as free will LadyShea. All he was required to do was prove his case, not have to argue every single theory out there. It's so easy to tell someone what they should have done. You have no right to do that, because you weren't in his shoes. You didn't make this discovery. So be quiet for a change instead of yapping all the time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Of course you are, you are dictating that everyone read the book and accept it, as is, without question or objection.

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are useing physical freedom as the only form, when in fact many people are physically restrained but free to think and imagine, and therefore are truly free in their minds. Your definitiions are narrow and extreme, but the extremes do not prove the mean, and therefore your arguments are without merit.

You are so ignorant and you think you grasp this knowledge. I don't think there's a chance that you will ever grasp this knowledge at all. It just won't penetrate. Freedom to think and imagine is not even close to what we are talking about. You can be free to think and imagine and still have no free will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-

a) Whatever object you select, it will be made of atoms.
b) Whatever circle you draw, it will not have corners.

Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?

b) Whatever choice you make, it will always be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is a necessary truth, so now you're saying that necessary truths and contingent truths don't mix? Is that it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where did the photons come from?

Where did he define greater satisfaction?

Where did he support his claim of the innate potential perfection of conscience?

It's all explained and it's all there Spacemonkey. He didn't talk about photons, and he didn't have to. He didn't define greater satisfaction; he didn't have to. We know what satisfaction means, I would hope. Greater is just added onto it, which means "more satisfied or content". It's not that difficult Spacemonkey, and you're making much ado about nothing for reasons that only you know. Moreover, he clearly shows how conscience functions under optimal conditions, and how it will not permit a person to hurt another for unjustified reasons. He did not presuppose anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please address this point

Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.

So how is my charge of the false dilemma fallacy, or accusing him of excluding compatibilism arbitrarily, incorrect or "false" as you say?

If you understand his reasoning, it is clear why compatibilism is not valid. Any definition can be made up to justify what you want it to. In this case, compabilists want to believe in both positions because each offers something. Determinism is getting more and more attention because we know that everything else in the universe is related to every other event, but the problem is that this belief would allow people to become morally irresponsible. So guess what? Compatibilism was borne. This way we can keep determinism, but we can also justify holding people morally accountable. We kill two birds with one stone. The only problem is we don't have free will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just said he was superior again. He wasn't. He hasn't been shown to possess any superior reasoning abilities, and you haven't shown sufficient ability to be capable of distinguishing superior from inferior reasoning.

That's an assertion again. It is a mere assertion because you are not saying anything to support the claim that my logic is flawed. You are merely asserting it.

I'll bet you one hundred US dollars (to charity) that one year from now you'll either still be here doing the same thing, or you'll have started all over at a new forum doing exactly the same thing. Deal?

You'll never know whether I'm doing the same thing because you'll never find me. And I don't need your money. Deal or no deal? NO DEAL.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you understand his reasoning, it is clear why compatibilism is not valid. Any definition can be made up to justify what you want it to. In this case, compabilists want to believe in both positions because each offers something. Determinism is getting more and more attention because we know that everything else in the universe is related to every other event, but the problem is that this belief would allow people to become morally irresponsible. So guess what? Compatibilism was borne. This way we can keep determinism, but we can also justify holding people morally accountable. We kill two birds with one stone. The only problem is we don't have free will.

The validity of compatibilism is irrelevant to my point

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll never know whether I'm doing the same thing because you'll never find me. And I don't need your money. Deal or no deal? NO DEAL.

Seriously? When you went off to Project Reason to entice Sam Harris to read the book, I found you in under a minute with a simple Google search.

Lessans has a specific style and some unique phrases that are easily found in searches, and since you refuse to paraphrase his text, if people want to find out what site you're wasting your time on, it's easily discovered.

I suppose you could pick forums that have no publicly viewable content. That will help ensure the book will be discovered by fewer people.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are definitely arguing for compatibilism. The concept of combatibilism exists obviously, but so do many false concepts. So what? There is such thing as free will LadyShea. All he was required to do was prove his case, not have to argue every single theory out there. It's so easy to tell someone what they should have done. You have no right to do that, because you weren't in his shoes. You didn't make this discovery. So be quiet for a change instead of yapping all the time.

Compatibilism is not some obscure viewpoint that can just be dismissed from a discussion of free will and determinism. By arbitrarily excluding compatibilism from his argument, he created a false dichotomy and that is fallacious reasoning. That is not sound reasoning. I have every right to point out poor reasoning in a book that is supposed to demonstrate exceptional reasoning.

Oh look, the majority of Philosophers are compatbilists. Do you think it's reasonable to simply ignore the majority viewpoint on an issue under discussion?

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
59% compatibilism
14.9% other
13.7% libertarianism
12.2% no free will

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371