A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not the kind that proves freedom of the will IN ANY CAPACITY actually exists.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happened to answering my questions? Was that another lie?

I am not obligated to answer your questions. And I certainly am under no obligation to answer any questions that are offensive to me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you've just repeated the same mistake again. The kind of free will that proves freedom of the will in the compatibilist capacity exists. There is no standard by which to non-arbitrarily deny that compatibilist free will is free will.

There is a standard, and compatibilism, the way it's used, is not proof of free will. All it does is sets conditions under which they believe it is appropriate to attribute blameworthiness and to justify the use of punishment. How many times, and in how many ways, do I have to repeat this before it sinks in?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you have a question, I will answer it...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. What argument does your book have for determinism?

Oh my gosh, I've given it countless times. Where have you been Spacemonkey? You call it garbage and meaningless. That is your problem; there is no problem with the proof.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. What would qualify as 'real' free will in your opinion?

Nothing qualifies as free. You should know that when Lessans' says "he did it of his own free will", this only means he did it because he wanted to do it, but in no way does this mean he actually has free will. I don't know how many times I've posted this, but here it is again. Maybe one of these times it won't go in one ear and out the other.

p. 53 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?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

3. Can you support your claim that compatibilism is impossible without reverting to the weaker claim that Lessans' ideas can do better?

The compatibilist concept is fallacious. It came out of the need to try to reconcile these two positions (to hold people accountable in a deterministic world), and to create a working definition that could separate those who are considered free from those who are considered unfree by means of physical or emotional constraints. But neither of these groups have freedom of the will. It is just more obvious to the onlooker that a person who has a major addiction has a harder time of it, and cannot easily or freely change his behavior.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not obligated to answer your questions. And I certainly am under no obligation to answer any questions that are offensive to me.

So then you were lying when you said "If you have a question, I will answer it..."?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a standard, and compatibilism, the way it's used, is not proof of free will. All it does is sets conditions under which they believe it is appropriate to attribute blameworthiness and to justify the use of punishment. How many times, and in how many ways, do I have to repeat this before it sinks in?

I'm asking you to support it, not repeat it. What is the standard by which you determine what can or cannot count as 'real' free will? How do you non-arbitrarily determine that compatibilist free will isn't really free will?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, I've given it countless times. Where have you been Spacemonkey? You call it garbage and meaningless. That is your problem; there is no problem with the proof.

I'll ask again: 1. What argument does your book have for determinism?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing qualifies as free. You should know that when Lessans' says "he did it of his own free will", this only means he did it because he wanted to do it, but in no way does this mean he actually has free will. I don't know how many times I've posted this, but here it is again. Maybe one of these times it won't go in one ear and out the other.

As I already explained, I'm not asking you what kind of free will we really have, but rather what would count as 'real' free will if we actually had it. You keep saying compatibilism isn't really free will. This doesn't mean anything unless you can state what standard you think compatibilism is failing to meet. I want to know what you mean by this term 'real free will'. So I'll ask again: 2. What would qualify as 'real' free will in your opinion?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The compatibilist concept is fallacious. It came out of the need to try to reconcile these two positions (to hold people accountable in a deterministic world), and to create a working definition that could separate those who are considered free from those who are considered unfree by means of physical or emotional constraints. But neither of these groups have freedom of the will. It is just more obvious to the onlooker that a person who has a major addiction has a harder time of it, and cannot easily or freely change his behavior.

You're still repeating the same mistake. What is this 'freedom of the will' that we don't have under compatibilism? What do you mean by these words? Until you can answer this, you've done nothing at all to show that compatibilism is either fallacious or impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not obligated to answer your questions. And I certainly am under no obligation to answer any questions that are offensive to me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then you were lying when you said "If you have a question, I will answer it..."?

And I will repeat: I have answered this for over 3 years. I'm not repeating it again. If you want to read the book, or listen to Lessans, maybe you will learn something instead of calling it a non-discovery. There really isn't much left to say Spacemonkey. You are determined to stick with your worldview, and nothing I say is going to change that apparently.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a standard, and compatibilism, the way it's used, is not proof of free will. All it does is sets conditions under which they believe it is appropriate to attribute blameworthiness and to justify the use of punishment. How many times, and in how many ways, do I have to repeat this before it sinks in?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm asking you to support it, not repeat it. What is the standard by which you determine what can or cannot count as 'real' free will? How do you non-arbitrarily determine that compatibilist free will isn't really free will?

Nothing can count as free will because we don't have free will. Determinism rules that out. This is a universal law so any attempts to make free will compatible with determinism is impossible to do. This is how I non-arbitrarily determine that the compatibilist free will isn't really free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, I've given it countless times. Where have you been Spacemonkey? You call it garbage and meaningless. That is your problem; there is no problem with the proof.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'll ask again: 1. What argument does your book have for determinism?

You know what it is. If you are having a hard time remembering, go to my website and read Chapter One. Untitled Document

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing qualifies as free. You should know that when Lessans' says "he did it of his own free will", this only means he did it because he wanted to do it, but in no way does this mean he actually has free will. I don't know how many times I've posted this, but here it is again. Maybe one of these times it won't go in one ear and out the other.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As I already explained, I'm not asking you what kind of free will we really have, but rather what would count as 'real' free will if we actually had it

.

It is very difficult to even imagine. It would be a chaotic world where people could act in ways that have no explanation behind them. If will was free we could not predict or control behavior since people could act any way they want, completely independent of antecedent events or circumstances.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You keep saying compatibilism isn't really free will. This doesn't mean anything unless you can state what standard you think compatibilism is failing to meet. I want to know what you mean by this term 'real free will'. So I'll ask again: 2. What would qualify as 'real' free will in your opinion?

There is no standard that compatibilism can meet because free will doesn't exist. How can we create a standard of what constitutes free will when there is no such thing? We cannot be both determined beings and free beings, therefore whatever definition is being used may be useful for judging who to blame, but it does not prove that we have any kind of free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The compatibilist concept is fallacious. It came out of the need to try to reconcile these two positions (to hold people accountable in a deterministic world), and to create a working definition that could separate those who are considered free from those who are considered unfree by means of physical or emotional constraints. But neither of these groups have freedom of the will. It is just more obvious to the onlooker that a person who has a major addiction has a harder time of it, and cannot easily or freely change his behavior.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're still repeating the same mistake. What is this 'freedom of the will' that we don't have under compatibilism? What do you mean by these words? Until you can answer this, you've done nothing at all to show that compatibilism is either fallacious or impossible.

I am making no mistakes. Having options and not being constrained by emotional or physical limitations does not mean you have free will.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will repeat: I have answered this for over 3 years. I'm not repeating it again. If you want to read the book, or listen to Lessans, maybe you will learn something instead of calling it a non-discovery. There really isn't much left to say Spacemonkey. You are determined to stick with your worldview, and nothing I say is going to change that apparently.

You've answered what for over three years? What you were here replying to is my observation that you were lying when you said you would answer my questions. This was a lie because when I asked them you didn't answer me and instead told me you weren't obligated to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing can count as free will because we don't have free will. Determinism rules that out. This is a universal law so there any attempts to make free will compatible with determinism is impossible to do. This is how I non-arbitrarily determine that the compatibilist free will isn't really free will.

You didn't answer the question. Again, I'm not asking what actually counts as fee will, but rather what would count as such if we had it. Though you have answered this below.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what it is. If you are having a hard time remembering, go to my website and read Chapter One.

I've read it. You know I've read it. You keep falsely claiming to have an argument for determinism, yet you still can't produce one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be a chaotic world where people could freely choose without regard to the influences in their life, which in a deterministic world pushes them in a specific direction. If will was free we could not predict or control behavior, for nothing anyone did to try to improve behavior would do any good since changes in the antecedent conditions would not come into play.

So the 'real free will' standard that compatibilism fails to meet is random choices unaffected by antecedent conditions? Then you are again confirming that you have assumed the only legitimate kind of free will to be the worthless and incoherent contra-causal libertarian free will. That is begging the question against compatibilism. You can't show that we have no kind of free will at all by insisting that the libertarian kind is the only kind you will even consider.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no standard that compatibilism can meet because any definition that is used for free will, cannot be true by virtue of the fact that we cannot be both determined beings and free beings, and whatever definition is being used may be useful, but it is artificial.

You are begging the question against compatibilism by assuming in advance that the only 'real' kind of free will is the incompatibilist libertarian variety.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am making no mistakes. Having options and not being constrained by emotional or physical limitations does not mean you have free will.

You are repeatedly making the same mistake and refusing to learn from it. Having compatibilist free will means you have compatibilist free will. No-one is claiming that it also gives you libertarian free will, so it is no objection to say that compatibilist freedom isn't the 'real' libertarian kind. You can't prove incompatibilism by arbitrarily declaring the incompatibilist variety of freedom to be the only kind of free will you will recognize.

[Spacemonkey]

Remember this:-

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe being truly free amounts to having libertarian free will.

Thanks for confirming that this was complete bollocks. You do still believe that being "truly free" amounts to having libertarian free will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will repeat: I have answered this for over 3 years. I'm not repeating it again. If you want to read the book, or listen to Lessans, maybe you will learn something instead of calling it a non-discovery. There really isn't much left to say Spacemonkey. You are determined to stick with your worldview, and nothing I say is going to change that apparently.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've answered what for over three years? What you were here replying to is my observation that you were lying when you said you would answer my questions. This was a lie because when I asked them you didn't answer me and instead told me you weren't obligated to do so.

I told you that my definition of "lie" is not the same as yours. That said, I will qualify what I said: I will answer only those questions that I deem appropriate and pertinent to the conversation. No more games Spacemonkey where you tell me that I need help. It's below the belt and I'm tired of it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing can count as free will because we don't have free will. Determinism rules that out. This is a universal law so there any attempts to make free will compatible with determinism is impossible to do. This is how I non-arbitrarily determine that the compatibilist free will isn't really free will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't answer the question. Again, I'm not asking what actually counts as fee will, but rather what would count as such if we had it. Though you have answered this below.

I cannot give you a counterfactual.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what it is. If you are having a hard time remembering, go to my website and read Chapter One.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've read it. You know I've read it. You keep falsely claiming to have an argument for determinism, yet you still can't produce one.

Not when you tell me he doesn't support his claim and that he presupposes certain things which are also unsupported. Both are not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be a chaotic world where people could freely choose without regard to the influences in their life, which in a deterministic world pushes them in a specific direction. If will was free we could not predict or control behavior, for nothing anyone did to try to improve behavior would do any good since changes in the antecedent conditions would not come into play.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the 'real free will' standard that compatibilism fails to meet is random choices unaffected by antecedent conditions?

No, you asked me what free will would look like. If you believe in determinism, how in the world can a person be free in what he does Spacemonkey? You obviously are not free either when you accuse me of only using the libertarian definition. You are also using a form of libertarianism in spite of your insistence that you're not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you are again confirming that you have assumed the only legitimate kind of free will to be the worthless and incoherent contra-causal libertarian free will. That is begging the question against compatibilism. You can't show that we have no kind of free will at all by insisting that the libertarian kind is the only kind you will even consider.

Sorry, but that is exactly what you're doing. You're hiding behind the claim that you can have both so you can justify blame. With all due respect, you are very confused. You cannot create a definition that says someone is free under certain conditions, and then say with true conviction that we don't have free will because we are deterministic. It is one big fat contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no standard that compatibilism can meet because any definition that is used for free will, cannot be true by virtue of the fact that we cannot be both determined beings and free beings, and whatever definition is being used may be useful, but it is artificial.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are begging the question against compatibilism by assuming in advance that the only 'real' kind of free will is the incompatibilist libertarian variety.

The compatibilist notion is contrived; it has no truth behind it. You are in conflict because you want to justify blame and still claim that you are not one of those libertarians who don't know what they're talking about. That is why this position appeals to you so much.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am making no mistakes. Having options and not being constrained by emotional or physical limitations does not mean you have free will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are repeatedly making the same mistake and refusing to learn from it. Having compatibilist free will means you have compatibilist free will. No-one is claiming that it also gives you libertarian free will, so it is no objection to say that compatibilist freedom isn't the 'real' libertarian kind. You can't prove incompatibilism by arbitrarily declaring the incompatibilist variety of freedom to be the only kind of free will you will recognize.

There are only two types of will; free or not free. We either have free will or we don't. And the answer is we don't. There is no in between.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that my definition of "lie" is not the same as yours.

Yet you won't tell me what your definition is. My definition of lying is the deliberate assertion of known falsehoods, and that is what you are guilty of.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No more games Spacemonkey where you tell me that I need help.

You do. You are in need of professional psychiatric help. You are delusional and locked in a compulsive cycle of self-destructive behaviour.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot give you a counterfactual.

You already did. You confirmed that your only argument against compatibilist free will is that it doesn't qualify as incompatibilist free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not when you tell me he doesn't support his claim and that he presupposes certain things which are also unsupported. Both are not true.

Both are perfectly true. You keep saying his book contains things that it simply does not contain. An argument for determinism is just the latest example.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you asked me what free will would look like.

Yes, and you confirmed that your 'real free will' standard that compatibilism fails to meet is random choices unaffected by antecedent conditions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You obviously are not free either when you accuse me of only using the libertarian definition. You are also using a form of libertarianism in spite of your insistence that you're not.

What on Earth are you on about now?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but that is exactly what you're using. You're hiding behind the claim that you can have both so you can justify blame. With all due respect, you are very confused. You cannot create a definition that says someone is free under certain conditions, and then say with true conviction that we don't have free will because we are deterministic. It is one big fat contradiction.

There is no contradiction. You're still begging the question by criticizing compatibilism for not being incompatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no in between. The compatibilist notion is contrived; it has no truth behind it. You are in conflict because you want to justify blame and still claim that you are not one of those libertarians who don't know what they're talking about. That is why this position appeals to you so much.

Motive fallacy, again. You are still begging the question against compatibilism by assuming in advance that the only 'real' kind of free will is the incompatibilist libertarian variety.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are only two types of will; free or not free. The rest is just made up folly.

Begging the question. You can't prove incompatibilism by arbitrarily declaring the incompatibilist variety of freedom to be the only kind of free will you will even recognize.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The knowledge that you will not be blamed even if you should injure or kill someone will compel you, for satisfaction, to move in the direction of being as careful as possible, not just for your safety but for others. I'm sure you are a careful individual, even in this world. Knowing that you will never be blamed just adds more weight. It will also prevent young people from taking unnecessary risks that endanger others.

You might not know the justification because it's not always obvious, but if you look deeper into the person's psyche you will see that there always is a justification which is the only way one's conscience will allow the act of harm.

But sometimes people go against their conscience. Do you think this is not the case?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Remember this:-

Thanks for confirming that this was complete bollocks. You do still believe that being "truly free" amounts to having libertarian free will.

What you are doing Spacemonkey is still trying to justify punishment in reaction to actions that are considered wrong. You are obviously also acting in accordance with your nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction by choosing compatibilism as the position that makes the most sense to you in preference to any other position. By using threats of punishment, you are using this to effect a change in the antecedent condition, which will then act as a deterrent because actions are contingent on those conditions. But as we have seen, all the threats of punishment have done very little to stop those who want to hurt others in order to get what they want, if that is their desire.

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances.

The fact is you are still blaming people therefore you are not extending the principle accurately. This is understandable since blame and punishment has been the only deterrent up to now. But there is a better way. When we remove all judgment and all punishment, something miraculous happens. That is where this discovery is going to cause a revolutionary change in the mankind system.

p. 41 I recently had a conversation with
a friend who was very sincere in his desire to understand the principles
in my book. His questions were predictable coming from a superficial
understanding of man’s nature and represent the confusion many
people feel when the issue of determinism comes up.

“Isn’t it obvious that we must have standards of some kind so that
a child can be taught the difference between right and wrong, good
and evil? Supposing all individuals in a society are told that it is
wrong to steal (I hope you’re not going to tell me this is right), yet
certain ones deliberately ignore this and take what belongs to someone
else; isn’t it obvious that we must blame them because they were
warned in advance that if they should steal they will be punished? Are
you trying to tell me there is no such thing as a standard of right and
wrong?”

“If you know the difference between right and wrong, and you also
know that a person cannot be blamed or punished for what he does
because his will is not free, isn’t it obvious that we are given only one
alternative and that is to prevent the desire to do what is wrong from
arising which then makes it unnecessary to blame and punish? Just
as long as man has this safety valve of blame and punishment, he
doesn’t have to find the solution to this doing of what is wrong.
Parents can be very careless and excuse themselves by blaming their
children, and governments can be careless and excuse themselves by
blaming their citizens while plunging the entire world into war.”

“But supposing they are not careless and they are doing everything
in their power to prevent children and citizens from doing what is
wrong so that blame and punishment are not necessary, what then?
Are we not supposed to blame and punish them for our own
protection when they do something wrong?”

“That’s just the point. Once it is discovered through
mathematical reasoning that man’s will is definitely not free, then it
becomes impossible to blame an individual for what he is compelled to
do; consequently, it is imperative that we discover a way to prevent his
desire to do the very things for which blame and punishment were
previously necessary, as the lesser of two evils.”

“This new world which looks good, sounds good, and seems
theoretically possible in its blueprint form so far (since you haven’t
shown me yet how to rid the world of war and crime — two most
important items), it may be just another dream, and even if it isn’t,
it took the Greeks two millennium to convince mankind that the
earth was a sphere. Even today, there are still some people who don’t
believe it, so how do you expect people to listen to something that not
only sounds impossible, but is so far removed from contemporary
thought?”

“This is the stumbling block I am faced with.”

“Are you telling me that this discovery, whatever it is, will prevent
man from desiring to commit murder, rape, start a war, annihilate 6
million people, etc., is that right?”

“That’s correct. The corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, when it
is extended does not mean that we will be forced to condone what
hurts us, but we will be shown how to prevent these evils by
mathematically extending the corollary. And the amazing thing is
that both sides of this equation are correct. Christ said, “Turn the
other cheek” and Durant said, “This is impossible.” Just think about
this for one moment. Would you believe that both principles are
mathematically correct?”

“How is that possible?”

“God made the reconciliation of these two principles the time
when He would reveal Himself to all mankind. But to get here you
can see what had to be done first since the paths leading up to this
understanding were camouflaged with layers upon layers of words that
concealed the truth.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But sometimes people go against their conscience. Do you think this is not the case?

It's not that they go against their conscience. They cannot do that since conscience is the very thing that can stop them from causing harm. The problem is that conscience has been unable to reach the temperature necessary to say no to a behavior that hurts others because it can be justified. The way our punitive system is set up ironically is what gives conscience permission to do the very thing this system was intended to prevent.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you are doing Spacemonkey is still trying to justify punishment in reaction to actions that are considered wrong. You are obviously also acting in accordance with your nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction by choosing compatibilism as the position that makes the most sense to you in preference to any other position. By using threats of punishment, you are using this to effect a change in the antecedent condition, which will then act as a deterrent because actions are contingent on those conditions. But as we have seen, all the threats of punishment have done very little to stop those who want to hurt others in order to get what they want, if that is their desire.

The fact is you are still blaming people therefore you are not extending the principle accurately. This is understandable since blame and punishment has been the only deterrent up to now. But there is a better way. When we remove all judgment and all punishment, something miraculous happens. That is where this discovery is going to cause a revolutionary change in the mankind system.

Have you considered replying with something that actually addresses what you are replying to?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that they go against their conscience. They cannot do that since conscience is the very thing that can stop them from causing harm. The problem is that conscience has been unable to reach the temperature necessary to say no to a behavior that hurts others because it can be justified. The way our punitive system is set up ironically is what gives conscience permission to do the very thing this system was intended to prevent.

Conscience doesn't have a temperature.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But sometimes people go against their conscience. Do you think this is not the case?

Lessans and peacegirl believe that we cannot act against our conscience without justification, and that knowing we could be blamed and punished is justification.

If we remove blame and punishment from the world, our consciences will all act perfectly and proactively, preventing us from being able to do anything that might harm someone.

Of course, it is an unsupported assumption on Lessans part that conscience works this way, but peacegirl denies that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yet you won't tell me what your definition is. My definition of lying is the deliberate assertion of known falsehoods, and that is what you are guilty of.

No I'm not. I have said nothing deliberately in order to obfuscate the situation. I never make promises either. So if I change my mind by answering you when I said I wouldn't, I did not lie. I simply changed my mind based on a new post or a change of heart.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No more games Spacemonkey where you tell me that I need help.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You do. You are in need of professional psychiatric help. You are delusional and locked in a compulsive cycle of self-destructive behaviour.

You're out the door. It is not your place to diagnose me in an effort to be right. That is the most disgusting and underhanded thing a desperate person can do. And you are desperate to defend your position at all costs. If you keep doing this, I will not talk to you. Take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot give you a counterfactual.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You already did. You confirmed that your only argument against compatibilist free will is that it doesn't qualify as incompatibilist free will.

I was describing libertarian free will, but the compatibilist kind still doesn't work when you analyze it more deeply. Making special allowances for only a certain kind of determinism, and to still blame people who don't have that kind of problem, is still blaming, and blaming people who you believe are free enough to change their behavior, affords them the very excuse to continue with their behavior, as I explained in the previous post. You think blaming and punishing is acting as a deterrent for those who you feel are capable of changing...but how is it working in reality Spacemonkey? You say without it our world could be worse off, but I am asking you to reconsider this and to just look at what is going on in today's world. Our jails are filled with repeat offenders. The only time a real change occurs and there is true rehabilitation is when there is compassion, understanding, and forgiveness, not punishment. That should give you a clue. Punishment is necessary in this world, granted, but I am asking you to kindly give me a chance to explain why a world of no blame will not be a disaster; it is the very thing that will save us from disaster.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not when you tell me he doesn't support his claim and that he presupposes certain things which are also unsupported. Both are not true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Both are perfectly true. You keep saying his book contains things that it simply does not contain. An argument for determinism is just the latest example.

His proof of determinism is absolutely 100% spot on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you asked me what free will would look like.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, and you confirmed that your 'real free will' standard that compatibilism fails to meet is random choices unaffected by antecedent conditions.

I was thinking about this this morning trying to understand where the confusion is for you, and this is it. You have not accepted, or even allowed, Lessans to move through the vestibule. Just as other philosophers have done in the past, they cannot get past the implications, and that's exactly what you are doing. You are turning back because you cannot see how not blaming will do any good. As we have seen in the past, turning the other cheek can make matters worse. Until you allow me to show you what happens when we follow the reasoning that Lessans is presenting, you will continue to defend your position as being the only solution.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but that is exactly what you're using. You're hiding behind the claim that you can have both so you can justify blame. With all due respect, you are very confused. You cannot create a definition that says someone is free under certain conditions, and then say with true conviction that we don't have free will because we are deterministic. It is one big fat contradiction.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no contradiction. You're still begging the question by criticizing compatibilism for not being incompatibilism.

I am just saying that compatibilism is incompatible, which has nothing to do with libertarianism. It is incompatible because the minute you blame you are not truly a determinist, as you claim. If you don't want to hear more, then let's stop now. If you do want to hear more, you have to allow me to continue without the false attacks on my character.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no in between. The compatibilist notion is contrived; it has no truth behind it. You are in conflict because you want to justify blame and still claim that you are not one of those libertarians who don't know what they're talking about. That is why this position appeals to you so much.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Motive fallacy, again. You are still begging the question against compatibilism by assuming in advance that the only 'real' kind of free will is the incompatibilist libertarian variety.

I am not assuming in advance that the only 'real' kind of free will is the libertarian variety. There is no free will, whether the libertarian variety, or the compatibiist variety.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are only two types of will; free or not free. The rest is just made up folly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Begging the question. You can't prove incompatibilism by arbitrarily declaring the incompatibilist variety of freedom to be the only kind of free will you will even recognize.

That is not what I'm doing. I am showing you that the compatibilist variety of free will is also flawed.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that they go against their conscience.

So people never go against their conscience?

Why do people feel guilty? Isn't that because we do something about our conscience? Why do people write about people all the time about how people did something even 'knowing it was wrong'? Why are people told to 'listen to their conscience' if not because it's possible to act without doing so?

Are you really telling me that people never act against/without considering, their conscience?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Conscience doesn't have a temperature.

Not literally. When I say it has to reach a certain temperature, all this means is that when there are no more excuses that one can use as a justification for what one is about to do, conscience begins to work at full throttle. Right now we're working at 75% of capacity, which isn't enough to prevent the kinds of acts that are considered harmful to society.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So people never go against their conscience?

Why do people feel guilty? Isn't that because we do something about our conscience? Why do people write about people all the time about how people did something even 'knowing it was wrong'? Why are people told to 'listen to their conscience' if not because it's possible to act without doing so?

Are you really telling me that people never act against/without considering, their conscience?

People might know intellectually that something they are doing is considered wrong, but they do it because they can do it; it gives them greater satisfaction. Their conscience is allowing it, otherwise they couldn't do it. What this knowledge does is cause conscience to reach a higher temperature because conscience needs a justification. If there is no justification, conscience will say no to that action. That is exactly how conscience works probably for evolutionary purposes. If we didn't have a conscience, we could do anything we wanted without regard for anyone. Some people, due to their genetics which may predispose them to violence under certain conditions, will have a weaker conscience than others, but they also will be prevented from hurting others under the changed conditions of a no blame environment. I'm not telling people to stop blaming just like that. That could be a terrible course of action. I am only referring to a global change, which will take place when this law is recognized and efforts are made to start the transitioning process from non-citizenship to citizenship.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People might know intellectually that something they are doing is considered wrong, but they do it because they can do it; it gives them greater satisfaction. Their conscience is allowing it, otherwise they couldn't do it.

So why do people say 'listen to your conscience' if, as you say, we can't ever not listen to our conscience?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why do people say 'listen to your conscience' if, as you say, we can't ever not listen to our conscience?

When people say "listen to your conscience", what they are saying is listen to what your conscience is telling you. In the world of blame and punishment, you don't have to listen to your conscience even though it may be telling you that what you're about to do is wrong. Why? Because you can find a justification to do what you're doing. That's why saying "listen to your conscience" doesn't always work if you want something badly enough. In the new world, you can't ever not listen to your conscience because the changed conditions allow it to work at full capacity, preventing you from making the same choices as you may have in the world of free will. I may have to repeat this 100 more times for you to get it, but it will be well worth it.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why? Because you can find a justification to do what you're doing.

So people in the new world will never act irrationally?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not literally, but when I say it has to reach a certain temperature, all I mean is that when there are no more excuses that one can use as a justification for what one is about to do, conscience begins to work at full throttle. Right now we're working at 75% of full capacity, which isn't enough to prevent the kinds of acts that are considered harmful to society.

Conscience doesn't have a throttle either.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not. I have said nothing deliberately in order to obfuscate the situation. I never make promises either. So if I change my mind by answering you when I said I wouldn't, I did not lie. I simply changed my mind based on a new post or a change of heart.

No, Peacegirl. You have flat out lied, and you have admitted to it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're out the door. It is not your place to diagnose me in an effort to be right. That is the most disgusting and underhanded thing a desperate person can do. And you are desperate to defend your position at all costs. If you keep doing this, I will not talk to you. Take it or leave it.

You brought it up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was describing libertarian free will, but the compatibilist kind still doesn't work when you analyze it more deeply. Making special allowances for only a certain kind of determinism, and to still blame people who don't have that kind of problem, is still blaming, and blaming people who you believe are free enough to change their behavior, affords them the very excuse to continue with their behavior, as I explained in the previous post. You think blaming and punishing is acting as a deterrent for those who you feel are capable of changing...but how is it working in reality Spacemonkey? You say without it our world could be worse off, but I am asking you to reconsider this and to just look at what is going on in today's world. Our jails are filled with repeat offenders. The only time a real change occurs and there is true rehabilitation is when there is compassion, understanding, and forgiveness, not punishment. That should give you a clue. Punishment is necessary in this world, granted, but I am asking you to kindly give me a chance to explain why a world of no blame will not be a disaster; it is the very thing that will save us from disaster.

And you are again resorting to the claim that we can do better than compatibilism. Yet you still can't argue this without presupposing it to be completely impossible. And whenever asked to show why it is impossible you revert to claiming we can do better. This reasoning is still circular.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His proof of determinism is absolutely 100% spot on.

And completely non-existent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking about this this morning trying to understand where the confusion is for you, and this is it. You have not accepted, or even allowed, Lessans to move through the vestibule. Just as other philosophers have done in the past, they cannot get past the implications, and that's exactly what you are doing. You are turning back because you cannot see how not blaming will do any good. As we have seen in the past, turning the other cheek can make matters worse. Until you allow me to show you what happens when we follow the reasoning that Lessans is presenting, you will continue to defend your position as being the only solution.

I won't let Lessans through the vestibule? What are you smoking? If you want to know why I reject Lessans you need only read my posts. I am telling you exactly why he is wrong. For example, at the moment you are still trying to refute compatibilist free will merely by pointing out that it is not incompatibilist free will. That is utterly moronic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am just saying that compatibilism is incompatible, which has nothing to do with libertarianism. It is incompatible because the minute you blame you are not truly a determinist, as you claim. If you don't want to hear more, then let's stop now. If you do want to hear more, you have to allow me to continue without the false attacks on my character.

Ridiculous. Your only argument against compatibilism is your question-begging presupposition that only libertarian freedom really counts as free will. And nothing about blame prevents one from being a determinist about macro level human decision-making.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not assuming in advance that the only 'real' kind of free will is the libertarian variety. There is no free will, whether the libertarian variety, or the compatibiist variety.

I know you claim there is no free will of any variety. But you are still also assuming in advance that the only kind of freedom that would count as free will if we had it is the libertarian variety. So the only kind you are actually denying us to have is the libertarian kind, because that is the only kind you will recognize or even consider. It's like 'proving' that all cheese is made in the USA by denying that any non-US cheese counts as cheese.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I'm doing. I am showing you that the compatibilist variety of free will is also flawed.

But you haven't shown it to be flawed. All you've done is point out that it isn't libertarian freedom and claim that we can do better.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So people in the new world will never act irrationally?

I'm not sure what you mean by irrational. People here said my father was acting irrational when he burned his books, which is wrong. He was very rational. Will people desire to strike a first blow? No, they won't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, Peacegirl. You have flat out lied, and you have admitted to it.

This is REALLY getting old. If you don't walk to converse anymore, keep your attitude up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're out the door. It is not your place to diagnose me in an effort to be right. That is the most disgusting and underhanded thing a desperate person can do. And you are desperate to defend your position at all costs. If you keep doing this, I will not talk to you. Take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You brought it up.

I'm not going to quibble over stupid stuff.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was describing libertarian free will, but the compatibilist kind still doesn't work when you analyze it more deeply. Making special allowances for only a certain kind of determinism, and to still blame people who don't have that kind of problem, is still blaming, and blaming people who you believe are free enough to change their behavior, affords them the very excuse to continue with their behavior, as I explained in the previous post. You think blaming and punishing is acting as a deterrent for those who you feel are capable of changing...but how is it working in reality Spacemonkey? You say without it our world could be worse off, but I am asking you to reconsider this and to just look at what is going on in today's world. Our jails are filled with repeat offenders. The only time a real change occurs and there is true rehabilitation is when there is compassion, understanding, and forgiveness, not punishment. That should give you a clue. Punishment is necessary in this world, granted, but I am asking you to kindly give me a chance to explain why a world of no blame will not be a disaster; it is the very thing that will save us from disaster.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you are again resorting to the claim that we can do better than compatibilism. Yet you still can't argue this without presupposing it to be completely impossible. And whenever asked to show why it is impossible you revert to claiming we can do better. This reasoning is still circular.

AND I TOLD YOU THAT THE PROOF IS IN THE BOOK. I have explained over and over that you can use any definition you want in compatibilism to justify punishment, and you use this punishment on the grounds that it will be a deterrent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His proof of determinism is absolutely 100% spot on.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And completely non-existent.

You are absolutely out the door Spacemonkey. It's not worth talking to you anymore. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking about this this morning trying to understand where the confusion is for you, and this is it. You have not accepted, or even allowed, Lessans to move through the vestibule. Just as other philosophers have done in the past, they cannot get past the implications, and that's exactly what you are doing. You are turning back because you cannot see how not blaming will do any good. As we have seen in the past, turning the other cheek can make matters worse. Until you allow me to show you what happens when we follow the reasoning that Lessans is presenting, you will continue to defend your position as being the only solution.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I won't let Lessans through the vestibule? What are you smoking? If you want to know why I reject Lessans you need only read my posts. I am telling you exactly why he is wrong. For example, at the moment you are still trying to refute compatibilist free will merely by pointing out that it is not incompatibilist free will. That is utterly moronic.

No, I already cleared that up. Compatibilists use the contrived definition of "free" to attribute moral accountability to those who are considered capable of changing, but I will ask you again: How is it working? We have more prisons than ever, and more recalcitrant re-offenders. If you follow the reasoning in the book, which you have not (you don't have a clue Spacemonkey), you will understand why, as we extend this principle or law, a world of no blame is much better than a world of blame (regardless of which philosophical position is being used to justify it).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am just saying that compatibilism is incompatible, which has nothing to do with libertarianism. It is incompatible because the minute you blame you are not truly a determinist, as you claim. If you don't want to hear more, then let's stop now. If you do want to hear more, you have to allow me to continue without the false attacks on my character.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ridiculous. Your only argument against compatibilism is your question-begging presupposition that only libertarian freedom really counts as free will. And nothing about blame prevents one from being a determinist about macro level human decision-making.

The point that is being made is that under determinism, it is impossible to blame, which is why you choose not to be a hard determinist. If you don't want to follow the reasoning that comes from a determinist position to see why responsibility is increased, then don't, but don't tell me you understand this book. You understand nothing at all. You won't let yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not assuming in advance that the only 'real' kind of free will is the libertarian variety. There is no free will, whether the libertarian variety, or the compatibiist variety.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I know you claim there is no free will of any variety. But you are still also assuming in advance that the only kind of freedom that would count as free will if we had it is the libertarian variety. So the only kind you are actually denying us to have is the libertarian kind, because that is the only kind you will recognize or even consider. It's like 'proving' that all cheese is made in the USA by denying that any non-US cheese counts as cheese.

Good try, but that logic does not apply because this is a universal law that is applicable everywhere, not just in a certain locale.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I'm doing. I am showing you that the compatibilist variety of free will is also flawed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you haven't shown it to be flawed. All you've done is point out that it isn't libertarian freedom and claim that we can do better.

It is very flawed, yet as I said this train of thought justifies blameworthiness, which is the goal. This does not prove that anyone actually has freedom of the will, so your definition is just a value judgment to support your belief system. This is why I need to talk to like minded people who will want to see what happens when we don't blame, and when we follow determinism to its conclusion, which is absolutely incredible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is REALLY getting old. If you don't walk to converse anymore, keep your attitude up.

Did I say anything that wasn't true? Do you deny admitting to your lying? I can and have quoted you doing so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to quibble over stupid stuff.

You've been doing precisely that for 10+ years. I hardly think you're likely to stop now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

AND I TOLD YOU THAT THE PROOF IS IN THE BOOK.

AND YET IT ISN'T. His book does not contain any argument for determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are absolutely out the door Spacemonkey. It's not worth talking to you anymore. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Because you keep making false claims that you cannot support. If you are going to claim something is in the book then you need to be able to show this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I already cleared that up. Compatibilists use the contrived definition of "free" to attribute moral accountability to those who are considered capable of changing, but I will ask you again: How is it working? ow is society doing? Not very well. If you follow the reasoning in the book, which you have not (you don't have a clue Spacemonkey), you will understand why, as we extend this principle or law, we find that a world of no blame is much better than a world of blame, including the compatibilist justification.

And now you're yet again reverting to the claim that we can do better. You do this every time your argument against compatibilism falls apart. The problem is that your argument for us being able to do better requires compatibilism to be impossible, yet your only 'argument' against compatibilism is that it isn't incompatibilism. That is moronic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point is under determinism, you cannot blame, which is why you choose not to be a determinist.

Then your 'point' is quite obviously completely wrong. You CAN blame under determinism, and I accept determinism at the macro level for human decisions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Good try, but that logic does not apply to this argument at all because this is a universal law that is applicable everywhere, not just in a certain local.

The logic is exactly what you are using. You are denying that any freedom other than libertarian freedom would count as 'real' free will, just like denying that any non-US cheese counts as 'real' cheese. That doesn't prove there to be no free will of any sort any more than it would show there to be no foreign cheese. It's completely retarded.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very flawed, yet as I said it justifies blaming people as a deterrent and your justification for it. This does not prove that anyone actually has freedom of the will...

The only kind of freedom you would accept as "freedom of the will" is the libertarian kind that compatibilism isn't arguing for, so this response means nothing. You are still begging the question against compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is why I need to talk to like minded people...

Good luck finding any outside of a padded room.