A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl caught in another lie, who would'a thought?

I already told people that I set up a twitter account, and I post a tweet here and there. Every once in awhile some author website (that I had joined) will post my tweet about the book. This is not what I call marketing. I have hardly done anything. I don't care if you call me a liar Maturin. As a lawyer, that's how your brain works. You are just trying to put the final nail in the coffin so that people will close the book on me, literally.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been through this so many times it's not even funny. I have explained that IF the object is within one's field of view, then it will be seen if the object is bright enough and large enough. It's proportional.

the word proportional doesn't work here. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You need to find a different word or explain your unusual defnition

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

What a great phrase: free will in the free will sense! How do you think you can clearly approach the topic of free will if you use such prose?

The best strategy to cope with such 'strawman-fallacy-accusations' is to clearly separate the different kinds of free will: LFW and CFW.

No GdB. It still doesn't work in your favor.

Originally Posted by GdB

Libertarian Free Will defines free will as the capability to start new causal chains that are not based on the normal causality in the world. LFW is itself uncaused by normal physical causes. However this means there must be disturbances in the normal causal followup of events, therefore it is also known as Contra Causal Free Will. It also means that determinism can't be true, because that would not allow for interruptions of the normal causal flow of events.

Compatibilist Free Will defines free will as the capability to act according the motivations and beliefs of the agent. If an agent has enough insights to anticipate possible consequences of his actions, be they physical (do not bend to far over the cliff!), social (how will he react), or moral (I will be punished if I do this). As we know that future-anticipating-machines exist, there is no reason to see why determinism would contradict CFW. Even stronger, some adequate level of determinism is needed, otherwise an agent cannot foresee what will happen because of his actions, and there must also be a regular relationship between motivations and beliefs at one side, and actions at the other. Most compatibilsts (as I do) think that the more determinism is true, the more free we can be. Otherwise some indetermined jerk could cause that I do something I did not want.

You are missing the entire point that was made as to why your idea of "free will" is a strawman.

Originally Posted by GdB

Having cleared the definitions in this way, we can discuss, also with the free will sceptics. At 2 points free will sceptics and compatibilists totally agree:

• LFW does not exist. It is already inherently incoherent.
• Determinism is grosso modo true: chance processes as they exist in quantum physics do not contribute to free will. At most they are a thread for free will.

So now the discussion is if the capabilities that humans have are worth to be called free will. That would be kind of silly discussion, so more important is what conclusions we can draw from the non-existence of LFW:

Do we need LFW to justify our praxis of assigning responsibility and punishing people?

The compatibilists' answer is clear: no. Consciousness about the consequences of our actions is enough. But clearly, we should not treat people as if they are absolute free in the LFW sense, and therefore are ultimate responsible for their actions.

So after clearing the definitions, the only question that should divide 'free will sceptics' and compatibilists is what conclusions do we draw from the non-existence of LFW: do we have to change our moral and judiciary praxis in the light of this knowledge? If I may try an answer: yes, in the case of the USA, because people are treated as if they are absolute moral agents; no for the Netherlands and Switzerland, where the judicial system takes the backgrounds of people into account, and has as main target to avoid recidivism. If we call the capability to anticipate the future (and act according to it!) free will or not is in fact secondary.

The straw man of many 'free will sceptics' is that by denying LFW they think we must completely change our moral and judicial praxis, because people are nothing more than puppets on causal strings. They think that only LFW supports this praxis.

To turn one of their arguments around: if we define god as 'the universe' they do as if the universe does not exist, because god does not exist. It is the stupidity they accuse compatibilists of.

So: now you can look if these 5 strawmen still hold. I won't do the thinking for you, where you are too lazy to bring the arguments yourself. I wrote this text piece myself, so, I expect original texts from you too. No copy/pastes anymore, not even from the book of your father. If your arguments are inspired by your father's books, great. But they must be your arguments. Tell me where my strawman is.

Please do not tell me how to answer you. I will answer in a way that makes sense whether I cut/paste, or say something in my own words. I say a lot in my own words and I will continue to do so when I feel it's appropriate.

I will go through each of his five strawman points in another post. I do understand where you're coming from. I continue to maintain that compatibilism is not the answer. It is similar to naturalism. You believe that punishment is necessary for people who have reasons for doing what they do. They can think rationally about right and wrong and if they choose wrong, they need to be punished. I am in total agreement with you that in our present society, we must incarcerate people who do serious harm to others. Naturalism believes in compassion even when it comes to punishment, and that "just desert" or payback is not appropriate given what we know about human nature. I think you would agree. Naturalism believes in rehabilitation, and I think you agree there too. I don't believe that the free will skeptic is saying let chaos rule. Let's forget about accountability. But at this point I want you to understand that your definition of "free" is actually a strawman. No one is disagreeing with you as to how your term "free" is used. This allows you to skirt around the issue of what "freedom of the will" actually means.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No GdB. It still doesn't work in your favor.

Because? You do not like clear definitions, so it is always clear what we are talking about?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing the entire point that was made as to why your idea of "free will" is a strawman.

Because?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will go through each of his five strawman points in another post.

Great! I am waiting for it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I continue to maintain that compatibilism is not the answer.

The answer to what? Compatbilism is naturalistic way of understanding free will, opposed to LFW. It is not a solution to the problems of the world. But to solve the problems of the world we should not use false reference points like LFW, or that people are just causal objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is similar to naturalism. You believe that punishment is necessary for people who have reasons for doing what they do. They can think rationally about right and wrong and if they choose wrong, they need to be punished.

For me that is not the most important point. My point is that people should be treated as responsible subjects, and not as causal objects. Just simply saying that we have no free will makes people causal objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe that the free will skeptic is saying let chaos rule.

Me neither. But I know there are free will sceptics who would prefer a society where people are manipulated instead to regard them as responsible subjects.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by GdB

Answer the questions individually, one by one, peacegirl, just with yes and/or no.

With your understanding of the mechanism of efferent vision it should be just as easy as for me with my understanding of vision.

Spacemonkey and I are still waiting for your answers...

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, I was thinking on the spot and I made mistakes, but that still doesn't translate to this claim being wrong. Why are you doing this? We're not in a court of law where a clever lawyer can make a case over something trivial in order to create reasonable doubt.

Of course I will support Lessans because none of these accusations prove him wrong. Why shouldn't I support him, I believe he was right.

I never have admitted that his claim was ludicrously false. I may have said that from their perspective, it seems ludicrously false. But I still believe he is right and that there is an alternate way of looking at it. I am allowed to give my version of why I don't think any of these charges against him are actually fair. I certainly will not agree with people just to stop them from accusing me of Lying for Lessans. What a joke!

At this point, you can say whatever you want, I really don't care. All you are doing is trying to paint a picture of me that is false, and in so doing trying to discredit my father as well. But let me repeat that none of your accusations are true, and more importantly, none of them discredit Lessans' claim. Anyone with half a brain will be able to see through this group attack.

Now see, you're either deliberately lying here or demonstrating your lack of reading ability. Either is possible, since you do both so often.


Of course you're never going to admit that Lessans was wrong. That's the whole point -- no matter how often and how thoroughly Lessans' claims are disproved, you're never going to admit that.



What I said is that you have a habit of introducing "facts" that you think support Lessans, "facts" that are flat-out wrong. When it's pointed out that these "facts" are untrue, your typical response is to accept the correction, wait until a page or two has gone by, then repeat the claim which you've already acknowledged is false, as if people won't notice what you've done.

That is deliberate lying on your part. And you do it so very often.

Granted, it's possible that you aren't consciously lying; it's possible that your commitment to Lessans' claims is so strong that your brain automatically expunges every piece of information that contradicts Lessans' claims. It's not as if we haven't seen abundant evidence that you do exactly that.


But to spend page after page saying one thing, only to turn around and then insist that you'd never said any such thing -- even as your own words are quoted back to you -- is not "weaseling" or "waffling" or "making mistakes." That is straight-up lying.


So I repeat: you're welcome to your willful ignorance and your delusions and your fanatical insistence that Lessans was incapable of error. But when you lie -- as you so often do -- you will be confronted.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care if you call me a liar Maturin.

You're a liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are just trying to put the final nail in the coffin so that people will close the book on me, literally.

You closed the book on yourself metaphorically a long time ago, breh. You're just to shit-all stupid to realize it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told people that I set up a twitter account, and I post a tweet here and there. Every once in awhile some author website (that I had joined) will post my tweet about the book. This is not what I call marketing. I have hardly done anything. I don't care if you call me a liar Maturin. As a lawyer, that's how your brain works. You are just trying to put the final nail in the coffin so that people will close the book on me, literally.

"I haven't even started" is pretty clear in it's meaning, it means you haven't done anything on Twitter, including setting up an account, so your statement is clearly a lie.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hallo Landgenoot

I too am a dutch expat, though not in Switzerland. When is the referendum taking place?

Kom je dan uit Friesland, dat je dat van Drachten wist? Hoe lang ben je al weg? Ik al 20 jaar.[/QUOTE]

13 jaar - tjemig wat lang! Ik ben in west-friesland opgetogen, dus ik wist maar per ongeluk van dat experiment in Drachten.

[Vivisectus]

Good grief I turn my back for a few days and look what happens! Back to pointless bickering.

In fact, I noticed that the moment we got on to more constructive ground, and there was actual work to be done, you lost interest and wandered off to bicker in the anti-vaxx thread in stead. Then you came back when some bickering flared back up in here.

You really aren't here for the hunting, huh?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, I was thinking on the spot and I made mistakes, but that still doesn't translate to this claim being wrong. Why are you doing this? We're not in a court of law where a clever lawyer can make a case over something trivial in order to create reasonable doubt.

Of course I will support Lessans because none of these accusations prove him wrong. Why shouldn't I support him, I believe he was right.

I never have admitted that his claim was ludicrously false. I may have said that from their perspective, it seems ludicrously false. But I still believe he is right and that there is an alternate way of looking at it. I am allowed to give my version of why I don't think any of these charges against him are actually fair. I certainly will not agree with people just to stop them from accusing me of Lying for Lessans. What a joke!

At this point, you can say whatever you want, I really don't care. All you are doing is trying to paint a picture of me that is false, and in so doing trying to discredit my father as well. But let me repeat that none of your accusations are true, and more importantly, none of them discredit Lessans' claim. Anyone with half a brain will be able to see through this group attack.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Now see, you're either deliberately lying here or demonstrating your lack of reading ability. Either is possible, since you do both so often.


Of course you're never going to admit that Lessans was wrong. That's the whole point -- no matter how often and how thoroughly Lessans' claims are disproved, you're never going to admit that.

His claim has not been disproved. You can try to twist this whole thing around and use the fact that I weaseled, didn't admit things, made up things, tried to get around things, to make everyone believe that I am just a typical flat earther. Think what you want, but none of this proves Lessans wrong.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What I said is that you have a habit of introducing "facts" that you think support Lessans, "facts" that are flat-out wrong. When it's pointed out that these "facts" are untrue, your typical response is to accept the correction, wait until a page or two has gone by, then repeat the claim which you've already acknowledged is false, as if people won't notice what you've done.

That is deliberate lying on your part. And you do it so very often.

Call it what you want. You think the "facts" prove him wrong. I don't. You believe the disproof has already been established. I disagree.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Granted, it's possible that you aren't consciously lying; it's possible that your commitment to Lessans' claims is so strong that your brain automatically expunges every piece of information that contradicts Lessans' claims. It's not as if we haven't seen abundant evidence that you do exactly that.

I don't believe the "facts" that you have given me prove that he was wrong. The conclusive proof is just not there. Could it be that your commitment to scientific "theory" is so strong that your brain automatically expunges every piece of information that Lessans offered?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But to spend page after page saying one thing, only to turn around and then insist that you'd never said any such thing -- even as your own words are quoted back to you -- is not "weaseling" or "waffling" or "making mistakes." That is straight-up lying.

So I repeat: you're welcome to your willful ignorance and your delusions and your fanatical insistence that Lessans was incapable of error. But when you lie -- as you so often do -- you will be confronted.

Why are you lying now TLR? I never said Lessans was incapable of error, but I believe he was right in this case.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never have admitted that his claim was ludicrously false.

Re-read what you were replying to here and see if you can see how you just messed this up. I've used bold to help you spot the error.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do that sort of thing all the time. One of the most common ways you do so is to make some sort of false claim that you think supports Lessans.

When it's pointed out that the claim is false (often ludicrously false), you accept that. Then, you wait a bit (presumably, in the hope that people will have forgotten that the claim was shown to be false) before you repeat the claim, even though you know -- and have previously admitted -- that it's false.

I never have admitted that his claim was ludicrously false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Good grief I turn my back for a few days and look what happens! Back to pointless bickering.

In fact, I noticed that the moment we got on to more constructive ground, and there was actual work to be done, you lost interest and wandered off to bicker in the anti-vaxx thread in stead. Then you came back when some bickering flared back up in here.

You really aren't here for the hunting, huh?

Vivisectus, I'm on board with your ideas, but they are not easy to process. That is not an excuse. I have other obligations than trying to fight a very difficult fight. Can you understand how difficult this process really is? We are dealing with an issue that is thousands of years in the making. I cannot be expected to somehow turn the tides in a few articles, but I like the idea. I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from. If you want to help in this effort, go to my facebook page and say something. It doesn't matter what you say as long as it's positive. Hopefully, it will start a conversation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really get it Spacemonkey... <hissyfit snipped>

Do you? What was your error above?

[Dragar]

peacegirl, you still haven't answered my questions about how mirrors work!

Here's another question: why can I see things behind me in mirrors, but not on other surfaces?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Good grief I turn my back for a few days and look what happens! Back to pointless bickering.

In fact, I noticed that the moment we got on to more constructive ground, and there was actual work to be done, you lost interest and wandered off to bicker in the anti-vaxx thread in stead. Then you came back when some bickering flared back up in here.

You really aren't here for the hunting, huh?

Peacegirl is here to feed her martyr complex, this has been pointed out many times and demonstrated even more often. So abuse and disagreement are the order of the day for her, if you start to agree or support too much, she will find someone else to engage. I've seen her leave a forum where most members were in some agreement or were supportive.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think what you want, but none of this proves Lessans wrong.

Actually just about everything proves that Lessans was wrong.

[Vivisectus]

Vivisectus, I'm on board with your ideas, but they are not easy to process.

Au contraire: they are incredibly simple and easy to repeat. It is also proven to work.

That is not an excuse.

If it wasn't, you probably would not have to point this out.

I have other obligations than trying to fight a very difficult fight. Can you understand how difficult this process really is? We are dealing with an issue that is thousands of years in the making. I cannot be expected to somehow turn the tides in a few articles, but I like the idea.

You are pretending that people expect you to change the world in a fortnight, but obviously that is not the case. I just thought that you would welcome a simple, easily repeatable and effective method of spreading an idea that requires no resources and effort levels similar to a hobby.

However, you seem to have no interest in that at all. Once the immediate payoff of attention through argument dissipates, you lose interest and go and argue on another thread in stead.

Hence my conclusion: you are not here for the hunting.

[But]

Bump

Originally Posted by But

So the Sun is huge in relation to the Earth. Is a candle huge in relation to someone in the room?

What do you mean and what does this have to do with this mysterious nanosecond that you made up?

[peacegirl]

Vivisectus, I'm on board with your ideas, but they are not easy to process.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Au contraire: they are incredibly simple and easy to repeat. It is also proven to work.

I think your ideas are really good, but they take time to implement.

That is not an excuse.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If it wasn't, you probably would not have to point this out.

I pointed this out because that's what people would be thinking.

I have other obligations than trying to fight a very difficult fight. Can you understand how difficult this process really is? We are dealing with an issue that is thousands of years in the making. I cannot be expected to somehow turn the tides in a few articles, but I like the idea.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are pretending that people expect you to change the world in a fortnight, but obviously that is not the case. I just thought that you would welcome a simple, easily repeatable and effective method of spreading an idea that requires no resources and effort levels similar to a hobby.

I welcome a simple, easily repeatable and effective method of spreading an idea, but it still takes time and effort which I can't give at this moment. I already told you this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, you seem to have no interest in that at all. Once the immediate payoff of attention through argument dissipates, you lose interest and go and argue on another thread in stead.

Hence my conclusion: you are not here for the hunting.

I do have interest in using your ideas, but it involves writing blogs. That takes quite a bit of time and effort. I cannot concentrate on this until after November.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

the word proportional doesn't work here. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You need to find a different word or explain your unusual defnition

What are you talking about? Something like 1.3 million Earths could fit inside the Sun. Likewise, about 1.3 million standard-sized human beings could fit inside that candle across the room. See? Proportional!

Geez, you guys are dumb.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, you still haven't answered my questions about how mirrors work!

Here's another question: why can I see things behind me in mirrors, but not on other surfaces?

What point are you trying to make? Mirrors work in a particular way due to their composition. The light coming from an object strikes the surface of the mirror which is then reflected back to our eyes.

A silver glass mirror is an ordinary mirror, coated on its back surface with silver, which produces images by reflection. This kind of glass mirror is produced by coating a silver, copper film and two or more layers of waterproof paint on the back surface of float glass, which perfectly resists acid and moisture.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I welcome a simple, easily repeatable and effective method of spreading an idea, but it still takes time and effort which I can't give at this moment.

You have zero time for the simple, easily repeatable effective strategies Vivisectus suggested, yet you have multiple hours per day to squabble with strangers on the Internet about efferent vision.

Why are you insulting V's intelligence with weak-ass, easily refuted excuse making like this? Do you do that with all potential allies?