A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So give me your words again, and I'll reply. It's as simple as that. You don't have to make a whole spiel because I made a mistake in formatting. Do you know how many questions I've answered in this thread? I'm bound to make a few mistakes. This has become a smear campaign. That's all it is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You made the mistake, I pointed it out, you denied it, then I corrected you. Here is what I said: "It is entirely consistent with contra-causal free will that nothing can cause us to do anything we don't want to do. So how does this rule it out? You really have no conception at all of the meanings of the words you use, do you?"

It does not rule out this type of freedom (the ability to do what one wants to do, or choose what one wants to choose), which I've said numerous times, but it is a misnomer to call it freedom of the will. You don't know what you're talking and you can't accept it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no free will if you're using Lessans' redefinition. Just because there is nothing that can cause (or force) someone to do anything against his will, DOES NOT MAKE HIS WILL FREE. Your assertions don't mean anything.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is compatibilist free will when we are using Lessans' redefinition of determinism. The ability to make unconstrained choices DOES make our will free in the compatibilist sense of the word. Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

You know what? Talk semantics to yourself Spacemonkey. This thread has become a joke.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just said that Lessans' redefinition neither rules out compatibilist free will, and doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will, so you did claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just can't get anything right at all, can you? I did say that Lessans' redefinition does not rule out contra-causal free will. This is true. I did not say that the ability to choose means we have libertarian or contra-causal free will. Not ruling something out does not mean that it is ruled in. Something can be neither ruled in nor ruled out, but left underdetermined by a given thesis. The inverse square law of gravity does not rule out my wearing a green T-shirt tomorrow. But that doesn't mean I will wear a green T-shirt tomorrow.

You can't use this analogy. Lessans proposition does not rule out our ability to contemplate (you can say, "I did it of my own free will because I wanted to do it" and in that sense the term is used correctly), but it does RULE OUT FREE WILL. MAN DOES NOT HAVE FREE WILL. You can't have both, and determinism is the winner, thank our lucky stars, because it is this knowledge that will finally bring peace and brotherhood to our troubled world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When you continuously make such blatant logical blunders, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say? Why should anyone (including yourself) place any value on your estimation of Lessans' reasoning abilities?

I have made no blatant logical blunders. You have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, there is no free will. You don't even understand his proposition, so you are not in the position to refute it. His definition is extremely important. You can't admit that you are the one confused. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because it's just more delusional crap. When faced with refutations you cannot address you just deny that anyone understands the material and insist upon its importance. There is compatibilist free will even under Lessans' redefinition of determinism, and that redefinition doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will. His redefinition is a pointless tautology of no value whatsoever.

That's where you're mistaken. It does rule out contra-causal free will. It does not rule out freedom to choose, but the word "choice" is misleading for it implies that we are free to choose one alternative or another equally, but that's a delusion. Don't you remember anything he wrote in the book? You said you read it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not in reference to your detailed explanation of the difference between definitions and propositions. The relevance was in terms of whether you want to continue to engage with me because I'm giving you an ultimatum. It had nothing to do with that post, even though I interjected my comment there.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can shove your ultimatum. If you think it is acceptable to respond to a detailed explanation (explaining why there is no need to redefine a thesis just because it is taken to be false) by evading it only to tell me that I need to change my attitude, then you are the one in need of an attitude change.

But there is a need to redefine a thesis if the original is misleading. I don't mind talking to you when you treat me as an equal. What I don't like is your patronizing disdain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not a trivial tautology at all. You obviously don't understand where his observations came from. You have no clue what the two-sided equation is, so your answer to me that you can still be blameworthy means nothing. You don't understand that there can be no morally sub-optimal options, which only means there can be no purposeful desire to hurt others as the preferable choice under the changed conditions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's either a trivial tautology (which fails to rule out any kind of free will), or it is an empirical claim yet to be supported by any kind of evidence.

But it has been supported by empirical observations. He just didn't write his observations down on paper, which you will hold against him even when we usher in the new world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOU don't understand where his observations came from. 'Observation' is just a word you (mis)use to refer to claims from your father that you are unable to support. You know that I do understand the two-sided (non)equation, because I have explained it back to you. And your claim that there could be no purposeful desire to hurt others is just another unsupported assertion based on nothing but your and your father's ridiculous assumptions about conscience.

No, I don't believe you fully understand the two-sided equation. I've seen what you talk about regarding blameworthiness. That right there makes me know you dont' know what you're talking about. And even with your very sketchy synopsis, how can you go along with anything that Lessans says when you don't believe his first premise (that man's will is not free) so, of course, you will automatically reject the rest of his reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are supported once it is realized that these two principles that lead to the two-sided equation are impeccable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. You don't even understand the logic of your own argument. His two principles do not and cannot support his presuppositions about conscience. Those presuppositions are what is needed in addition to those principles, in order to reach his conclusions. Unless his unsupported assumptions about conscience are correct, his two-sided (non)equation doesn't get you anywhere, no matter how impeccable it is.

I'm sorry, but his observations about conscience go hand in hand with the knowledge that man's will is not free. You will not get off of this, and you will never give yourself permission to read the book, so you will be the loser Spacemonkey. You don't see it now, but you will be left behind because there will be thinkers who will get it. It's sad to me because I wanted you to understand. I know you have the capacity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have listened to your observations and they don't add up. You will only be happy if I say you're right, but you're not. What can I say? And don't put words in my mouth. I never said your ideas are worthless. They just aren't accurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then why do you accept and ask us to accept Lessans' allegedly astute observations without a jot of supporting evidence, and yet reject our astute observations as inaccurate without a moment's thought? Also, why are you still posting here? Have you worked that one out yet?

There is evidence Spacemonkey through his observations and reasoning. I don't reject out of hand all of the contributions people have made in here. But I can't in all honesty accept that these refutations are correct, and because people actually believe that they are trying to show me where I'm wrong, we're never going to meet eye to eye until further empirical testing is done, especially where the eyes are concerned.

Yes, I've worked out why I'm still posting here. For the same reason you are.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not rule out this type of freedom (the ability to do what one wants to do, or choose what one wants to choose), which I've said numerous times, but it is a misnomer to call it freedom of the will. You don't know what you're talking and you can't accept it.

If it doesn't rule out compatibilist free will, then it doesn't rule out all kinds of free will. And why is it a misnomer? Neither you nor Lessans have provided any argument against compatibilism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what? Talk semantics to yourself Spacemonkey. This thread has become a joke.

Surprise surprise. Yet another irrational non-response. Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't use this analogy. Lessans proposition does not rule out our ability to contemplate (you can say, "I did it of my own free will because I wanted to do it" and in that sense the term is used correctly), but it does RULE OUT FREE WILL. MAN DOES NOT HAVE FREE WILL. You can't have both, and determinism is the winner, thank our lucky stars, because it is this knowledge that will finally bring peace and brotherhood to our troubled world.

The analogy perfectly illustrates my point, which was that not ruling something out is not equivalent to ruling it in. Therefore you were completely wrong in claiming to have called me on my own alleged crap, because what you called me on was not the same as what I had actually said. And all you are doing above is dogmatically spouting slogans. You are completely incapable of rationally addressing the point that Lessans' useless redefinition of determinism fails to rule out either compatibilist or contra-causal free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have made no blatant logical blunders. You have.

Grow up, Janis. I just demonstrated your latest blunder. I said that Lessans' redefinition of determinism does not rule out contra-causal free will, and you thought that was the same as saying that his version of determinism means that we do have contra-causal free will. That was a blunder and it was yours.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's where you're mistaken. It does rule out contra-causal free will.

How? Explain to me how his satisfaction principle rules out the ability to make choices that are not causally determined by previous conditions. We've been over this a million times before and you've never been able to support this claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is a need to redefine a thesis if the original is misleading.

There's nothing even remotely misleading about the thesis or definition of determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it has been supported by empirical observations. He just didn't write his observations down on paper, which you will hold against him even when we usher in the new world.

And we're back to your insane faith-claims. Lessans' principle is supported because he made supporting observations of which we have no record! Guess what! That means they are now unsupported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I don't believe you fully understand the two-sided equation. I've seen what you talk about regarding blameworthiness. That right there makes me know you dont' know what you're talking about. And even with your very sketchy synopsis, how can you go along with anything that Lessans says when you don't believe his first premise (that man's will is not free) so, of course, you will automatically reject the rest of his reasoning.

There was nothing sketchy about my synopsis. I understand his work better than you do. So does everyone here. The difference is that the rest of us are not blinded by a complete inability to see its flaws.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but his observations about conscience go hand in hand with the knowledge that man's will is not free. You will not get off of this, and you will never give yourself permission to read the book, so you will be the loser Spacemonkey.

Actually, you're the one who won't give me permission to read the book. I've read everything you've been willing to share. The only sense in which his claims about conscience and his principles concerning free will go hand in hand is that you will forever blindly insist that both are true. This doesn't change the facts that the latter cannot support the former, and that Lessans does not anywhere support those points which I listed as his presuppositions about conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is evidence Spacemonkey through his observations and reasoning.

His alleged observations and reasoning are precisely what we are asking you to support. You have no evidence whatsoever for any of his claims. You have no conception of what evidence even is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't reject out of hand all of the contributions people have made in here.

Yes, you do. That is exactly what you do. And you've been doing it for years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I've worked out why I'm still posting here. For the same reason you are.

And what reason is that, Janis? Do share. Why do you continue posting only to insult your intellectual betters, at a forum where you've already convinced everyone that you're nuts?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your aim, don't you see? You are trying so hard to focus on stupid details that you would miss the entire book because I didn't put a comma in the right place. I would never hear the end of it. You can't seem to separate the wheat from the chaff, and know what's important and what is insignificant. Whether I remember the name of the drug that I took, or not, does not make me a liar, and it doesn't detract from the credibility of Lessans' book one iota.

You are in a dreamworld girl. How can you, in all seriousness, come off like you know what I'm thinking? You don't know me at all.

GTFO because of you? No way LadyShea. You don't own this place.

I don't remember the name of the drug, but that does not make me a liar LadyShea. It was quite a few years ago. At the time, the drug that was implicated for causing liver damage when I saw that it was mentioned on television. My story is true. I don't know if it was recalled or not, but I am glad I stopped taking it. If it had been a drug that I could not get off of, I would have had to deal with the risks involved. I made an honest error when I said I took something that was associated with cancer not realizing that I was going to be hounded like this, but when push came to shove I thought back and remembered it was not cancer but liver damage. I can see where you could think I was changing my story for dishonest purposes, but that's not what I was doing. Why can't you see my innocence instead of my guilt?

No, your interrogation is full of shit. The problem is your intention. You are trying to find anything you can to make me look like I'm untrustworthy. These are the tactics that lawyers use as a strategy to get the jury to doubt the other side. It's that simple. Now go eat crow!

You don't know my aims or intentions, you don't know me at all. LOL, you are such a hypocrite.

No pain med has been pulled from the market for liver problems that were not listed on the insert, because all pain meds that can cause liver problems (like anything containing acetaminophen including OTC Tylenol) are labeled as having this long well known side effect.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes you did. You have rediscovered at each forum you've been to that forums are not the right venue. Yet each time you've gone on to post at another one.

Again, you've said this all before at other past forums. I'm afraid you're still a long way from any kind of cure for your condition. You can't even stop posting here, where you've already convinced everyone that you're nuts.

Like most builders of utopia's, you have discovered that while you cannot see a single flaw in your system, it nevertheless does not work because the world is just full of the wrong kind of people

This must be the case, because all the people you run into, every single last one, seems to be either malicious, closed-minded, strongly biased or just plain stupid. Whenever anyone criticises this book, it is automatically that person's fault: they just do not get it. Understanding, in your world, means complete agreement. If complete agreement does not happen, they must fall into one of the above categories.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not rule out this type of freedom (the ability to do what one wants to do, or choose what one wants to choose), which I've said numerous times, but it is a misnomer to call it freedom of the will.

Semantics again!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what? Talk semantics to yourself Spacemonkey.

lol no u

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not rule out this type of freedom (the ability to do what one wants to do, or choose what one wants to choose), which I've said numerous times, but it is a misnomer to call it freedom of the will. You don't know what you're talking and you can't accept it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it doesn't rule out compatibilist free will, then it doesn't rule out all kinds of free will. And why is it a misnomer? Neither you nor Lessans have provided any argument against compatibilism.

Because we don't have free will. Therefore to say that it doesn't rule out contra-causal free will is incorrect. It absolutely rules it out, but you don't get his proposition whatsoever. There is no free will Spacemonkey whether it's compatibilist theory, libertarian theory, or any other theory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what? Talk semantics to yourself Spacemonkey. This thread has become a joke.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Surprise surprise. Yet another irrational non-response. Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

< skip >

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't use this analogy. Lessans proposition does not rule out our ability to contemplate (you can say, "I did it of my own free will because I wanted to do it" and in that sense the term is used correctly), but it does RULE OUT FREE WILL. MAN DOES NOT HAVE FREE WILL. You can't have both, and determinism is the winner, thank our lucky stars, because it is this knowledge that will finally bring peace and brotherhood to our troubled world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The analogy perfectly illustrates my point, which was that not ruling something out is not equivalent to ruling it in. Therefore you were completely wrong in claiming to have called me on my own alleged crap, because what you called me on was not the same as what I had actually said. And all you are doing above is dogmatically spouting slogans. You are completely incapable of rationally addressing the point that Lessans' useless redefinition of determinism fails to rule out either compatibilist or contra-causal free will.

If Lessans' observations are correct, then his redefinition is also correct, which rules out contra-causal free will but maintains his position on determinism. BTW, if contra-causal free will is ruled out (or any other type of free will), determinism is ruled in not because free will is ruled out, but because of scientific proof that man's will is not free. There can only be one or the other Spacemonkey, and determinism wins. The truth is we can only go in one direction (the direction of greater satisfaction) each and every moment of time, which rules out the ability to choose another alternative than the one that was chosen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have made no blatant logical blunders. You have.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Grow up, Janis.

There you go again with your patronizing attitude.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I just demonstrated your latest blunder. I said that Lessans' redefinition of determinism does not rule out contra-causal free will, and you thought that was the same as saying that his version of determinism means that we do have contra-causal free will. That was a blunder and it was yours.

No it does not Spacemonkey. You still don't get it. Keep saying this is over and over again. Maybe you'll be able to convince yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's where you're mistaken. It does rule out contra-causal free will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How? Explain to me how his satisfaction principle rules out the ability to make choices that are not causally determined by previous conditions. We've been over this a million times before and you've never been able to support this claim.

He was so clear in the book about this distinction. I thought you read the book Spacemonkey. He explained that the problem with the present definition is that antecedent events cause us to act a certain way, which is incorrect. Nothing causes us to do anything, not heredity, environment, or anything else, because this implies that even if we don't want to do something, we were being forced against our will. We are just given conditions that compel us to move in a certain direction. If we use the standard definition, we could then use the excuse that we were caused us to kill someone, which is untrue. That has been the dilemma and no one has been able to solve it. People could excuse their behavior by saying, "My will is not free, I could not have done otherwise", and be released of all responsibility If you don't even grasp this, you won't understanding anything else. If you for once say you understand what I'm saying, I will continue. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my breath.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is a need to redefine a thesis if the original is misleading.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There's nothing even remotely misleading about the thesis or definition of determinism.

Yes there is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it has been supported by empirical observations. He just didn't write his observations down on paper, which you will hold against him even when we usher in the new world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And we're back to your insane faith-claims. Lessans' principle is supported because he made supporting observations of which we have no record! Guess what! That means they are now unsupported.

Not true. They are supported by observation and sound reasoning. He made a discovery on death only through observation and reasoning. He didn't have to die first.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I don't believe you fully understand the two-sided equation. I've seen what you talk about regarding blameworthiness. That right there makes me know you dont' know what you're talking about. And even with your very sketchy synopsis, how can you go along with anything that Lessans says when you don't believe his first premise (that man's will is not free) so, of course, you will automatically reject the rest of his reasoning.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There was nothing sketchy about my synopsis. I understand his work better than you do. So does everyone here. The difference is that the rest of us are not blinded by a complete inability to see its flaws.

If that's what you believe we're at the end of the road.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but his observations about conscience go hand in hand with the knowledge that man's will is not free. You will not get off of this, and you will never give yourself permission to read the book, so you will be the loser Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually, you're the one who won't give me permission to read the book. I've read everything you've been willing to share. The only sense in which his claims about conscience and his principles concerning free will go hand in hand is that you will forever blindly insist that both are true. This doesn't change the facts that the latter cannot support the former, and that Lessans does not anywhere support those points which I listed as his presuppositions about conscience.

You're completely off the mark Spacemonkey. But believe what you want. The latter does support the former, and he shows how the extension of the latter is able to support the former. But you'll never get there. Oh well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is evidence Spacemonkey through his observations and reasoning.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His alleged observations and reasoning are precisely what we are asking you to support. You have no evidence whatsoever for any of his claims. You have no conception of what evidence even is.

He has evidence based on his observations. He spells it out clearly in Chapter Two. But you'll never see it because your pride is ruining it for you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't reject out of hand all of the contributions people have made in here.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you do. That is exactly what you do. And you've been doing it for years.

If what you mean by not rejecting the contributions made in here that I have to accept these contributions as evidence against Lessans, you're right. I've been doing it for years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I've worked out why I'm still posting here. For the same reason you are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And what reason is that, Janis? Do share. Why do you continue posting only to insult your intellectual betters, at a forum where you've already convinced everyone that you're nuts?

It's really none of your business why I'm here. It confounds me why someone who is so against this knowledge continues to come back for more and more and more. Makes no sense to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't know my aims or intentions, you don't know me at all. LOL, you are such a hypocrite.

No pain med has been pulled from the market for liver problems that were not listed on the insert, because all pain meds that can cause liver problems (like anything containing acetaminophen including OTC Tylenol) are labeled as having this long well known side effect.

That is not true. Fosamax is now implicated for causing necrosis of the jaw and femur. They did not know this in the beginning. Now it's listed as a possible side effect. We didn't know smoking was dangerous. Now the side effects are listed on the insert. This was not just a pain med. It was an off label used for insomnia. I was diagnosed as having fibromyalgia, and it supposedly helped with this. Thank goodness I'm feeling better, but these were tough years.

[LadyShea]

Because we don't have free will. Therefore to say that it doesn't rule out contra-causal free will is incorrect.

Even if we absolutely don't have free will, as Lessans defined free will, that does not mean his explanation/definition ruled out all possible forms of free will.

If free will is defined as the ability to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives, it is not ruled out.

rules out the ability to choose another alternative than the one which was chosen.

We can't choose what we did not choose because we can't go back in time. Yes, this is a trivial truth.

We can, however try multiple alternatives subsequently. If I chose to go right at one moment, I can go back to that intersection and try left at any later point.

If I chose not to speak 5 minutes ago, I can choose to speak now.

If I did A before I can do B now and do C tomorrow.

So choosing other than what was chosen is not ruled out completely, we simply have to choose one option at a time is all.

And, speaking from a theoretical viewpoint, it's possible that we make all possible choices at every moment in time, just in different universes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. Fosamax is now implicated for causing necrosis of the jaw and femur. They did not know this in the beginning. Now it's listed as a possible side effect. We didn't know smoking was dangerous. Now the side effects are listed on the insert. This was not just a pain med. It was an off label used for insomnia. I was diagnosed as having fibromyalgia, and it supposedly helped with this. Thank goodness I'm feeling better, but these were tough years.

I did not say nothing ever has been found to have previously unknown side effects. I said, very clearly "No 1. pain med has been 2. pulled from the market for 3. liver problems that were 4. not listed on the insert"

Necrosis of the jaw and femur is not liver problems. Fosamax has not been pulled from the market nor is it a pain med. Smoking is not a prescribed medication.

There is no drug that I can find that meets the 4 features you've given for the drug you supposedly were prescribed. So, you can backtrack all the way to "I was prescribed a drug that had side effects" (which all drugs have side effects as do most supplements) and admit you exaggerated immensely for histrionic effect, or you can find the drug you are referring to and prove me wrong.

[LadyShea]

He explained that the problem with the present definition is that antecedent events cause us to act a certain way, which is incorrect. Nothing causes us to do anything, not heredity, environment, or anything else, because this implies that even if we don't want to do something, we were being forced against our will. We are just given conditions that compel us to move in a certain direction.

The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
determinism - definition of determinism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The word cause doesn't appear in this definition. "Conditions that compel" are in the antecedent states of affairs. "Movement in a certain direction" is an inevitable consequence.

What's wrong with the definition above, peacegirl? How can you label it inaccurate?

[LadyShea]

It confounds me why someone who is so against this knowledge continues to come back for more and more and more.

It confounds me that someone who thinks everyone here is horrible, nasty, stupid, abusive and wants to nail her to a cross or burn her at the stake or put her in a hot seat continues to come back for more and more...all the while complaining about all the horribleness she is voluntarily subjecting herself to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if we absolutely don't have free will, as Lessans defined free will, that does not mean his explanation/definition ruled out all possible forms of free will.

Oh really, show me which free will we have that is not ruled out, since you know so much LadyShea. After all, you're the best detective there is in this part of the internet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If free will is defined as the ability to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives, it is not ruled out.

That's true, if you're going by the old definition. I am presenting a better, more accurate definition, in which case it rules out ALL FREE WILL ENTIRELY. You have absolute no understanding of what this man is even presenting. It's best if you listen and not talk.

rules out the ability to choose another alternative than the one which was chosen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can't choose what we did not choose because we can't go back in time. Yes, this is a trivial truth.

Trivial? Then show me how we can prove free will by not going back in time, which is impossible. If you can prove free will without having to do this, you will win the Nobel Prize. It's up for grabs, so do your best.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can, however try multiple alternatives subsequently. If I chose to go right at one moment, I can go back to that intersection and try left at any later point.

If I chose not to speak 5 minutes ago, I can choose to speak now.

If I did A before I can do B now and do C tomorrow.

What???? This is exactly in keeping with Lessans. You better go back and reread the whole book. You're lost LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So choosing other than what was chosen is not ruled out completely, we simply have to choose one option at a time is all.

And that option, once it is chosen, could not have been otherwise. So there is no free will LadyShea. You're arguing against yourself because your basic belief is in determinism. This is really funny to me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, speaking from a theoretical viewpoint, it's possible that we make all possible choices at every moment in time, just in different universes.

Ha ha, and you are supporting science, not science fiction? Then go to your parallel universe and live a good life LadyShea. Maybe I'll join you there one day and we can have coffee together.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It confounds me that someone who thinks everyone here is horrible, nasty, stupid, abusive and wants to nail her to a cross or burn her at the stake or put her in a hot seat continues to come back for more and more...all the while complaining about all the horribleness she is voluntarily subjecting herself to.

That's because I have time on my hands, but not for long. I know that I can't break through the stubborn resistance in here, so I'm not expecting it. I've learned a lot.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really, show me which free will we have that is not ruled out

I did, below. Here it is again:

free will: the ability to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives

And you agree that this form of free will is not ruled out.

Old definition new definitions blah blah blah. There are versions/forms of free will that are not ruled out by Lessans ideas, right? The one I presented is not ruled out

Yes. It is trivially true, because there is no case where "we cannot go back in time" is not true, therefore it doesn't matter what implication you are tying to it..."we cannot go back in time" is always true in all circumstances. Anything you try to imply by that will therefore also be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then show me how we can prove free will by not going back in time, which is impossible.

I am not trying to prove free will at all. I am simply demonstrating that Lessans did not rule out all possible understandings of the term

I understand free will to mean the ability to contemplate and choose from multiple alternatives. Is this ruled out by Lessans?

If there was more than one alternative available, it could have been otherwise. It is not otherwise, but it could have been.

This is the difference between necessary and actual truths you have been unable to grasp.

This is an idea found in theoretical science...specifically quantum theory

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. Fosamax is now implicated for causing necrosis of the jaw and femur. They did not know this in the beginning. Now it's listed as a possible side effect. We didn't know smoking was dangerous. Now the side effects are listed on the insert. This was not just a pain med. It was an off label used for insomnia. I was diagnosed as having fibromyalgia, and it supposedly helped with this. Thank goodness I'm feeling better, but these were tough years.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did not say nothing ever has been found to have previously unknown side effects. I said, very clearly "No 1. pain med has been 2. pulled from the market for 3. liver problems that were 4. not listed on the insert"

Necrosis of the jaw and femur is not liver problems. Fosamax has not been pulled from the market nor is it a pain med. Smoking is not a prescribed medication.

The point I was making is that side effects are often not known beforehand. I was just using cigarettes and a prescribed drug: fosomax as examples.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no drug that I can find that meets the 4 features you've given for the drug you supposedly were prescribed. So, you can backtrack all the way to "I was prescribed a drug that had side effects" (which all drugs have side effects as do most supplements) and admit you exaggerated immensely for histrionic effect, or you can find the drug you are referring to and prove me wrong.

I am not going to look up the drug just to prove you wrong. I gave an honest example. It was not a typical pain drug. It was approved for something else entirely, but was used as an off label drug because they found it helped with insomnia. As a consequence, it helped to alleviate the tender points found in fibromyalgia, therefore reducing pain, which is often due to lack of restorative sleep. LadyShea, think what you want. I am done discussing this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did, below. Here it is again:

free will: the ability to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives

And you agree that this form of free will is not ruled out.

Are you not listening? That's the entire point of his demonstration; that being able to choose between multiple possible alternatives does not mean will is free. You're going right back to the standard definition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If free will is defined as the ability to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives, it is not ruled out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, if you're going by the old definition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Old definition new definitions blah blah blah. There are versions/forms of free will that are not ruled out by Lessans ideas, right? The one I presented is not ruled out

It is ruled out; that's what he's trying to demonstrate. And you think you understand the first thing about this book?

Originally Posted by peacegilr

rules out the ability to choose another alternative than the one which was chosen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can't choose what we did not choose because we can't go back in time. Yes, this is a trivial truth.

Trivial?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes. It is trivially true, because there is no case where "we cannot go back in time" is not true, therefore it doesn't matter what implication you are tying to it..."we cannot go back in time" is always true in all circumstances. Anything you try to imply by that will therefore also be true.

In order to prove free will, we must be able to go back in time to see is we could have chosen otherwise during the exact same circumstances. It's impossible to prove free will unless this can be done. It is not trivially true just because we can't prove free will any other way. The fact remains that we cannot prove free will true in an absolute sense. We can only theorize or surmise that someone could have done differently in any given situation, but we cannot prove it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then show me how we can prove free will by not going back in time, which is impossible.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not trying to prove free will at all. I am simply demonstrating that Lessans did not rule out all possible understandings of the term

There are qualifications when using this term, which I tried to make clear. But in reality no one has free will no matter how it's defined.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I understand free will to mean the ability to contemplate and choose from multiple alternatives. Is this ruled out by Lessans?

That's exactly why Lessans proposition redefines what is meant by determinism. Being able to contemplate and choose from multiple alternatives IS the standard definition of free will, but Lessans explains that this ability does not mean man actually has freedom of the will. That's explained in his first chapter. Where have you been?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So choosing other than what was chosen is not ruled out completely, we simply have to choose one option at a time is all.

And that option, once it is chosen, could not have been otherwise. So there is no free will LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If there was more than one alternative available, it could have been otherwise. It is not otherwise, but it could have been.

No, that is an illusion. It could not have been otherwise, that's what he proves. It's impossible to choose that which is the least preferable when a more preferable alternative is available. We can't observe this directly (which is your pet peeve), but we can test this indirectly by proving that man cannot hurt others as a preferable alternative under the changed conditions of the new world. If will was free we could not accomplish this because man could hurt others regardless of the conditions that prevail.

This does not rule out that before something is done there aren't options available, but after the fact it could not have been any other way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the difference between necessary and actual truths you have been unable to grasp.

No LadyShea, it is YOU that is unable to grasp these concepts. It is a necessary truth that when a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. I don't care how many multiple options are available, it does not change the fact that we can only go in one direction, the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, speaking from a theoretical viewpoint, it's possible that we make all possible choices at every moment in time, just in different universes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ha ha, and you are supporting science, not science fiction?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is an idea found in theoretical science...specifically quantum theory

Operative word: Theoretical. Lessans is not dealing in theory. Did you listen to the link I gave on a lecture given by Tom Clark? He explained why free will (as in choosing between options in an everyday sense) is not the overarching type of free will that is being refuted.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't coming to debate ...

That's for sure!

You came to preach. And like a many preacher of Revealed Truth, you don't take kindly to anyone who doesn't accept your Revealed Truth without question.

[LadyShea]

You proved our points, peacegirl. Even if Lessans was 100% correct, his reasoning is full of holes and easily refuted.

That's the entire point of his demonstration; that being able to choose between multiple possible alternatives does not mean will is free.

It also doesn't mean the will is not free. If free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives, and Lessans determinism allows this contemplation and choice, then Lessans definition of determinism does not rule out this concept of free will. You've even agreed that it is not ruled out, multiple times.

Did you listen to the link I gave on a lecture given by Tom Clark? He explained why free will (as in choosing between options in an everyday sense) is not the overarching type of free will that is being refuted

I don't share his understanding of free will. Do you understand and agree that there are multiple prepositions that could be used to describe free will? Lessans did not rule out all possible concepts of free will.

You are, once again, left defending an unsupported assertion that man's will is not free.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
determinism - definition of determinism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The word cause doesn't appear in this definition. "Conditions that compel" are in the antecedent states of affairs. "Movement in a certain direction" is an inevitable consequence.

What's wrong with the definition above, peacegirl? How can you label it inaccurate?

The word cause doesn't have to be in the definition for it to be implied. The phrase "conditions that compel are in the antecedent states of affairs" imply that antecedent events cause or compel someone to move in a certain direction. This is very close to Lessans' definition but there is a subtle difference:

*standard definition: Conditions that compel are in the antecedent states of affairs". Movement in a certain direction is an inevitable consequence.

*Lessans' definition: Conditions that compel are in the present states of affairs. Movement in a certain direction is an inevitable consequence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You proved our points, peacegirl. Even if Lessans was 100% correct, his reasoning is full of holes and easily refuted.

His reasoning is spot on, and he is also correct.

That's the entire point of his demonstration; that being able to choose between multiple possible alternatives does not mean will is free.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It also doesn't mean the will is not free. If free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives, and Lessans determinism allows this contemplation and choice, then Lessans definition of determinism does not rule out this concept of free will. You've even agreed that it is not ruled out, multiple times.

Lessans' definition does not say free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple alternatives, that's the entire point he's making. Why do you think he made it clear by qualifying what he meant when used this phrase: "I chose it (or I did it) of my own free will", which only means I chose it (or I did it) because I wanted to (nothing made me do it); but, once again, this does not mean man's will is free, which is what most people have believed free will to mean according to the standard definition; i.e., being able to choose between multiple alternatives. That definition is useless in the context of this discussion, and why it has been revised.

Did you listen to the link I gave on a lecture given by Tom Clark? He explained why free will (as in choosing between options in an everyday sense) is not the overarching type of free will that is being refuted

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't share his understanding of free will. Do you understand and agree that there are multiple prepositions that could be used to describe free will? Lessans did not rule out all possible concepts of free will.

Of course he ruled out all possible concepts of free will. We have no free will, but that does not mean we can't contemplate alternatives before making a choice. It's just that our choices are not free because we can only go in one direction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are, once again, left defending an unsupported assertion that man's will is not free.

There are no unsupported assertions LadyShea. Not any.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The word cause doesn't have to be in the definition for it to be implied. The phrase "conditions that compel are in the antecedent states of affairs" imply that antecedent events cause or compel someone to move in a certain direction. This is very close to Lessans' definition but there is a subtle difference:

*standard definition: Conditions that compel are in the antecedent states of affairs". Movement in a certain direction is an inevitable consequence.

*Lessans' definition: Conditions that compel are in the present states of affairs. Movement in a certain direction is an inevitable consequence.

So if not antecedent states of affairs, where do the conditions and compulsion you mentioned come from and how do they come to exist in the present?

And is .00001 second ago the past (antecedent) and not the present? The present is over and past before you can finish saying the word present. So how long a time frame do you consider the present? The last 5 minutes? 2 minutes? 30 seconds? 1 second? a 10th of a second? "The present" is so fleeting, you must be using some extended time into the past to consider it measurable.

"States of affair" can include any and everything...one's mood, one's temperament, one's knowledge and experiences....hell the weather is included. Antecedent is any moment in the past, no matter how small the time frame you use to denote "not present"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's for sure!

You came to preach. And like a many preacher of Revealed Truth, you don't take kindly to anyone who doesn't accept your Revealed Truth without question.

So Einstein, Edison, Mendel, and many others, must also have been preachers because I'm sure when they were revealing their discoveries, they didn't take kindly to anyone who didn't accept their Revealed Truths, especially coming from people who said they didn't have a discovery.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1087617]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You proved our points, peacegirl. Even if Lessans was 100% correct, his reasoning is full of holes and easily refuted.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or because you don't understand English? I didn't ask if Lessans definition says that. I asked if Lessans definition of determinism RULED IT OUT.

Does Lessans concept of determinism allow for contemplation and choice between multiple possible alternatives?

If yes, then this particular concept of free will, the one I offered as an example, is not ruled out.

If you answer no, it is ruled out, then you have made multiple mistakes regarding Lessans concept of determinism, because you have stated that contemplation and choice are included.

There are multiple understandings of the term "free will" and Lessans definitions and descriptions do not rule all of them out as he has stated his concept of determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the first chapter he states that being able to contemplate and choose between multiple alternatives DOES NOT MEAN WILL IS FREE

Yes, he stated it. But, if free will is understood to mean the ability to contemplate and choose between multiple alternatives, then he has not ruled out all forms of free will...specifically not this one. That's the point I am making.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

which what most people have considererd to be what free will means. That's how it's defined, which is why we can't go by the standard definition in order to understand Lessans' definition. That definition is useless in this context.

It doesn't matter what most people consider free will to mean, nor does it matter what the standard definition is.

Lessans descriptions of determinism did not rule out all possible concepts/understandings of the term "free will". That is the point I am trying to make, as was Spacemonkey.

Did you listen to the link I gave on a lecture given by Tom Clark? He explained why free will (as in choosing between options in an everyday sense) is not the overarching type of free will that is being refuted

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't share his understanding of free will. Do you understand and agree that there are multiple prepositions that could be used to describe free will? Lessans did not rule out all possible concepts of free will.

Of course he ruled out all possible concepts of free will. We have no free will, but that does not mean can't choose. It's just that our choices are not free because we can only go in one direction.

But my concept of free will is then not ruled out.

Free will = being able to contemplate and choose between multiple possible alternatives.

Show me an excerpt of Lessans explanation that rules out this proposition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say we are not influenced by what has occurred; it's just that past circumstances don't cause actions in the present; they only

And is .00001 second ago the past (antecedent) and not the present? The present is over and past before you can finish saying the word present. So how long a time frame do you consider the present? The last 5 minutes? 2 minutes? 30 seconds? 1 second? a 10th of a second? "The present" is so fleeting, you must be using some extended time into the past to consider it measurable.

"States of affair" can include any and everything...one's mood, one's temperament, one's knowledge and experiences....hell the weather is included. Antecedent is any moment in the past, no matter how small the time frame you use to denote "not present"

All those things you mentioned come into play to affect one's choices, but the past does not cause or compel someone to move in a certain direction; it just creates conditions that arouse one's desire (depending on his life circumstances) to choose one thing over another in the direction of greater satisfaction.

p. 67 As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat
of death cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do.
He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his
environment and heredity but prefers this action because at that moment
of time he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a
normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to
another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely
crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment
of his existence to do everything he does.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So Einstein, Edison, Mendel, and many others, must also have been preachers because I'm sure when they were revealing their discoveries, they didn't take kindly to anyone who didn't accept their Revealed Truths, especially coming from people who said they didn't have a discovery.

You are totally blowing this out your ass, you know these people by name only and don't really know anything about them. Read their Bio's before you start shoveling shit about them. Whatever Lessans said about them was pulled directly out of his ass as well.