Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11251  
Old 05-02-2013, 08:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you're behind bars you're not free. If you get to go to the cafeteria or to the exercise room, you're still locked up and therefore not free.
Here's a perfect example of your fallacious reasoning. If you are imprisoned you are not free to do certain things, like travel to some different place, but you are perfectly free to do other things, like think and imagine.

There are many types of freedom you are not taking into consideration, nor are you securing agreement that your narrow definition is accepted in the context of the discussion. As I said in the other thread, You cannot dictate what other people understand free will to mean, so if your arguments rest on an agreed to meaning of the terms, you will need to get that agreement up front.
I am not dictating to anyone. This is not a narrow, but an accurate, definition LadyShea. As per the previous example, you cannot be in prison and consider yourself a free person just because you get to go to the commissary to get a snack. You're still locked up. By the same token, you cannot be compelled some of the time (when you show signs of an obsession), and not be compelled (or free) the rest of the time, just because one's choices don't have the kind of emotional constraint that a strong obsession has. There is a difference in degree [only], not in kind.
Reply With Quote
  #11252  
Old 05-02-2013, 08:14 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Compatibilism was not excluded arbitrarily. What are you even talking about LadyShea? And what excluded middle are you referring to?
He failed to mention or include or consider any form of compatibilism in his argument...meaning it was excluded. As compatibilism is a big part of the free will/determinism discussion, this exclusion was arbitrary. It belongs there, but is not there, and Lessans failed to explain why. He also excluded every definition or understanding of both free will and determinism that were different from his own understanding/definitions.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Don't you ever admit that you're wrong in your analysis?
When I am wrong, yes, I admit to being wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
YOU are making false accusations that he excluded compatibilism arbitrarily.
Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And you are accusing him in a very brazen way, which gives me no room to even explain why you're wrong.
How do you figure you have no room to explain? Start explaining, you have all the room you need to type in a post and all the time in the world to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegil
Either we are compelled to move in one direction (determinism), or we're not. There IS no middle.
There is a middle, it's called compatibilism.

Also, you are again changing the argument from free will vs. determinism to determinism vs. not determinism. As I stated if you are defining the terms as opposites, then your argument is nothing more than trivially true because you are saying "X and Not X cannot both be true".
Reply With Quote
  #11253  
Old 05-02-2013, 08:17 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#1.4
Compelled action arises when one is forced by some foreign or external source to act contrary to one's will.
Quote:
compelled past participle, past tense of comĚpel (Verb)
Verb

Force or oblige (someone) to do something.
Bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure.
How did Lessans understand and define compelled? How can we apply force or pressure to ourselves?

Seems to me he was using "compelled" to mean "motivated", which does not at all include force, and motivation is heavily influenced by conscious thought. If we are merely motivated to choose that which is more preferable (and why would we not be) and if we can influence our motivations with contemplation, then Lessans version of determinism falls apart.

You need to make a case for this compulsion of our nature to actually be a compulsion (force) rather than a motivation (reason)
It doesn't matter what term you use, so don't get caught up in that.
Of course it matters, because the terms don't mean the same thing.

Quote:
There is a feeling of wanting to do something other than stay where you are, whether it's scratching your nose, turning in bed because the feeling has grown uncomfortable, or just going about your business doing what you do on an everyday basis.
Okay

Quote:
You don't have to be thinking "this is dissatisfying to me", although what is actually happening is that you are not satisfied to remain where you are, or you would never have moved at all. When I'm satisfied, I don't make a move. I stay where I am, but if something isn't satisfying, I change it, and it could be the smallest thing. It doesn't even require contemplation, which most of the time it doesn't. When I do make a move; it is often an unconscious act. Dogs don't think, "Oh I'm dissatisfied, therefore I'm going to smell this patch of grass because it gives me greater satisfaction, but in reality, that is what is happening. Life itself pushes us forward in this direction and, to repeat, it does not have to be a conscious act for this process to be working at all times.
Irrelevant to my question. If we are not compelled (forced) to make certain choices, but instead simply have reasons for making them (motivations), and those reasons can be informed and changed by our conscious contemplation, then our will is manifest in our choicesthen our will is manifest by our choices and actions rather than eliminated by force.
*Edited final sentence*


Oh my goddd, of course it is. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN???? I need another break, I'm hyperventilating.
Of course what is what? Of course our will is manifest by our choices? That is completely the opposite of what Lessans stated.
Seriously LadyShea, where have you been? Our will is manifest in every choice we make. Again, the agent still makes choices; they just aren't free ones.
Reply With Quote
  #11254  
Old 05-02-2013, 08:26 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Our will is manifest in every choice we make. Again, the agent still makes choices they just aren't free ones
This negates the argument for compulsion, then. If our choices aren't forced, that means they are free from compulsion.

Last edited by LadyShea; 05-02-2013 at 08:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11255  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Compatibilism was not excluded arbitrarily. What are you even talking about LadyShea? And what excluded middle are you referring to?
He failed to mention or include or consider any form of compatibilism in his argument...meaning it was excluded. As compatibilism is a big part of the free will/determinism discussion, this exclusion was arbitrary. It belongs there, but is not there, and Lessans failed to explain why. He also excluded every definition or understanding of both free will and determinism that were different from his own understanding/definitions.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Don't you ever admit that you're wrong in your analysis?
When I am wrong, yes, I admit to being wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
YOU are making false accusations that he excluded compatibilism arbitrarily.
Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And you are accusing him in a very brazen way, which gives me no room to even explain why you're wrong.
How do you figure you have no room to explain? Start explaining, you have all the room you need to type in a post and all the time in the world to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegil
Either we are compelled to move in one direction (determinism), or we're not. There IS no middle.
There is a middle, it's called compatibilism.

Also, you are again changing the argument from free will vs. determinism to determinism vs. not determinism. As I stated if you are defining the terms as opposites, then your argument is nothing more than trivially true because you are saying "X and Not X cannot both be true".
There is no middle LadyShea. Free will is the opposite of determinism, period. If you want to believe that the definition that compatibilists use is accurate, then stick with them. I'm not telling you what definitions to accept or not to accept.
Reply With Quote
  #11256  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Our will is manifest in every choice we make. Again, the agent still makes choices they just aren't free ones
This negates the argument for compulsion, then. If our choices aren't forced, that means they are free from compulsion.
No, you are wrong again. Being compelled does not mean being forced by something external (which the word force implies), or being forced to do anything against one's will (which the word force implies). Being compelled, in this context, means choosing what one is driven to prefer because it gives one greater satisfaction than anything it is being compared with.
Reply With Quote
  #11257  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:22 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no middle LadyShea. Free will is the opposite of determinism, period.
This is an assertion :shrug: Do you plan to support it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you want to believe that the definition that compatibilists use is accurate, then stick with them. I'm not telling you what definitions to accept or not to accept.
My argument is not about the accuracy of compatibilism nor am I arguing for compatibilism, nor are my beliefs about any of this relevant the point I am making. I am arguing that the concept of compatibilism exists and is a large part of the free will discussion and Lessans completely excluded it and shouldn't have. He created a false dilemma by this exclusion and that is fallacious reasoning.

Last edited by LadyShea; 05-02-2013 at 10:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11258  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:24 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

What happened to answering my questions? You aren't answering anything at all.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11259  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:38 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Our will is manifest in every choice we make. Again, the agent still makes choices they just aren't free ones
This negates the argument for compulsion, then. If our choices aren't forced, that means they are free from compulsion.
No, you are wrong again. Being compelled does not mean being forced by something external (which the word force implies), or being forced to do anything against one's will (which the word force implies).
That is exactly what compelled means, or are you again using some idiosyncratic definition that has not been agreed to and that nobody shares with you?
Quote:
comĚpel
/kəmˈpel/
Verb

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

Quote:
comĚpel
[kuhm-pel] Show IPA verb, comĚpelled, comĚpelĚling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2.
to secure or bring about by force.
3.
to force to submit; subdue.
4.
to overpower.
Quote:
compel [kəmˈpɛl]
vb -pels, -pelling, -pelled (tr)
1. to cause (someone) by force (to be or do something)
2. to obtain by force; exact to compel obedience
3. to overpower or subdue


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Being compelled, in this context, means choosing what one is driven to prefer because it gives one greater satisfaction than anything it is being compared with.
You are defining the term by what it means only in a single specific instance? Really? That is fallacious reasoning as well, because there is no narrower definition than that.
Reply With Quote
  #11260  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:46 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Please address this point

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
YOU are making false accusations that he excluded compatibilism arbitrarily.
Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.

So how is my charge of the false dilemma fallacy, or accusing him of excluding compatibilism arbitrarily, incorrect or "false" as you say?
Reply With Quote
  #11261  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:52 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I didn't say he was superior to anyone Spacemonkey. Why are you twisting my words? I said he was superior in his reasoning and analytical abilities, which he was. There's a difference. When this knowledge is confirmed valid, you will change your attitude. Until then, you will continue to criticize him and make every effort to discredit him.
You just said he was superior again. He wasn't. He hasn't been shown to possess any superior reasoning abilities, and you haven't shown sufficient ability to be capable of distinguishing superior from inferior reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No it is not. Your logic is twisted and flawed Spacemonkey. If a premise is flawed, there is no accuracy in anything that follows. We can only move in one direction, and no matter how you try to tell me that this isn't true, your logic is the problem, not the observation. You can logically talk yourself out of anything you want, and it may sound perfectly reasonable, but if it's flawed thinkin, then it's stinkin thinkin. :chin:
That's an assertion again. It is a mere assertion because you are not saying anything to support the claim that my logic is flawed. You are merely asserting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's just another one of your flawed conclusions, which just shows me how wrong wrong can be. :yup:
I'll bet you one hundred US dollars (to charity) that one year from now you'll either still be here doing the same thing, or you'll have started all over at a new forum doing exactly the same thing. Deal?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-02-2013)
  #11262  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:54 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Where did the photons come from?

Where did he define greater satisfaction?

Where did he support his claim of the innate potential perfection of conscience?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11263  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:56 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Okay. Where does Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'? And is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
How many times do I have to repeat that whatever choice we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction so in that sense it is tautological...
This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-

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

Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?
Bump.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11264  
Old 05-03-2013, 01:31 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

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

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

You are useing physical freedom as the only form, when in fact many people are physically restrained but free to think and imagine, and therefore are truly free in their minds. Your definitiions are narrow and extreme, but the extremes do not prove the mean, and therefore your arguments are without merit.
Reply With Quote
  #11265  
Old 05-03-2013, 02:47 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Everything is supported because the observations cannot be denied.
I deny his observations.

Damn, guess that was wrong too, peacegirl.
Yawn.. You're closer, Dragar. Read Mr. H.E's long thesis, go directly to page 29.

peacegirl, could your father do slingshots around stars? It's pretty easy, actually.
Reply With Quote
  #11266  
Old 05-03-2013, 02:49 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

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

Dragar, what are the eyes? Spherical beamsplitters? Interferometers? Something like that?
Reply With Quote
  #11267  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:18 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no middle LadyShea. Free will is the opposite of determinism, period.
This is an assertion :shrug: Do you plan to support it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you want to believe that the definition that compatibilists use is accurate, then stick with them. I'm not telling you what definitions to accept or not to accept.
My argument is not about the accuracy of compatibilism nor am I arguing for compatibilism, nor are my beliefs about any of this relevant the point I am making. I am arguing that the concept of compatibilism exists and is a large part of the free will discussion and Lessans completely excluded it and shouldn't have. He created a false dilemma by this exclusion and that is fallacious reasoning.
You are definitely arguing for compatibilism. The concept of combatibilism exists obviously, but so do many false concepts. So what? There is such thing as free will LadyShea. All he was required to do was prove his case, not have to argue every single theory out there. It's so easy to tell someone what they should have done. You have no right to do that, because you weren't in his shoes. You didn't make this discovery. So be quiet for a change instead of yapping all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #11268  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:20 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
You are useing physical freedom as the only form, when in fact many people are physically restrained but free to think and imagine, and therefore are truly free in their minds. Your definitiions are narrow and extreme, but the extremes do not prove the mean, and therefore your arguments are without merit.
You are so ignorant and you think you grasp this knowledge. I don't think there's a chance that you will ever grasp this knowledge at all. It just won't penetrate. Freedom to think and imagine is not even close to what we are talking about. You can be free to think and imagine and still have no free will.
Reply With Quote
  #11269  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:25 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Okay. Where does Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'? And is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
How many times do I have to repeat that whatever choice we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction so in that sense it is tautological...
This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-

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

Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?
b) Whatever choice you make, it will always be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is a necessary truth, so now you're saying that necessary truths and contingent truths don't mix? Is that it?
Reply With Quote
  #11270  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:28 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Where did the photons come from?

Where did he define greater satisfaction?

Where did he support his claim of the innate potential perfection of conscience?
It's all explained and it's all there Spacemonkey. He didn't talk about photons, and he didn't have to. He didn't define greater satisfaction; he didn't have to. We know what satisfaction means, I would hope. Greater is just added onto it, which means "more satisfied or content". It's not that difficult Spacemonkey, and you're making much ado about nothing for reasons that only you know. Moreover, he clearly shows how conscience functions under optimal conditions, and how it will not permit a person to hurt another for unjustified reasons. He did not presuppose anything.
Reply With Quote
  #11271  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:37 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Please address this point

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
YOU are making false accusations that he excluded compatibilism arbitrarily.
Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.

So how is my charge of the false dilemma fallacy, or accusing him of excluding compatibilism arbitrarily, incorrect or "false" as you say?
If you understand his reasoning, it is clear why compatibilism is not valid. Any definition can be made up to justify what you want it to. In this case, compabilists want to believe in both positions because each offers something. Determinism is getting more and more attention because we know that everything else in the universe is related to every other event, but the problem is that this belief would allow people to become morally irresponsible. So guess what? Compatibilism was borne. This way we can keep determinism, but we can also justify holding people morally accountable. We kill two birds with one stone. The only problem is we don't have free will. :chin:
Reply With Quote
  #11272  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:40 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I didn't say he was superior to anyone Spacemonkey. Why are you twisting my words? I said he was superior in his reasoning and analytical abilities, which he was. There's a difference. When this knowledge is confirmed valid, you will change your attitude. Until then, you will continue to criticize him and make every effort to discredit him.
You just said he was superior again. He wasn't. He hasn't been shown to possess any superior reasoning abilities, and you haven't shown sufficient ability to be capable of distinguishing superior from inferior reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No it is not. Your logic is twisted and flawed Spacemonkey. If a premise is flawed, there is no accuracy in anything that follows. We can only move in one direction, and no matter how you try to tell me that this isn't true, your logic is the problem, not the observation. You can logically talk yourself out of anything you want, and it may sound perfectly reasonable, but if it's flawed thinkin, then it's stinkin thinkin. :chin:
That's an assertion again. It is a mere assertion because you are not saying anything to support the claim that my logic is flawed. You are merely asserting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's just another one of your flawed conclusions, which just shows me how wrong wrong can be. :yup:
I'll bet you one hundred US dollars (to charity) that one year from now you'll either still be here doing the same thing, or you'll have started all over at a new forum doing exactly the same thing. Deal?
You'll never know whether I'm doing the same thing because you'll never find me. And I don't need your money. Deal or no deal? NO DEAL. :wave:
Reply With Quote
  #11273  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:56 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Please address this point

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
YOU are making false accusations that he excluded compatibilism arbitrarily.
Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.

So how is my charge of the false dilemma fallacy, or accusing him of excluding compatibilism arbitrarily, incorrect or "false" as you say?
If you understand his reasoning, it is clear why compatibilism is not valid. Any definition can be made up to justify what you want it to. In this case, compabilists want to believe in both positions because each offers something. Determinism is getting more and more attention because we know that everything else in the universe is related to every other event, but the problem is that this belief would allow people to become morally irresponsible. So guess what? Compatibilism was borne. This way we can keep determinism, but we can also justify holding people morally accountable. We kill two birds with one stone. The only problem is we don't have free will. :chin:
The validity of compatibilism is irrelevant to my point
Reply With Quote
  #11274  
Old 05-03-2013, 04:03 AM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCLXXVIII
Images: 8
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You'll never know whether I'm doing the same thing because you'll never find me. And I don't need your money. Deal or no deal? NO DEAL. :wave:
Seriously? When you went off to Project Reason to entice Sam Harris to read the book, I found you in under a minute with a simple Google search.

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

I suppose you could pick forums that have no publicly viewable content. That will help ensure the book will be discovered by fewer people.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-03-2013), Spacemonkey (05-03-2013)
  #11275  
Old 05-03-2013, 05:23 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no middle LadyShea. Free will is the opposite of determinism, period.
This is an assertion :shrug: Do you plan to support it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you want to believe that the definition that compatibilists use is accurate, then stick with them. I'm not telling you what definitions to accept or not to accept.
My argument is not about the accuracy of compatibilism nor am I arguing for compatibilism, nor are my beliefs about any of this relevant the point I am making. I am arguing that the concept of compatibilism exists and is a large part of the free will discussion and Lessans completely excluded it and shouldn't have. He created a false dilemma by this exclusion and that is fallacious reasoning.
You are definitely arguing for compatibilism. The concept of combatibilism exists obviously, but so do many false concepts. So what? There is such thing as free will LadyShea. All he was required to do was prove his case, not have to argue every single theory out there. It's so easy to tell someone what they should have done. You have no right to do that, because you weren't in his shoes. You didn't make this discovery. So be quiet for a change instead of yapping all the time.
Compatibilism is not some obscure viewpoint that can just be dismissed from a discussion of free will and determinism. By arbitrarily excluding compatibilism from his argument, he created a false dichotomy and that is fallacious reasoning. That is not sound reasoning. I have every right to point out poor reasoning in a book that is supposed to demonstrate exceptional reasoning.

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


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

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

Last edited by LadyShea; 05-03-2013 at 06:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (05-03-2013)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.34988 seconds with 14 queries