Recent content by peacegirl

DBT, these are two different discoveries. His second discovery does play a part, but it's not the one that will prevent that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. This is the two-sided equation, which people are either overlooking or handwaving away.

Yes, as they define it, but definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. Absolutely nothing. The definition of free will does not allow for this believed compatibility, if you carefully analyze it. If compatibilists were honest, they would not try to make it appear as if these two...

You are making general statements in order to distinguish contingent from necessary, but this really doesn't relate to the individual movement from moment to moment in the direction of satisfaction. Of course, you can always say that a person could have chosen this instead of that IF HE HAD...

I'm sorry but Pood's effort to prove that we have free will based on Swartz's modal logic is just beyond me. I really don't get that he believes that because contingent truths are distinguishable from necessary truths, that somehow this grants us free will. I think he is using the standard...

This whole modal logic thing does not prove that determinism is false, or compatibilism is true, when free will is a figment of the imagination. We are not interested in some future time where in another possible world, a person could drink Pepsi instead of Coke. We are saying that a contingent...

So what if it is logically possible to choose from any number of alternatives and therefore our choices are not necessary truths like 3-sided triangles. No one said they were. But you cannot use the fact that because they are not necessary truths, that it is logically possible for an...

I am not sure where the word "contingent" means something could have happened in a different way or not at all. It's just a synonym for "based on." We make decisions based (or contingent) on those antecedents that we are using to determine what our next decision will be. It certainly doesn't...

Being logically possible is not even being contested. Everyone knows it’s logically possible for Trump not to lie tomorrow or for you not to drink Coke instead of Pepsi if your antigens have changed. You are using a definition of determinism that calls for force. I am not. The very core of his...

But these writings are not compatibilism because the two are opposites if you don't cheat by changing the definition of "free will" to make them appear compatible. How can you have the ability to do otherwise (free will) and NOT have the ability to do otherwise (determinism) in the same breath...

But "contingent" does not mean "free." It means dependent on in this context. (contingent on/upon) occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

A law of nature describes, not prescribes; consequently, there is nothing wrong with saying something is a law of our nature. We are the products of the laws of our nature that created us with particular attributes that are specific to humans, and we cannot extricate ourselves from the very...

How can a contingent act (acts that could have been otherwise) be reversed after the act is executed? There is no way it can be proven that another choice could have been made as this would require going back in time to see if A could have been chosen instead of B, which is impossible. All of...

In different situations, it's obvious that when something is contingently true, our choices could be different depending on the antecedents that are being considered, but this changes nothing as far as the falseness [of the free will belief] that we could have chosen otherwise at that exact time...

It is a necessary truth not as one plus one equals two, but as a choice that was made based on what the options were and what gave "greater satisfaction" at that moment. What is it you don't get Pood? You seem to be trying very hard to make it appear as if "necessary truths" that cannot be...