“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

pood said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

bilby said:

peacegirl said:

Is this it? Does everyone

Click to expand...

Hasty generalisation

peacegirl said:

think man’s will is free because of a modal fallacy

Click to expand...

Non sequitur

peacegirl said:

that would ruin our chances of peace on earth?

Click to expand...

Argument from consequences

peacegirl said:

If anyone here has misgivings

Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion

peacegirl said:

or proof that we cannot have free will at the same time we have free will (a complete contradiction),

Click to expand...

Question begging and poisoning the well

peacegirl said:

please come forward! I need help!

Click to expand...

Evidently.

peacegirl said:

DBT, if it were not for you, I would have given up with this thread entirely.

Click to expand...

Don't try to shift the blame.

Click to expand...

We have decision-making. We have the ability to perceive the world and respond to its events. Given determinism, our abilities and attributes, how we respond to events has nothing to with the power of will, yet alone free will.

Click to expand...

I am curious what you think about people having the willpower to get something accomplished, which obviously is the result of their heredity and environment and the antecedents that caused it. Are you saying that decisions are made by bypassing our will altogether, or are you saying that decisions we make bypass our FREE will?

Click to expand...

Will just isn't the means or the mechanism by which decisions and actions are made. That is the role and function of the brain.

The brain acquires and processes information which is used to generate conscious experience, feelings, thoughts, deliberations and actions, including the associated will or drive to act, where the underlying information processing is feeding information into conscious experience....where the processing has made the decision milliseconds before the thought, decision and will to act becomes conscious.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to clarify the our will is the ultimate decision maker. As Lessans said: Without the will’s consent, the action based on that decision cannot be executed (you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink), which many people are confused about. They think determinism is forcing them to do something against their will, which is incorrect.

Click to expand...

Right, it’s incorrect. So what your author is talking about is … compatibilism.

Click to expand...

Being able to do what you want because it is your preference IS NOT COMPATIBILISM. Compatibilism tries to reconcile no free will with free will. This is not what the author is doing. Why are you trying to misrepresent him? You were the one that said INCORRECTLY that when he said: he "was compelled, of his own free will," it was a contradiction.

The author described his discovery as a two-sided equation, although it has nothing to do with numbers per se. Throughout the book he uses the phrase “compelled, of his own free will” which may sound contradictory at first blush. The expression, “of his own free will,” is used in a colloquial sense, which only means that he was not being coerced or forced to do anything against his will. It does not mean his will is free.

To repeat, "of his own free will" only means "of his own desire" but this does not mean he was doing anything of his own free will (the compatiblist type of free will which gives freedom to anyone who doesn't have OCD or doesn't have a gun to his head). He clarified this many times so that people would understand that being compelled to do what one does, does not mean being forced against one's will to do anything. You have the intellectual capacity to understand this Pood. I have no idea why this is so hard for you to grasp other than your unwillingness to give up on the falseness of compatibilism.

[Note: It must be understood that the expression ‘of your own free will,’ which is an expression I use throughout the book, only means ‘of your own desire,’ but this does not mean will is free. If you need further clarification, please reread Chapter One].

Click to expand...

It’s not at all hard to grasp. We are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is just a way to say that we always do what we prefer, because why would we do what we don’t prefer?

Click to expand...

It doesn't ask the question why. It just is. We cannot choose what we prefer less than what we prefer more, is available. I might prefer running into a burning building over not doing this. Now that I did this to save someone, I could not not have preferred it at that moment because it would have given me less satisfaction, which would have been IMPOSSIBLE given my heredity and environment. Looking back, I could only have gone in one direction, which is exactly why will is not free. Each moment of time gives us only one option. The word choice is deceptive because it implies all options are equally possible, but that is a realistic mirage.

pood said:

To say that nobody and nothing can make us do, what we don’t to do — and that includes determinism, as you just said — combines, with the first premise, to form … compatibilism. Determinism doesn’t make you do, what you don’t want to do, and doesn’t compel you to do, what you want to do — you do it because you want to, not because of the mythical hard determinism — is … compatibilism, stated in different words.

Click to expand...

No it is not, it's not even close. Determinism does not separate people who don't have a gun to their head as having the free will to choose otherwise. That is libertarianism stated in different words. Compatibilism is made up; it's a fabricated definition with no corresponding reality. It gives some a pass (those with internal challenges) and others not (those who don't seem to have the same internal challenges). They make a false distinction which has given rise to a false definition of what constitutes freedom and what constitutes compulsion. We are back to square one. IOW, it is believed that if people choose to hurt someone (without being forced by a gun), then they had the free will to do otherwise which, in society's eyes, holds them morally accountable. I understand why this feeling of accountability is so hard to let go of (it's the very cornerstone of law and order as we know it), but this is not how determinism works Pood. This is an invariable law, and everyone is included in the law, not just some.

peacegirl said:

Janice, it has taken me many years to get this done. I have not marketed at all. Only a handful of people even know about this discovery, so you cannot use how many books were bought to judge whether this discovery is sound. Isn't that what you're trying to do? Actually, I wrote a children's book as well based on this knowledge. I haven't had the chance to market this book either. If anyone here has young children, they might want to buy it to read to their kids.

https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Safe-Mr-See-More-Safety-ebook/dp/B00S7AWVZM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=11N3SF8ON42SK&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DS-Ed9cBvLnBOF0W27ONBkRl3ypE0Gr7k8eX7MmbcSvHuamn6ydCmySqEKtAEPSm.KVwErWblA5uY6fQkyQ_NueYqmTUxAIw4v9Bnup7Kt_k&dib_tag=se&keywords=playing+it+safe+with+mr.+see-more+safety&qid=1729165846&sprefix=playing+it+safe+with+mr.+see-more+safety%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-1

Click to expand...

Thank you, @peacegirl - my questions for you are about the logistical and practical details of the process of going from a rough draft to a ... I suppose, pdf? I get that part, and could do it - to uploading, to ??? (what happens next?) - to obtaining the ISBN. I understand the concept of POD, but I don't know any authors who can or will tell me about the bells and whistles, the features and failures, of the POD platforms you use.

I asked if any sites tracked your sales because it's a feature I'd like to have, if I do POD, but it's only one nitpicking question I have about what I view as your success. You're experienced, you're an expert to me.

I was not asking you what your sales were, no. I wanted your opinions of the different platforms and their offerings, and your suggestions for potential authors, based on your personal views.

My questions are totally off-topic, in this thread, and in this Philosophy forum. I only asked here because I knew you'd see me interrupting this discussion with irrelevant nerd nonsense.

Apologies, because I have too many questions about the process, not the content, and if you do reply, it would be more of a derail (unless you didn't mind).

Janice Rael said:

peacegirl said:

Janice, it has taken me many years to get this done. I have not marketed at all. Only a handful of people even know about this discovery, so you cannot use how many books were bought to judge whether this discovery is sound. Isn't that what you're trying to do? Actually, I wrote a children's book as well based on this knowledge. I haven't had the chance to market this book either. If anyone here has young children, they might want to buy it to read to their kids.

https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Safe-Mr-See-More-Safety-ebook/dp/B00S7AWVZM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=11N3SF8ON42SK&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DS-Ed9cBvLnBOF0W27ONBkRl3ypE0Gr7k8eX7MmbcSvHuamn6ydCmySqEKtAEPSm.KVwErWblA5uY6fQkyQ_NueYqmTUxAIw4v9Bnup7Kt_k&dib_tag=se&keywords=playing+it+safe+with+mr.+see-more+safety&qid=1729165846&sprefix=playing+it+safe+with+mr.+see-more+safety%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-1

Click to expand...

Thank you, @peacegirl - my questions for you are about the logistical and practical details of the process of going from a rough draft to a ... I suppose, pdf? I get that part, and could do it - to uploading, to ??? (what happens next?) - to obtaining the ISBN. I understand the concept of POD, but I don't know any authors who can or will tell me about the bells and whistles, the features and failures, of the POD platforms you use.

Click to expand...

Some people are saying ISBNs are not necessary because there are other ways to identify a book. I bought them and I'm not sorry. They're not cheap unless you buy in bulk. Most distributors will give you a free barcode if you are creating a print version. Go to: myidentifiers.com to learn more. If you really want to go from a rough draft to being published, it's not that hard with the tools that are available. But you still have to be motivated because there are a lot of steps to go through. And then...there is the marketing aspect, which can turn into a big expense. You should also know what your niche is and how your book would offer something different than what's already out there. Or you could put a different spin on it. That takes quite a bit of research as well.

Janice Rael said:

I asked if any sites tracked your sales because it's a feature I'd like to have, if I do POD, but it's only one nitpicking question I have about what I view as your success. You're experienced, you're an expert to me.

Click to expand...

I'm really not an expert. It's pretty much self-explanatory as you go through the process. If you're not familiar with formatting, you will need someone to help you create a digital version of your book called an epub. Some vendors will accept a file from a WORD document or a PDF. Draft2digital is another distributor I use because they handle many distribution channels. They have created a new business model with Smashwords. I am not sure of the details, but you can google it. They make 10% of the sale of your book. As with everything, there are good and bad reviews.

Janice Rael said:

I was not asking you what your sales were, no. I wanted your opinions of the different platforms and their offerings, and your suggestions for potential authors, based on your personal views.

Click to expand...

If you use a particular distributor, such as kdp (an Amazon partner), once you upload your book and make sales, there is a page that will show you your quarterly profits. You have to fill out all your tax and bank information. You should be able to access that information with any distributor you work with.

Janice Rael said:

My questions are totally off-topic, in this thread, and in this Philosophy forum. I only asked here because I knew you'd see me interrupting this discussion with irrelevant nerd nonsense.

Apologies, because I have too many questions about the process, not the content, and if you do reply, it would be more of a derail (unless you didn't mind).

Click to expand...

I stopped using a POD company (Trafford) and created my own since you still have to do your own marketing, and I wanted to be my own boss. There was really nothing they could do that I couldn't do myself, since Print on Demand publishing does not require you to keep inventory. Then you sign up with a distributor. Some create only digital ebooks but many are coming into the print book industry as well. Amazon wants exclusivity using kdp, but you don't have to sign up for this. You just make less royalty per book (30% vs. 70%), but you are not beholden to them. I hope I gave you something that can get you started. Good luck on your endeavor!

For more information on self-publishing, this guy may be helpful to you:

Thank you for ALL of those details, @peacegirl - I appreciate it,

Compatibilism either stands or falls on the validity of its own terms. Compatibilism fails to make a case because its definition of free will focuses on freedom from external necessitation,not being forced, coerced or unduly influenced, yet ignores inner necessity, genetics, neural architecture, the non-chosen means and mechanisms of thought, deliberation and response.

Janice Rael said:

Thank you for ALL of those details, @peacegirl - I appreciate it,

Click to expand...

You’re very welcome.

DBT said:

Compatibilism either stands or falls on the validity of its own terms. Compatibilism fails to make a case because its definition of free will focuses on freedom from external necessitation,not being forced, coerced or unduly influenced, yet ignores inner necessity, genetics, neural architecture, the non-chosen means and mechanisms of thought, deliberation and response.

Click to expand...

Ignoring inner necessity, genetics, neural architecture, the non-chosen means and mechanisms of thought, deliberation and response demonstrate the lack of careful analysis by creating a definition that leaves the most important part out, inner necessity. In so many words, they are no more up on the debate than asking a layman on the street if he believes he has free will. He, like the compatibilists, would say “of course I have free will. I don’t have a gun to my head, therefore I have the freedom to choose whatever I want. In fact I was going to have cheerios for breakfast but to prove I have the free will to change my mind (my decision to eat cheerios is not etched in stone), I am going to eat eggs. This proves I have free will.” This in no way proves free will. It actually shows that one’s preference can change from minute to minute depending on the antecedents that are being used to make a particular decision.

This is an extremely superficial understanding of free will. But that’s exactly the compatibilist definition; no gun to someone’s head or no OCD equals free will. They are measuring the degree of compulsion, not realizing that anytime there is a meaningful difference (even choosing between two inconsequential things), they are still under a compulsion to choose the most preferable of those options, rendering any other choice an impossibility at that moment

This also flies in the face their own definition of determinism that they have agreed upon. The problem is due to the issue of moral responsibility, which this author addresses. Responsibility is increased, not decreased, with this new understanding. But as you said, there’s too much emotion tied up in this subject which will not allow people to be the least bit objective.

This topic is played out for me, so I will simply summarize my position. Anyone interested in the details can refer to my earlier posts.

Although DBT repeatedly states that compatibilists accept the “terms and conditions” of determinism as outlined by him, this is factually incorrect. He is not advocating for determinism, but for hard determinism, aka PRE-determinism — that everything we do now, was set at the big bang. Although he has equivocated on this point when questioned, the upshot of his position is that the big bang wrote current concert symphonies and designed skyscrapers some 14 billion years ago, an obvious absurdity. Actual determinism has intervening steps, which include thinking minds that evaluate and choose in the present

Hard determinism (not determinism) commits a clear modal fallacy, which I have outlined in detail.

Even if the hard determinist accepts that he has committed a modal fallacy and falls back on the position that hard determinism makes doing other than what we do a physical, as opposed to logical, impossibility, he is still out of luck, because I can easily show that I CAN do otherwise by the simple expedient of choosing Pepsi instead of the Coke I would always choose otherwise.

At this point, the hard determinist, or pre-determinist, simply rearranges the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic of his dogma, by arguing that in that particular context, I was forced (by what??) to pick Pepsi, just to show I can do it — huh? Yet this strange argument elides the distinction between “picking Pepsi,” which is physically possible for me to do even though I don’t normally do it, and things that really are physically impossible for me to do, like flapping my arms and flying, picking up a Mack truck with my bare hands, or teleporting myself to the moon.

His argument at this point is totally circular, in the same way that peacegirl’s author’s argument is totally circular. Her author simply DEFINES whatever we choose as “moving in the direction of greatest satisfaction,” while the hard determinist simply DEFINES whatever we choose as pre-determined. It’s the philosophy of “heads I win, tails you lose,” and hence meaningless, because you cannot validly incorporate your conclusion into one of your premises.

Q.E.D., again.

pood said:

This topic is played out for me, so I will simply summarize my position. Anyone interested in the details can refer to my earlier posts.

Although DBT repeatedly states that compatibilists accept the “terms and conditions” of determinism as outlined by him, this is factually incorrect. He is not advocating for determinism, but for hard determinism, aka PRE-determinism — that everything we do now, was set at the big bang. Although he has equivocated on this point when questioned, the upshot of his position is that the big bang wrote current concert symphonies and designed skyscrapers some 14 billion years ago, an obvious absurdity.

Click to expand...

It actually is not if you want to go back that far. But it's not necessary to understand every single movement since the Big Bang that led us to where we are today. All we need to show is that given the antecedents that our brain is using to analyze what to do next (which considerations we have no control over), we are compelled to move in one direction—the direction of what gives us the greatest satisfaction at that exact moment, even if it's to risk our life for the life of another. You keep trying to dismiss KDP's correct analysis of determinism. Rightfully so, he explained why determinism is true by showing that nothing could have been different going back in time. It may bother you to think that we are all products of what came before we were even born, but it's absolutely true that we cannot escape our background, history, genetics, personalities, predispositions, environment, and everything leading up to the present moment, which has everything to do with where we were born and the opportunities given to us. Some are luckier than others, but this does not mean they are worthier or more entitled than anyone else. No one is self-made.

pood said:

Actual determinism has intervening steps, which include thinking minds that evaluate and choose in the present

Hard determinism (not determinism) commits a clear modal fallacy, which I have outlined in detail.

Click to expand...

Let me be clear: There is no such thing as hard and soft determinism. There is only determinism Pood. You are not going to get away with this flawed definition.

pood said:

Even if the hard determinist accepts that he has committed a modal fallacy and falls back on the position that hard determinism makes doing other than what we do a physical, as opposed to logical, impossibility, he is still out of luck, because I can easily show that I CAN do otherwise by the simple expedient of choosing Pepsi instead of the Coke I would always choose otherwise.

Click to expand...

That's just the point. You cannot prove that you could have done otherwise given the same exact moment in time. It's impossible without a sleight of hand trickery by saying that, given a new set of conditions, you could do otherwise. Of course you could, but that's not what is being addressed. This has been pointed out to you ad nauseum.

pood said:

At this point, the hard determinist, or pre-determinist, simply rearranges the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic of his dogma, by arguing that in that particular context, I was forced (by what??) to pick Pepsi, just to show I can do it — huh? Yet this strange argument elides the distinction between “picking Pepsi,” which is physically possible for me to do even though I don’t normally do it, and things that really are physically impossible for me to do, like flapping my arms and flying, picking up a Mack truck with my bare hands, or teleporting myself to the moon.

Click to expand...

To believe that because it's physically possible for you to pick Pepsi over Coke (according to modal logic in regard to contingency versus necessity and contrary to the three-sided triangle example) that this is proof that at the moment Coke was chosen, you could have chosen Pepsi, is mistaken. The entire proposition is flawed, so no matter how valid it may appear, the conclusion IS FALSE.

pood said:

His argument at this point is totally circular, in the same way that peacegirl’s author’s argument is totally circular. Her author simply DEFINES whatever we choose as “moving in the direction of greatest satisfaction,”

Click to expand...

That is true. You cannot move in the direction of what is least satisfying when something more satisfying is available. You can't do it, but that doesn't mean that this observation is tautological or has no value.

Certainly not Circular

One more confusion I want to clarify. Some people insist that tautologies are useless because they are examples of “circular reasoning” (more precisely called “begging the question”). Colloquially, circular reasoning is where you assert your conclusion as a premise. For example:

“Judy is the tallest girl in the class because she is the tallest girl in the class.”

This proposition merely states its conclusion as a premise. To some, this might look like a tautology – “A because A”. But crucially, this is not a tautology; there is an obvious circumstance in which the conclusion is false: if Judy is not the tallest girl in the class – a possibility which doesn’t entail any logical contradiction. This is what differentiates circular reasoning from tautologies.

Contrast this to the proposition, “All of the students in class are students”.

This is a proper tautology; there’s no possible circumstance in which it isn’t true. Negating the conclusion would imply a contradiction – i.e. that “some of the students in class are not students”.

So no, tautologies are not circular. They are simply true in all circumstances. Or you might say “they are not false in any circumstance.” Being necessarily true is a poor reason to dismiss an idea as trivial or redundant.

Overall, it’s a grave error to overlook the usefulness and profundity of tautologies. Not only should we examine them, we should embrace them and incorporate them into the foundations of our ideas.

Discovering tautologies is exciting, and it’s literally synonymous with discovering truth. Not to mention: any sound deductions that follow from tautologies are also necessarily true. If we construct theories that are founded on necessarily-true premises, we can built a robust worldview that is justified all the way to its foundations.

Tautologies Must Not Be Dismissed | Steve Patterson

Trivial. Redundant. Dogmatic. Useless. That’s what people really mean when they say, “Oh, your argument is just a tautology.”

steve-patterson.com

pood said:

while the hard determinist simply DEFINES whatever we choose as pre-determined. It’s the philosophy of “heads I win, tails you lose,” and hence meaningless, because you cannot validly incorporate your conclusion into one of your premises.

Q.E.D., again.

Click to expand...

You did not prove what you set out to do. No one knows in advance what someone will choose in the direction of greater satisfaction. We can only make calculated guesses, but this alone doesn't change the fact that whatever is chosen (whether it is considering options or just scratching an itch) is moving away from a dissatisfying position to a position that is more satisfying. This is observed even in the animal kingdom, although the word "satisfaction" is not what we think of when we are referring to animal behavior.

pood said:

This topic is played out for me, so I will simply summarize my position. Anyone interested in the details can refer to my earlier posts.

Although DBT repeatedly states that compatibilists accept the “terms and conditions” of determinism as outlined by him, this is factually incorrect. He is not advocating for determinism, but for hard determinism, aka PRE-determinism — that everything we do now, was set at the big bang. Although he has equivocated on this point when questioned, the upshot of his position is that the big bang wrote current concert symphonies and designed skyscrapers some 14 billion years ago, an obvious absurdity. Actual determinism has intervening steps, which include thinking minds that evaluate and choose in the present

Click to expand...

What exactly is factually incorrect? I cite the basic accepted definition of free will as given by compatibilist.

Basically: to act according to your own will without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.

Freedom According to Classical Compatibilism
According to one strand within classical compatibilism, freedom is nothing more than an agent’s ability to do what she wishes in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way. For instance, Hobbes offers an exemplary expression of classical compatibilism when he claims that a person’s freedom consists in his finding “no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe [sic]” (Leviathan, p.108).

Where causal determinism is defined as; ''Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.''

These are not my personal definitions.

So it is due to the given definitions of free will and determinism that the argument for compatibility fails.

Not because I say so, but a failure to account for inner necessitation, the means and mechanisms by which our thoughts, deliberations and actions are formed, brought to consciousness and carried out.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

DBT said:

pood said:

This topic is played out for me, so I will simply summarize my position. Anyone interested in the details can refer to my earlier posts.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I hope this discussion can get beyond this argument so that I can show how the truth of determinism increases moral responsibility to such a degree that the old paradigm of blame and punishment will be put to shame.

A man is so prone to systems and to abstract conclusions that he is prepared to distort the truth on purpose, prepared to deny the visible and the audible just so he can justify his own logic.

Fiyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes From Underground

DBT said:

pood said:

Although DBT repeatedly states that compatibilists accept the “terms and conditions” of determinism as outlined by him, this is factually incorrect. He is not advocating for determinism, but for hard determinism, aka PRE-determinism — that everything we do now, was set at the big bang. Although he has equivocated on this point when questioned, the upshot of his position is that the big bang wrote current concert symphonies and designed skyscrapers some 14 billion years ago, an obvious absurdity. Actual determinism has intervening steps, which include thinking minds that evaluate and choose in the present

Click to expand...

Why are you misrepresenting him? He never said or implied that the big bang wrote current concert symphonies and designed skyscrapers. What the hell!! He was right in that every single movement from every single living thing was done not of their own free will. This means that up until the present moment, everything that happened was necessary, but to say that the big bang caused our present-day decisions directly is a complete misrepresentation.

What exactly is factually incorrect? I cite the basic accepted definition of free will as given by compatibilist.

Basically: to act according to your own will without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.

Freedom According to Classical Compatibilism
According to one strand within classical compatibilism, freedom is nothing more than an agent’s ability to do what she wishes in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way. For instance, Hobbes offers an exemplary expression of classical compatibilism when he claims that a person’s freedom consists in his finding “no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe [sic]” (Leviathan, p.108).

Where causal determinism is defined as; ''Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.''

These are not my personal definitions.

So it is due to the given definitions of free will and determinism that the argument for compatibility fails.

Not because I say so, but a failure to account for inner necessitation, the means and mechanisms by which our thoughts, deliberations and actions are formed, brought to consciousness and carried out.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

Click to expand...

It becomes a challenge because compatibilism is contradictory, by definition.

peacegirl said:

...compatibilism is contradictory, by definition.

Click to expand...

The 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 59% of professional English-speaking philosophers "Accept or lean towards" compatibilism.

I think there's an extremely high probability that your understanding of compatibilism is flawed.

The AntiChris said:

peacegirl said:

...compatibilism is contradictory, by definition.

Click to expand...

The 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 59% of professional English-speaking philosophers "Accept or lean towards" compatibilism.

I think there's an extremely high probability that your understanding of compatibilism is flawed.

Click to expand...

This is not a popularity contest It’s about what is true based on facts!! Compatibilism tries to reconcile free will with determinism but they fail. They try to maintain the status quo by stating some people have the free will not to do what society judges wrong, so they can be punished for their wrongdoing. According to them, if they are not addicts, don’t have OCD, and don’t have a gun to their head, then that meets the qualifications of what constitutes morally irresponsible behavior and, as such, they are now subject to the laws that are in existence to protect society. According to compatibilists, these people could have acted differently, and they now have to pay the price for what they did. Where is this any different than libertarianism? I am not saying that confining a person to an institution who commits a crime should go free. All I am saying is that there is a better way of preventing what no one wants.

At the same time compatibilists state that determinism is true, they have created a definition to make it appear that these two opposite ideologies somehow are compatible! We can’t have both due to the law of contradiction. To rectify this, they call it “soft determinism,” another fabricated definition which states that determinism and free will are not opposites and that a person is free to act otherwise if their inner compulsion is weak. The degree of compulsion does not change the brain’s circuitry that moves us from a position of dissatisfaction to a position of “greater” satisfaction (regardless of the strength or weakness of the compulsion), or we would remain where we are without moving a hairs breath. This is an invariable law without exception. Deciding what to eat for breakfast follows the same neural pathway as someone deciding whether or not to rob a bank. Neither has free will, even though this debate (which has gone on for centuries because of its importance) is only concerned with the man who may decide to rob the bank.

peacegirl said:

This is not a popularity contest

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

The AntiChris said:

peacegirl said:

This is not a popularity contest

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

Click to expand...

What point did I miss?

peacegirl said:

The AntiChris said:

peacegirl said:

This is not a popularity contest

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

Click to expand...

What point did I miss?

Click to expand...

That free will and determinism are not contradictory, maybe?

pood said:

peacegirl said:

The AntiChris said:

peacegirl said:

This is not a popularity contest

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

Click to expand...

What point did I miss?

Click to expand...

That free will and determinism are not contradictory, maybe?

Click to expand...

I give up! I thought you were done posting.

peacegirl said:

The AntiChris said:

peacegirl said:

This is not a popularity contest

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

Click to expand...

What point did I miss?

Click to expand...

Ok I'll try to spell it out.

It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a rational position to adopt.

From this it would suggest that your understanding of compatibilism is not the same as that of 59% of philosophers. This is why I said your understanding of compatibilism is flawed (mistaken).

The AntiChris said:

peacegirl said:

The AntiChris said:

peacegirl said:

This is not a popularity contest

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point.

If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

Click to expand...

What point did I miss?

Click to expand...

Ok I'll try to spell it out.

It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a rational position to adopt.

Click to expand...

It’s not that they’re incapable; it’s that the subject matter is difficult. That’s why there are so many papers and books written on this very topic.

The AntiChris said:

From this it would suggest that your understanding of compatibilism is not the same as that of 59% of philosophers. This is why I said your understanding of compatibilism is flawed (mistaken).

Click to expand...

I think I understand the basics of compatibilism. It’s not my perception that is flawed. It’s the modal logic that tries to reconcile free will with determinism in a way that isn’t contradictory. But there’s no way it can be done. If “I could do otherwise,” that means that “I could not do otherwise”doesn’t hold. And vice versa, if “I could not do otherwise,” that means “I could do otherwise” doesn’t hold. They are polar opposites. However, this discovery (I don’t know where you came into the conversation) lies locked behind the door of determinism). It does not condone criminal behavior (where punishment or confinement is necessary to protect society). Rather, it prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Wouldn’t you want a world where these criminal acts were prevented rather than after they have already occurred?

peacegirl said:

I think I understand the basics of compatibilism. It’s not my perception that is flawed.

Click to expand...

I'm not getting through.

If your understanding is that compatibilism is "contradictory by definition" then it's not the same compatibilism that is accepted/leant towards by the majority of professional philosophers.

You are arguing a against a strawman version of compatibilism.