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

[peacegirl]

Once more, for the hard of reading:

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that determinism and free will are incompatible. The hard determinist rejects free will. The libertarian rejects determinism.

The hard determinist says given antecedents x and y, a person MUST do z. The libertarian says given antecedents x and y, a person can and will do whatever the hell he, she, or they wants.

The compatiblist accepts both determinism and free will. The compatibilist says that given antecedents x and y, a person WILL (but not MUST!) do z. Could he have done differently? Certainly. But to actually have done differently, antecedents would have been different.

Hope that helps. Not holding my breath.

You're wrong Pood. No one is saying before a decision is made that he must choose eggs over cereal before he has even decided. It just means that after the decision is made, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE. You are mixing up before a choice which is still under consideration, and after a choice, which could not have been any other way. If you understood anything I wrote, you should know by now that there is nothing that can make us choose z if we don't want to choose z. There is no causal link from the past to the present such that z is the only choice possible, WITHOUT A PERSON'S CONSENT. If they don't consent to z, they will not choose z. They will choose y (or whatever choice they find the most preferable) in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Wrong. All contingently true propositions remain contingently true after the fact. Oswald killed JFK but he did not HAVE TO do that. Elementary logic eludes both you and DBT.

It is not contingently true that someone could have chosen to do what he didn't prefer to do (which is what you're saying) at that moment in time. And you can't prove it either because you cannot go back in time, undo what has already been done, and show that a person could have chosen otherwise given the exact same situation. This, by the way, is libertarianism. You just don't like being called a libertarian, but if you look like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck, you are a duck. Logic can be a dangerous thing if it's invalid from the very beginning. We base all of our decisions on contingent events and circumstances, but you cannot say that a decision that has already been made could be anything other than the choice that was already made. It is true that we can change our decision at a later date if we find that after seeing how our decision turned out, we didn't like the result... but that's a different animal.

 

[pood]

I did what I preferred to do, because I preferred to do it, is not only an empty tautology, but consistent with hard determinism ,soft determinism and libertarianism.

 

[peacegirl]

I did what I preferred to do, because I preferred to do it, is not only an empty tautology, but consistent with hard determinism ,soft determinism and libertarianism.

This is not a tautology. You are making it appear that way. You preferred what you preferred to do, not only because you preferred to do it, but because, in comparison, you preferred the alternative less. There is no such thing as soft determinism Pood. It's a made-up word that does not reflect what is going on in reality. As I already stated, this is comparable to being a little bit pregnant and a little bit not pregnant. You either are or you're not. You also can't say you're not pregnant because you're only in the first month. By the same token, you either have free will or you don't. You can't have a little bit of no free will and a little bit of free will. And just like it doesn't matter what month you're in, you're still pregnant; it doesn't matter how easy or how difficult your choice is, your will is still not free either way.

 

[pood]

I did what I preferred to do, because I preferred to do it, is not only an empty tautology, but consistent with hard determinism ,soft determinism and libertarianism.

This is not a tautology. You are making it appear that way. You preferred what you preferred to do, not only because you preferred to do it, but because, in comparison, you preferred the alternative less.

Right. That is just a wordy way of saying, “I preferred to do what I preferred to do,” an empty tautology.

 

[peacegirl]

I did what I preferred to do, because I preferred to do it, is not only an empty tautology, but consistent with hard determinism ,soft determinism and libertarianism.

This is not a tautology. You are making it appear that way. You preferred what you preferred to do, not only because you preferred to do it, but because, in comparison, you preferred the alternative less.

Right. That is just a wordy way of saying, “I preferred to do what I preferred to do,” an empty tautology.

It makes all the difference in the world. You cannot prefer what you prefer less which is the entire reason you contemplate. Try choosing what you don’t prefer in comparison to what you do, under normal circumstances, and see how far it gets you.

 

[steve_bank]

'Putting an end to the Middle East conflict will require the leaders and their advisors to become the first citizens while all noncitizens prepare to take the examination.'

Sadat in Egypt and Begin in Israel were both assassinated by their own people for making peace.

Camp David and Oslo accords came and went. Neither side abided by them. A lot of work was done for decades by Europeans and Americans to bring peace.

Peacegirl needs to read a bit of history.

The Arab - Persian(Iran) conflict over religion goes back centuries.

There is the Hindu - Muslim conflict.

Gandhi was assassinated for trying to bridge the Muslims and Hindus in India.

 

[pood]

I did what I preferred to do, because I preferred to do it, is not only an empty tautology, but consistent with hard determinism ,soft determinism and libertarianism.

This is not a tautology. You are making it appear that way. You preferred what you preferred to do, not only because you preferred to do it, but because, in comparison, you preferred the alternative less.

Right. That is just a wordy way of saying, “I preferred to do what I preferred to do,” an empty tautology.

It makes all the difference in the world. You cannot prefer what you prefer less which is the entire reason you contemplate. Try choosing what you don’t prefer in comparison to what you do, under normal circumstances, and see how far it gets you.

But I don’t choose what I don’t prefer. So fucking what?

 

[steve_bank]

I wonder what happened to Lumpenproletariat, he would have been posting here.

Papergirl, can you hide your polemics so I don't have to scroll trough them.

 

[steve_bank]

Bernie Sanders is most defiantly a socialist Evertng is free from the state. The democrats are edging towards it, Cortez being a radical.

Sanders does not advocate this.

Sanders identifies himself as a socialist. College should be free. When progressives say free they should say paid for by tax payers.

Socialism is workers owning the means of production. Sanders does not advocate that, and in fact it has never been tried.

Communism is not socialism. In the Soviet system, workers owned virtually nothing. The state owned it all.

Point being two large scale systems that eliminated capitalism failed and eventually embraced capitalism.

Russia's version of communism was Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist. China Maoism. Both used Marxist terminology. As Max preached global conversion to communism by force if needed.

As I said social theorists like Marx never specify a system's details. 'common ownership of the means of production' is a vague slogan.

 

[peacegirl]

I did what I preferred to do, because I preferred to do it, is not only an empty tautology, but consistent with hard determinism ,soft determinism and libertarianism.

This is not a tautology. You are making it appear that way. You preferred what you preferred to do, not only because you preferred to do it, but because, in comparison, you preferred the alternative less.

Right. That is just a wordy way of saying, “I preferred to do what I preferred to do,” an empty tautology.

It makes all the difference in the world. You cannot prefer what you prefer less which is the entire reason you contemplate. Try choosing what you don’t prefer in comparison to what you do, under normal circumstances, and see how far it gets you.

But I don’t choose what I don’t prefer. So fucking what?

OMG Pood, did you not read anything at all? It makes all the difference in the world. But getting back to "so fucking what?"...We cannot prefer what we prefer less which is the entire reason we contemplate. It is also true that we are all different, so what you prefer, given your genetics and environment, may be different than what someone else may prefer given the same situation. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading, for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration, he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this important point, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

It's your logic that is off, not DBTs or the author's. Try choosing what you prefer less, and you will see it cannot be done. Obviously, if you are choosing between two things that are alike in every way, either choice will do, but whenever there are meaningful differences, your very nature pushes you in the direction of greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You have never been able to give me an example where you can move in the direction of less or dissatisfaction when a choice of greater satisfaction is available, because it's an impossibility, hence it's an invariable law that cannot be broken. There are no exceptions. Determinism is correct which means compatibilism and libertarianism are both false.

 

[pood]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

 

[peacegirl]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

 

[pood]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

Of course I read it peacegirl. Your mistake is in supposing that if someone reads it, they will automatically agree with it.

Yes, of course I contemplate and decide which I prefer, and then I choose what I prefer. And?

When you DEFINE what I choose, as what I prefer, then of course I must choose what I prefer, because whatever I choose it is what I prefer BY DEFINITION. It would then be impossible to choose what I don’t prefer in the same way no bachelor can be married.

But so what? This does not address free will and determinism at all, because it misses the point that it was always possible that I would have preferred DIFFERENTLY.

 

[peacegirl]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

Of course I read it peacegirl. Your mistake is in supposing that if someone reads it, they will automatically agree with it.

I don't believe you read it. Explain under what conditions a person could not justify hurting others.

Yes, of course I contemplate and decide which I prefer, and then I choose what I prefer. And?

You still don't understand why choosing only what you prefer (what gives you greater satisfaction) is significant when it comes to justification.

When you DEFINE what I choose, as what I prefer, then of course I must choose what I prefer, because whatever I choose it is what I prefer BY DEFINITION. It would then be impossible to choose what I don’t prefer in the same way no bachelor can be married.

What you are saying is only half true. You prefer what you prefer, by definition, but under what condition? You may prefer something to something less preferred. So to say you prefer what you prefer doesn't give a complete explanation. Why would it be impossible to choose what you prefer less when what you prefer more is available? That is the question under scrutiny, and you haven't addressed it or shown me that you even understand the question. I think it went right over your head. You leave the most important part out and then call yourself victorious.

But so what? This does not address free will and determinism at all, because it misses the point that it was always possible that I would have preferred DIFFERENTLY.

Under different conditions Pood, but not at the exact same time and place. As I said before, you cannot prove that you could have preferred DIFFERENTLY because you cannot undo what has already been done. All you can do is theorize. Secondly, your logic that because your choices are contingent and therefore not fixed by deterministic forces leaves open the possibility that another choice could be made at that exact moment, is total hogwash. You can keep repeating yourself a thousand times, but it doesn't change the fact that 1+1=2, not 11, no matter how much you believe you are right.

 

[pood]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

Of course I read it peacegirl. Your mistake is in supposing that if someone reads it, they will automatically agree with it.

I don't believe you read it. Explain under what conditions a person could not justify hurting others.

I already did that, peacegirl. Or more precisely, I correctly summarized he author’s argument, something you are unable to do.

Yes, of course I contemplate and decide which I prefer, and then I choose what I prefer. And?

You still don't understand why choosing only what you prefer (what gives you greater satisfaction) is significant when it comes to justification.

I understand why the author thinks it is significant.

When you DEFINE what I choose, as what I prefer, then of course I must choose what I prefer, because whatever I choose it is what I prefer BY DEFINITION. It would then be impossible to choose what I don’t prefer in the same way no bachelor can be married.

What you are saying is only half true. You prefer what you prefer, by definition, but under what condition? You may prefer it to something less preferred. So to say you prefer what you prefer doesn't give a complete explanation. Why would it be impossible to choose what you prefer less when what you prefer more is available? You leave the most important part out and then call yourself victorious.

It is impossible to do that, for the reason I gave. It’s impossible by DEFINITION, which means nothing with respect to determinism and free will.

But so what? This does not address free will and determinism at all, because it misses the point that it was always possible that I would have preferred DIFFERENTLY.

You forgot to address the above, the most important point.

 

[peacegirl]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

Of course I read it peacegirl. Your mistake is in supposing that if someone reads it, they will automatically agree with it.

I don't believe you read it. Explain under what conditions a person could not justify hurting others.

I already did that, peacegirl. Or more precisely, I correctly summarized he author’s argument, something you are unable to do.

You made a quick summary that was half baked. I told you that, but you can't accept that you didn't do a good job. This is exactly why an abstract can work sometimes but it can also mess things up.

Yes, of course I contemplate and decide which I prefer, and then I choose what I prefer. And?

You still don't understand why choosing only what you prefer (what gives you greater satisfaction) is significant when it comes to justification.

I understand why the author thinks it is significant.

Then spell it out. I don't think you do. Why can't a person prefer, after the transition takes place, to hurt someone with a first blow? And if they can't, how is it possible to prefer to strike it given the same environmental condition?

When you DEFINE what I choose, as what I prefer, then of course I must choose what I prefer, because whatever I choose it is what I prefer BY DEFINITION. It would then be impossible to choose what I don’t prefer in the same way no bachelor can be married.

What you are saying is only half true. You prefer what you prefer, by definition, but under what condition? You may prefer it to something less preferred. So to say you prefer what you prefer doesn't give a complete explanation. Why would it be impossible to choose what you prefer less when what you prefer more is available? You leave the most important part out and then call yourself victorious.

It is impossible to do that, for the reason I gave. It’s impossible by DEFINITION, which means nothing with respect to determinism and free will.

It means EVERYTHING, for if you could choose what you prefer less, your behavior could not be controlled because you could choose either/or. You would not be compelled to choose only that which hurts no one, but you are compelled because your will is not free and there is no possibility that a different choice could be made after it has been chosen. A person chooses not to rob a bank cannot go back in time and show that he could have robbed the bank under the same exact conditions. It not only can't be done, it's impossible, because at that moment his preference not to rob the bank was greater than his desire to rob the bank.

But so what? This does not address free will and determinism at all, because it misses the point that it was always possible that I would have preferred DIFFERENTLY.

You forgot to address the above, the most important point.

Even if you say over and over again that "it was always possible that you would have preferred" (which is false or you would have chosen it under those exact contingencies) doesn't change the FACT that compatibilist free will and libertarian free will don't exist in the real world. Did you forget that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect what is going on in reality?

 

[pood]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

Of course I read it peacegirl. Your mistake is in supposing that if someone reads it, they will automatically agree with it.

I don't believe you read it. Explain under what conditions a person could not justify hurting others.

I already did that, peacegirl. Or more precisely, I correctly summarized he author’s argument, something you are unable to do.

Yes, of course I contemplate and decide which I prefer, and then I choose what I prefer. And?

You still don't understand why choosing only what you prefer (what gives you greater satisfaction) is significant when it comes to justification.

I understand why the author thinks it is significant.

When you DEFINE what I choose, as what I prefer, then of course I must choose what I prefer, because whatever I choose it is what I prefer BY DEFINITION. It would then be impossible to choose what I don’t prefer in the same way no bachelor can be married.

What you are saying is only half true. You prefer what you prefer, by definition, but under what condition? You may prefer it to something less preferred. So to say you prefer what you prefer doesn't give a complete explanation. Why would it be impossible to choose what you prefer less when what you prefer more is available? You leave the most important part out and then call yourself victorious.

It is impossible to do that, for the reason I gave. It’s impossible by DEFINITION, which means nothing with respect to determinism and free will.

It means EVERYTHING, for if you could choose what you prefer less, your behavior could not be controlled because you could choose either/or. You would not be compelled to choose only that which hurts no one, but you are compelled because your will is not free and there is no possibility that a different choice could be made after it has been chosen. A person chooses not to rob a bank cannot go back in time and show that he could have robbed the bank under the same exact conditions. It not only can't be done, it's impossible, because at that moment he preferred to rob the bank less than not robbing the bank.

This is word salad, it is gibberish.

But so what? This does not address free will and determinism at all, because it misses the point that it was always possible that I would have preferred DIFFERENTLY.

You forgot to address the above, the most important point.

Even if you say over and over again that "it was always possible that you would have preferred" (which is false or you would have chosen it under those exact contingencies) doesn't change the FACT that compatibilist free will and libertarian free will don't exist in the real world. Did you forget that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect what is going on in reality?

I’ve already explained compatibilism many times, and I’m not going to waste any more time trying to “deconfuse” you about it, to borrow your author’s made-up word.

 

[peacegirl]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

Of course I read it peacegirl. Your mistake is in supposing that if someone reads it, they will automatically agree with it.

I don't believe you read it. Explain under what conditions a person could not justify hurting others.

I already did that, peacegirl. Or more precisely, I correctly summarized he author’s argument, something you are unable to do.

Yes, of course I contemplate and decide which I prefer, and then I choose what I prefer. And?

You still don't understand why choosing only what you prefer (what gives you greater satisfaction) is significant when it comes to justification.

I understand why the author thinks it is significant.

When you DEFINE what I choose, as what I prefer, then of course I must choose what I prefer, because whatever I choose it is what I prefer BY DEFINITION. It would then be impossible to choose what I don’t prefer in the same way no bachelor can be married.

What you are saying is only half true. You prefer what you prefer, by definition, but under what condition? You may prefer it to something less preferred. So to say you prefer what you prefer doesn't give a complete explanation. Why would it be impossible to choose what you prefer less when what you prefer more is available? You leave the most important part out and then call yourself victorious.

It is impossible to do that, for the reason I gave. It’s impossible by DEFINITION, which means nothing with respect to determinism and free will.

It means EVERYTHING, for if you could choose what you prefer less, your behavior could not be controlled because you could choose either/or. You would not be compelled to choose only that which hurts no one, but you are compelled because your will is not free and there is no possibility that a different choice could be made after it has been chosen. A person chooses not to rob a bank cannot go back in time and show that he could have robbed the bank under the same exact conditions. It not only can't be done, it's impossible, because at that moment he preferred to rob the bank less than not robbing the bank.

This is word salad, it is gibberish.

But so what? This does not address free will and determinism at all, because it misses the point that it was always possible that I would have preferred DIFFERENTLY.

You forgot to address the above, the most important point.

Even if you say over and over again that "it was always possible that you would have preferred" (which is false or you would have chosen it under those exact contingencies) doesn't change the FACT that compatibilist free will and libertarian free will don't exist in the real world. Did you forget that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect what is going on in reality?

I’ve already explained compatibilism many times, and I’m not going to waste any more time trying to “deconfuse” you about it, to borrow your author’s made-up word.

You explained nothing Pood. Your logic is flawed. We have no compatibilist free will which is just another way of saying that a person was free to do otherwise (which he could have had he wanted to but he didn’t want to because the alternative in his eyes was worse) and keeps the status quo of blame and punishment in place. Enough is enough. This has now become a waste of my time trying to deconfuse you.

 

[pood]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

Of course I read it peacegirl. Your mistake is in supposing that if someone reads it, they will automatically agree with it.

I don't believe you read it. Explain under what conditions a person could not justify hurting others.

I already did that, peacegirl. Or more precisely, I correctly summarized he author’s argument, something you are unable to do.

Yes, of course I contemplate and decide which I prefer, and then I choose what I prefer. And?

You still don't understand why choosing only what you prefer (what gives you greater satisfaction) is significant when it comes to justification.

I understand why the author thinks it is significant.

When you DEFINE what I choose, as what I prefer, then of course I must choose what I prefer, because whatever I choose it is what I prefer BY DEFINITION. It would then be impossible to choose what I don’t prefer in the same way no bachelor can be married.

What you are saying is only half true. You prefer what you prefer, by definition, but under what condition? You may prefer it to something less preferred. So to say you prefer what you prefer doesn't give a complete explanation. Why would it be impossible to choose what you prefer less when what you prefer more is available? You leave the most important part out and then call yourself victorious.

It is impossible to do that, for the reason I gave. It’s impossible by DEFINITION, which means nothing with respect to determinism and free will.

It means EVERYTHING, for if you could choose what you prefer less, your behavior could not be controlled because you could choose either/or. You would not be compelled to choose only that which hurts no one, but you are compelled because your will is not free and there is no possibility that a different choice could be made after it has been chosen. A person chooses not to rob a bank cannot go back in time and show that he could have robbed the bank under the same exact conditions. It not only can't be done, it's impossible, because at that moment he preferred to rob the bank less than not robbing the bank.

This is word salad, it is gibberish.

But so what? This does not address free will and determinism at all, because it misses the point that it was always possible that I would have preferred DIFFERENTLY.

You forgot to address the above, the most important point.

Even if you say over and over again that "it was always possible that you would have preferred" (which is false or you would have chosen it under those exact contingencies) doesn't change the FACT that compatibilist free will and libertarian free will don't exist in the real world. Did you forget that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect what is going on in reality?

I’ve already explained compatibilism many times, and I’m not going to waste any more time trying to “deconfuse” you about it, to borrow your author’s made-up word.

You explained nothing Pood. Your logic is flawed. We have no compatibilist free will which is just another way of saying that a person was free to do otherwise (which he could have had he wanted to but he didn’t want to because the alternative in his eyes was worse) and keeps the status quo of blame and punishment in place. Enough is enough. This has now become a waste of my time trying to deconfuse you.

Whatever, peacegirl.

How is posting up huge walls of copypasta working out for you?

 

[peacegirl]

Right, we contemplate, and then choose what we prefer, because … we prefer it.

And?

Obviously you choose what you prefer...because you prefer it, but you're leaving out how you have come to this preference. It's called contemplation. You compare alternatives for a reason, which is to decide WHICH of the alternatives are the MOST preferable. So to just say that you prefer what you prefer because you prefer it, is your own brand of circular reasoning, not the author's.

When you add "And?" at the end of your post, it makes me realize that you read nothing. Tell me the truth. Did you read any of it? Any at all? Even one page?

Of course I read it peacegirl. Your mistake is in supposing that if someone reads it, they will automatically agree with it.

I don't believe you read it. Explain under what conditions a person could not justify hurting others.

I already did that, peacegirl. Or more precisely, I correctly summarized he author’s argument, something you are unable to do.

Yes, of course I contemplate and decide which I prefer, and then I choose what I prefer. And?

You still don't understand why choosing only what you prefer (what gives you greater satisfaction) is significant when it comes to justification.

I understand why the author thinks it is significant.

When you DEFINE what I choose, as what I prefer, then of course I must choose what I prefer, because whatever I choose it is what I prefer BY DEFINITION. It would then be impossible to choose what I don’t prefer in the same way no bachelor can be married.

What you are saying is only half true. You prefer what you prefer, by definition, but under what condition? You may prefer it to something less preferred. So to say you prefer what you prefer doesn't give a complete explanation. Why would it be impossible to choose what you prefer less when what you prefer more is available? You leave the most important part out and then call yourself victorious.

It is impossible to do that, for the reason I gave. It’s impossible by DEFINITION, which means nothing with respect to determinism and free will.

It means EVERYTHING, for if you could choose what you prefer less, your behavior could not be controlled because you could choose either/or. You would not be compelled to choose only that which hurts no one, but you are compelled because your will is not free and there is no possibility that a different choice could be made after it has been chosen. A person chooses not to rob a bank cannot go back in time and show that he could have robbed the bank under the same exact conditions. It not only can't be done, it's impossible, because at that moment he preferred to rob the bank less than not robbing the bank.

This is word salad, it is gibberish.

But so what? This does not address free will and determinism at all, because it misses the point that it was always possible that I would have preferred DIFFERENTLY.

You forgot to address the above, the most important point.

Even if you say over and over again that "it was always possible that you would have preferred" (which is false or you would have chosen it under those exact contingencies) doesn't change the FACT that compatibilist free will and libertarian free will don't exist in the real world. Did you forget that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect what is going on in reality?

I’ve already explained compatibilism many times, and I’m not going to waste any more time trying to “deconfuse” you about it, to borrow your author’s made-up word.

You explained nothing Pood. Your logic is flawed. We have no compatibilist free will which is just another way of saying that a person was free to do otherwise (which he could have had he wanted to but he didn’t want to because the alternative in his eyes was worse) and keeps the status quo of blame and punishment in place. Enough is enough. This has now become a waste of my time trying to deconfuse you.

Whatever, peacegirl.

Deconfuse - Meaning, Pronunciation, & More | Meaning.io

How is posting up huge walls of copypasta working out for you?

I knew going into this how it may turn out. It has more to do with the type of format that doesn’t lend itself to a new discovery (which cannot be reduced to a few words) than it has to do with my presentation.