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

[pood]

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.

Right.

 

[peacegirl]

Forget it’

 

[bilby]

I have zero intention of ever again logging on to facebook.

 

[steve_bank]

The zealot's high, posting gets those feel good brain chemicals going. Like the theists, if they just explain Jesus to us and if we listen we will believe.

Its like reciting the Catholic Rosary, Hail Mary full of grace...Hail Mary...Hail Mary.

 

[peacegirl]

The zealot's high, posting gets those feel good brain chemicals going. Like the theists, if they just explain Jesus to us and if we listen we will believe.

Its like reciting the Catholic Rosary, Hail Mary full of grace...Hail Mary...Hail Mary.

Steve, you are basing what you believe can’t happen with what has already happened. Prediction based on past events cant always predict the future. People didn’t believe Edison’s new form of light when they never saw a lightbulb and couldn’t imagine it working. I am not a zealot who wants agreement without proof. You’re not being fair. You just can’t believe world peace is possible. Thats why the author asked people to please contain their skepticism so they can give this discovery a chance. They have not done that here. And BTW, this is not how to get feel good brain chemicals going.

 

[DBT]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

 

[peacegirl]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

Of course he has. His compatibilist free will is a complete giveaway, but he just can't see it.

 

[DBT]

Once more, for the hard of reading:

No need.

However, just for fun.

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

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

,

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 so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

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.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice. Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable. That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Hope that helps. Not holding my breath.

 

[DBT]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

Of course he has. His compatibilist free will is a complete giveaway, but he just can't see it.

I know. I was trying to be gentle about it.

 

[peacegirl]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

Of course he has. His compatibilist free will is a complete giveaway, but he just can't see it.

I know. I was trying to be gentle about it.

Once more, for the hard of reading:

No need.

However, just for fun.

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

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

,

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 so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

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.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice. Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable. That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Hope that helps. Not holding my breath.

You just can't see the contradiction with this compatibilist definition that tries so hard to make it appear that these two things can be made compatible. You're being fooled by a definition that has no reality. And I've tried to teach you that there is only one kind of determinism. Trying to make determinism soft is also a failure. We either have free will or we don't.

 

[peacegirl]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

Of course he has. His compatibilist free will is a complete giveaway, but he just can't see it.

I know. I was trying to be gentle about it.

Compatibilists believe man's will is not free, but they just can't accept the implications, so they think they solved the problem by creating free will in certain instances. They are blind to the truth that if man doesn't have free will, there are no exceptions to this truth such that some people get blamed, and some don't by their made up definition. Pood still doesn't understand that definitions mean NOTHING where reality is concerned if those definitions don't symbolize anything even close to reality. He believes that because a group of people created this definition that has become mainstream, it gives it legitimacy.

 

[pood]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

Certainly I have. It’s still not libertarianism.

 

[pood]

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

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

Correct.

,

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 so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

Right. So is the libertarian.

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.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Of course they could have been different, but they weren’t. There can only be one history.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice.

Certainly there is. We make countess choices every single day.

Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable.

No, a choice OF SOME KIND is inevitable.

That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Sure they could have been different, but weren’t. There is only one history. And this is where “could not have done otherwise” falls apart. Given that there is only one history, “could not have done otherwise” collapses to “did not do otherwise,” which is compatibilism.

 

[pood]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

Of course he has. His compatibilist free will is a complete giveaway, but he just can't see it.

I know. I was trying to be gentle about it.

Once more, for the hard of reading:

No need.

However, just for fun.

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

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

,

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 so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

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.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice. Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable. That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Hope that helps. Not holding my breath.

You just can't see the contradiction with this compatibilist definition that tries so hard to make it appear that these two things can be made compatible. You're being fooled by a definition that has no reality. And I've tried to teach you that there is only one kind of determinism. Trying to make determinism soft is also a failure. We either have free will or we don't.

Peacegirl, you are in no position to “teach” anyone anything. You can’t even summarize your own argument!

 

[pood]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

What you always miss is that of COURSE there is the possibility of alternate choices within a deterministic system. I am PART of that system, and it is always within my power to pick Pepsi over Coke, even if I never do. After all, what is stopping me? Nothing. Determinism is a description of how things broadly go in the world at the macroscopic level, and never a prescription. When I move to pick a Pepsi, and the cold, God-like hand of Hard Determinism stays my hand and compels me to pick a Coke instead, I’ll let you know. Your hard determinism is just a secular version of the Calvinistic God.

 

[peacegirl]

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

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

Correct.

,

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 so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

Right. So is the libertarian.

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.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Of course they could have been different, but they weren’t. There can only be one history.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice.

Certainly there is. We make countess choices every single day.

Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable.

No, a choice OF SOME KIND is inevitable.

That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Sure they could have been different, but weren’t. There is only one history. And this is where “could not have done otherwise” falls apart. Given that there is only one history, “could not have done otherwise” collapses to “did not do otherwise,” which is compatibilism.

There is only one history because that's the only history that could have occurred. It doesn't collapse; in fact, it proves that "could have done otherwise" is just one of the imagination.

 

[peacegirl]

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

What you always miss is that of COURSE there is the possibility of alternate choices within a deterministic system. I am PART of that system, and it is always within my power to pick Pepsi over Coke, even if I never do. After all, what is stopping me? Nothing. Determinism is a description of how things broadly go in the world at the macroscopic level, and never a prescription. When I move to pick a Pepsi, and the cold, God-like hand of Hard Determinism stays my hand and compels me to pick a Coke instead, I’ll let you know. Your hard determinism is just a secular version of the Calvinistic God.

But that is also where compatibilism also goes off the rails by making up a definition of what behavior constitutes the free will that they believe can hold some morally responsible and some not. I understand why we have to hold people responsible in a world of hurt, but they are fooling themselves when they think that their special type of free will is any different than libertarian free will.

Of course it’s different. Libertarians, like hard determinists, are INCOMPATIBILISTS.

Yet your comments suggest that you do lean towards the Libertarian notion free will, alternate choices, etc.

No, they do not suggest anything of the sort. You read into what I write, what you prefer to be there.

You have never argued for the possibility of alternate choice within a deterministic system?

Of course he has. His compatibilist free will is a complete giveaway, but he just can't see it.

I know. I was trying to be gentle about it.

Once more, for the hard of reading:

No need.

However, just for fun.

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

Yes. And given that Libertarians reject determinism, this puts their version of free will at odds with compatibilism

,

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 so called 'hard determinist' is simple an incompatibilist.

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.

There lies the sticking point. Given determinism, the antecedents cannot be different. As the antecedents cannot be different, there are no alternate actions within such a system.

Where without the possibility of alternate actions, there is no choice. Which means that each and every decision that is made is inevitable. That each and every action that happens is inevitable, fixed by antecedents that could possibly have been different.

Hope that helps. Not holding my breath.

You just can't see the contradiction with this compatibilist definition that tries so hard to make it appear that these two things can be made compatible. You're being fooled by a definition that has no reality. And I've tried to teach you that there is only one kind of determinism. Trying to make determinism soft is also a failure. We either have free will or we don't.

Peacegirl, you are in no position to “teach” anyone anything. You can’t even summarize your own argument!

You are not God's gift to truth Pood. You are a good writer, I will give you that, but you don't know the difference between a theory and a fact. You start off with a preposition that is false, so that rest of your "logic" fails miserably... yet you won't look at it objectively. There's absolutely no getting through to you. It's an exercise in futility.

 

[pood]

You are not God's gift to intelligence Pood. You are a good writer, I will give you that, but you don't know the difference between a theory and a fact. You start off with a preposition that is false, so that rest of your "logic" fails miserably... yet you won't look at it objectively. There's absolutely no getting through to you. It's an exercise in futility.

Yes, peacegirl, I do know the difference. For example, the FACT of evolution is explained by the THEORY of evolution.

What does your author have? Facts? No. A theory? No. So what does he have? Wait, let me guess: “Astute observation,” right?

 

[peacegirl]

You are not God's gift to intelligence Pood. You are a good writer, I will give you that, but you don't know the difference between a theory and a fact. You start off with a preposition that is false, so that rest of your "logic" fails miserably... yet you won't look at it objectively. There's absolutely no getting through to you. It's an exercise in futility.

Yes, peacegirl, I do know the difference. For example, the FACT of evolution is explained by the THEORY of evolution.

What does your author have? Facts? No. A theory? No. So what does he have? Wait, let me guess: “Astute observation,” right?

It is not a theory that the choices you make are not within your control because you are compelled (you have no choice) but to pick the most preferable alternative according to your individual circumstances. Just because your logic tries to disprove this fact by saying it’s a tautology doesn’t cut it. You say: “Whatever you prefer is what you prefer because you prefer it” is what you’re using to make it appear circular, but it is not. You prefer what you prefer because what you prefer less cannot be chosen, therefore your idea that there is some parallel world where you could have chosen otherwise (i.e. chosen what you preferred less given the EXACT same time and place) is sheer folly. This isn’t only an astute observation, it’s astute reasoning. You will never agree Pood even if compatibilism was thrown out as a viable theory because it contradicts itself, you would still keep saying it’s true. Consequently, there’s really no point in me trying to convince you otherwise if you can’t see the flawed logic for yourself.

 

[pood]

You are not God's gift to intelligence Pood. You are a good writer, I will give you that, but you don't know the difference between a theory and a fact. You start off with a preposition that is false, so that rest of your "logic" fails miserably... yet you won't look at it objectively. There's absolutely no getting through to you. It's an exercise in futility.

Yes, peacegirl, I do know the difference. For example, the FACT of evolution is explained by the THEORY of evolution.

What does your author have? Facts? No. A theory? No. So what does he have? Wait, let me guess: “Astute observation,” right?

It is not a theory that the choices you make are not within your control because you are compelled (you have no choice) but to pick the most preferable alternative according to your individual circumstances. Just because your logic tries to disprove this fact by saying it’s a tautology doesn’t cut it. You say: “Whatever you prefer is what you prefer because you prefer it” is what you’re using to make it appear circular, but it is not. You prefer what you prefer because what you prefer less cannot be chosen, therefore your idea that there is some parallel world where you could have chosen otherwise (i.e. chosen what you preferred less given the EXACT same time and place) is sheer folly. This isn’t only an astute observation, it’s astute reasoning. You will never agree Pood even if compatibilism was thrown out as a viable theory because it contradicts itself, you would still keep saying it’s true. Consequently, there’s really no point in me trying to convince you otherwise if you can’t see the flawed logic for yourself.

i have already addressed the above. You are mangling what I said. Go back and read for comprehension, for once.