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

[peacegirl]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

You’re of course free to introduce rumpy pumpy, or anything else from the book (corrupted text ) at any time.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

 

[peacegirl]

I know exactly how compatibilist free will is defined.....and it doesn't involve being able to choose any option at any given time.

Sure it does. Given antecedents x,y,z, I CAN choose Pepsi — it is within my power to do so — but, in fact, I WON’T do so. I WILL choose Coke. You, otoh, are arguing that given antecedents x,y,z, I CAN’T choose Pepsi, and MUST choose Coke. That is the difference between our positions, and mine is certainly not libertarian. My position is consistent with logic, whereas yours commits a modal fallacy, as I have explained. You conflate MUST and WILL.

You can choose Pepsi IF YOU WANT TO choose Pepsi. That is why we contemplate, which is to compare options, but that in no way translates to having compatibilist free will (which is a slight of hand definition that gives some people a free pass and others jail time), or libertarian free will. You keep bringing up that determinism says you must. Noooo Pood, you don't must do anything. Determinism describes, it doesn't prescribe what you must do before you make a decision. You are caught up with the word must and will. So let's say you will choose whatever you want. You can choose Pepsi if you want to, but if you choose Coke at that moment, then and only then can someone say you could not have chosen Pepsi. Why? Because it was LESS SATISFYING than choosing Coke given your reasons for choosing Coke. IOW, because you didn't like the thought of choosing Pepsi at that moment, you were not free to choose Coke.

Being able to make a different choice later on is a strawman. It's not even part of this discussion, as DPT pointed out. Choosing what gives you greater satisfaction from moment to moment is part of the deterministic process, which pushes you in one direction only. Even if you decide not to choose anything, that is also a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. Every single moment (whether we are making choices between A, B, or C) or are just moving through life from here to there, which doesn't require mulling which choice is the more preferable one, we are still moving away from the previous position, which has become dissatisfying. I already gave the example of my arm falling asleep. It doesn't require me to decide between options. I just move in the direction of greater satisfaction in order to relieve the pressure. Most of life is moving from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position that doesn't require any contemplation at all.

 

[pood]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

You’re of course free to introduce rumpy pumpy, or anything else from the book (corrupted text ) at any time.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

 

[pood]

You can choose Pepsi IF YOU WANT TO.

Right. And? That’s … compatibilism.

 

[peacegirl]

No one said it prescribes in advance of what a person chooses in the direction of greater satisfaction. The environment just creates conditions that COMPEL a particular choice, one that could not have been otherwise once the choice has been made. There are no parallel universes Pood. I'm sorry if this bothers you.

These claims do not BOTHER me, peacegirl, nor do they make me angry. I couldn’t care less about them. Please stop the ad homs or I will start reporting your posts.

And a possible non-actual world is not a “parallel universe.” You know nothing about this.

peacegirl, your M.O. here as everywhere is to claim that everyone who does not agree with your writer’s claims either did not read what he wrote, read them but did not understand them, or else read them and understood them, but reject them because they feel threatened by them. All of this is AD HOMINEM, and against the rules here.

The truth is they didn't understand them. It's not an ad hom at all. I will also say that if you say 1+1 =11, I will say that you did not understand the equation. If people said they disagreed with Edison and he said they don't understand, he was not putting people down, but he was right to say to them they didn't understand. He proved himself right in the end. Many people (I didn't accuse anyone here) don't like determinism because they want to feel as if they themselves were responsible for their successes. Even Sapolsky says that. Take it up with him then. Stop trying to pin things on me that aren't true for your personal advantage.

 

[peacegirl]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

You’re of course free to introduce rumpy pumpy, or anything else from the book (corrupted text ) at any time.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

Sorry David but telling me that this is twaddle is an AD HOM against me. It is indirectly saying that I'm not smart enough to see that there's nothing here of value. I will strike back which was justified. That's called an eye for an eye. There is no twaddle in this book other than what these people created. They turned it into lulz because they did not understand a thing, which is why they were in disagreement and why they so casually dismissed what was being demonstrated. The mean-spiritedness ruined any chances for an open discussion. They had already made up their minds and decided to start a campaign against me. Let me repeat: They disagreed because they understood nothing. That was not an AD HOM, and if you consider it as such, they deserved it. They hurt me terribly because of their lies. Everything was taken out of context and used for entertainment. I should never have stayed that long, but I could not have done otherwise at that time. Why did you invite me here? To prove he was wrong so you could be the winner? Is it backfiring on you and that's why you're so pissed? Or is it because you hate his claims about the eyes? So get me banned. I really don't care, just like you don't.

 

[pood]

No one said it prescribes in advance of what a person chooses in the direction of greater satisfaction. The environment just creates conditions that COMPEL a particular choice, one that could not have been otherwise once the choice has been made. There are no parallel universes Pood. I'm sorry if this bothers you.

These claims do not BOTHER me, peacegirl, nor do they make me angry. I couldn’t care less about them. Please stop the ad homs or I will start reporting your posts.

And a possible non-actual world is not a “parallel universe.” You know nothing about this.

peacegirl, your M.O. here as everywhere is to claim that everyone who does not agree with your writer’s claims either did not read what he wrote, read them but did not understand them, or else read them and understood them, but reject them because they feel threatened by them. All of this is AD HOMINEM, and against the rules here.

The truth is they didn't understand them. It's not an ad hom at all. I will also say that if you say 1+1 =11, I will say that you did not understand the equation. If people said they disagreed with Edison and he said they don't understand, he was not putting people down, but he was right to say to them they didn't understand. He proved himself right in the end. Many people (I didn't accuse anyone here) don't like determinism because they want to feel as if they themselves were responsible for their successes. Even Sapolsky says that. Take it up with him then. Stop trying to pin things on me that aren't true for your reasons.

No, people give you reasons, give you arguments and evidence, why they think the writer’s claims are wrong, and rather than meet their arguments, you AD HOM them.

 

[pood]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

You’re of course free to introduce rumpy pumpy, or anything else from the book (corrupted text ) at any time.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

There is no twaddle in this book David. The people there turned it into lulz which can be done to anyone if that's the goal. Everything was taken out of context and used for laughter. If that's what you think, why did you invite me here? To prove he was wrong? You have proved no such thing. It is backfiring on you and that's why you're pissed.

OK, that’s enough. I already told you I was trying to help you present your main argument — not that I AGREE with it (I do not) — but I was trying to give you a fair chance with a new group, because I felt sorry for you. Also, you just committed yet another ad hom. Are you having trouble comprehending what a rule violation is?

 

[Crumb]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

 

[peacegirl]

You can choose Pepsi IF YOU WANT TO.

Right. And? That’s … compatibilism.

OMG, this is futile!

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

To you it may be, because you don't understand why having no free will (which is a fact) is the foundation as to why we can change the trajectory our planet is on, with positive results. I think that's more important than you trying to make this another freethought forum.

 

[peacegirl]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

You’re of course free to introduce rumpy pumpy, or anything else from the book (corrupted text ) at any time.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

There is no twaddle in this book David. The people there turned it into lulz which can be done to anyone if that's the goal. Everything was taken out of context and used for laughter. If that's what you think, why did you invite me here? To prove he was wrong? You have proved no such thing. It is backfiring on you and that's why you're pissed.

OK, that’s enough. I already told you I was trying to help you present your main argument — not that I AGREE with it (I do not) — but I was trying to give you a fair chance with a new group, because I felt sorry for you. Also, you just committed yet another ad hom. Are you having trouble comprehending what a rule violation is?

I did not attack you. I asked you if that's why you are pissed. Look Pood, I cannot go from a free for all to a completely restricted forum that doesn't allow me to open my mouth. I did not insult anyone. I am not a mean-spirited person. But I will say that if people are in disagreement, there is something they don't understand just like a person who says that 1+1=11 doesn't understand. You've said such hurtful things in ff to keep the charade going, it's laughable that you are using a comment of mine that isn't even an insult, against me. If you consider that an AD HOM, and you want to use this ridiculous reason to get me banned, go for it.

 

[Crumb]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

To you it may be, because you don't understand why having no free will (which is a fact) is the foundation as to why we can change the trajectory our planet is on, with positive results. I think that's more important than you trying to make this another freethought forum.

It doesn't matter whether we agree with you about having no free will. You have not shown any reason to believe that any positive results would follow from people believing this. You and "The Author" just assert naïve things and expect people to believe you. And you for some reason pick the most skeptical places on the internet to try and recruit followers. Go find some spiritual/woo woo spaces and maybe you can find someone gullible enough.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that. I was just thinking the more salacious parts of the Revolution in Thought™ would liven up this thread a bit. Freewill vs. determinism is such a boring conversation.

To you it may be, because you don't understand why having no free will (which is a fact) is the foundation as to why we can change the trajectory our planet is on, with positive results. I think that's more important than you trying to make this another freethought forum.

It doesn't matter whether we agree with you about having no free will. You have not shown any reason to believe that any positive results would follow from people believing this. You and "The Author" just assert naïve things and expect people to believe you. And you for some reason pick the most skeptical places on the internet to try and recruit followers. Go find some spiritual/woo woo spaces and maybe you can find someone gullible enough.

It’s not about wanting followers. The author said that skepticism is normal but don’t let skepticism prevent you from keeping an open mind, which no one is doing. How in the world can you call his proof that we move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, or you would be satisfied and not move off that spot, an assertion? Having options does not give us a free choice. It's a delusion. I don’t want to talk to you because you’re the type that would give this knowledge a bad name for no apparent reason other than you don’t understand it. That's the honest to god truth.

 

[pood]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

You’re of course free to introduce rumpy pumpy, or anything else from the book (corrupted text ) at any time.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

There is no twaddle in this book David. The people there turned it into lulz which can be done to anyone if that's the goal. Everything was taken out of context and used for laughter. If that's what you think, why did you invite me here? To prove he was wrong? You have proved no such thing. It is backfiring on you and that's why you're pissed.

OK, that’s enough. I already told you I was trying to help you present your main argument — not that I AGREE with it (I do not) — but I was trying to give you a fair chance with a new group, because I felt sorry for you. Also, you just committed yet another ad hom. Are you having trouble comprehending what a rule violation is?

I did not attack you. I asked you if that's why you are pissed. Look Pood, I cannot go from a free for all to a completely restricted forum that doesn't allow me to open my mouth. I did not insult anyone. I am not a mean-spirited person. But I will say that if people are in disagreement, there is something they don't understand just like a person who says that 1+1=11 doesn't understand. You've said such hurtful things in ff to keep the charade going, it's laughable that you are using a comment of mine that isn't even an insult, against me. If you consider that an AD HOM, and you want to use this ridiculous reason to get me banned, go for it.

An AD HOM is not (necessarily) an INSULT. You are tossing ad homs all over the place.

 

[peacegirl]

Have we got to rumpy pumpy yet?

You’re of course free to introduce rumpy pumpy, or anything else from the book (corrupted text ) at any time.

Now you're playing dirty Pood. Is it because you have nothing else?

This shows how clueless you are. I have deliberately AVOIDED introducing all the ridiculous twaddle in the (corrupted) text in order to give you a FAIR SHOT at introducing posters here to your “two-sided equation (is there another kind?)” You have squandered that chance. Also “is it because you have nothing else?” is AD HOM and a violation of the rules here.

There is no twaddle in this book David. The people there turned it into lulz which can be done to anyone if that's the goal. Everything was taken out of context and used for laughter. If that's what you think, why did you invite me here? To prove he was wrong? You have proved no such thing. It is backfiring on you and that's why you're pissed.

OK, that’s enough. I already told you I was trying to help you present your main argument — not that I AGREE with it (I do not) — but I was trying to give you a fair chance with a new group, because I felt sorry for you. Also, you just committed yet another ad hom. Are you having trouble comprehending what a rule violation is?

I did not attack you. I asked you if that's why you are pissed. Look Pood, I cannot go from a free for all to a completely restricted forum that doesn't allow me to open my mouth. I did not insult anyone. I am not a mean-spirited person. But I will say that if people are in disagreement, there is something they don't understand just like a person who says that 1+1=11 doesn't understand. You've said such hurtful things in ff to keep the charade going, it's laughable that you are using a comment of mine that isn't even an insult, against me. If you consider that an AD HOM, and you want to use this ridiculous reason to get me banned, go for it.

An AD HOM is not (necessarily) an INSULT. You are tossing ad homs all over the place.

I know what an ad hom is. It's using a person's character as a reason to dismiss an argument. I will continue to say people don't agree because they don't understand. They can shut me up by banning me if they want. I'm not staying here much longer anyway.