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

[pood]

Some folks tend to get defensive of their faith.

The difference between faith-based hard determinism, and rational soft determinism is this: The hard determinist says antecedents NECESSITATE (modal fallacy) that I do x; the soft determinist says I do x because I want to, and I want to because of antecedents.

It appears that you don't understand the implications of what you just said.

Yes, I do. I framed the matter correctly, whereas you commit the standard logical fallacy you always do.

 

[pood]

For clarity, “JC” should not be confused with “BK” (Burger King) when one is making plans to eat out.

 

[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.

I agree, but the REALLY best parts, like JC (not to be confused with Jesus Christ) were left on the cutting-room floor by peacegirl. But we know who the True Steward of the Authentic Text is.

Jesus makes an appearance in the Authentic Text? I had no idea. I guess I'm a heathen in more ways than one.

No, I said the politely phrased “JC,” sometimes rendered “J, JC,” is NOT to be confused with Jesus Christ. If you need further guidance, please consult, at FF, ChuckF, who is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

This will backfire on you Pood. Using FF to somehow discredit me because you have nothing else to defend your position is a red herring. The twisting of a serious book to make it unrecognizable is more about Chuck and his motivation to make more lulz than anything else. He has accused me of so many things that are outright lies, if anyone here believes this garbage, I will not respond to them.

Peacegirl, if you have further questions or concerns about the Authentic Text, please consult ChuckF at the FF Help Desk. You will need to make an appointment, though; there is a backlog of requests for information on The Boohog Corollary, the Surreptitious Aphrodisiac Theorem, The Ur-Penis, and suchlike topics of importance.

I’m asking the moderators to please restrict Pood from trying to ruin this thread like he and two others succeeded doing on freethought forum. If the moderators are worth their salt, they will stop him. This is definitely a form of ad hom. He’s playing dirty because he’s being checkmated and obviously he can’t handle it. I beg you to please stop him now before this thread turns into another ff. If he continues and no one helps me, I will be forced to leave as the lesser of two evils. The harm these three caused in freethought forum was beyond repair. It was an injustice to the author and I will not allow Pood to smear his name again!

 

[pood]

I’m asking the moderators to please restrict Pood from trying to ruin this thread like he and two others succeeded doing on freethought forum. If the moderators are worth their salt, they will stop him. This is definitely a form of ad hom. He’s playing dirty because he’s being checkmated and obviously he can’t handle it. I beg you to please stop him now before this thread turns into another ff. If he continues and no one helps me, I will be forced to leave because it will be the lesser of two evils..

Guess what that is, peacegirl?

 

[pood]

Actually, as noted, I’ve tried to help you, but obviously you don’t want help, so …

 

[peacegirl]

I’m asking the moderators to please restrict Pood from trying to ruin this thread like he and two others succeeded doing on freethought forum. If the moderators are worth their salt, they will stop him. This is definitely a form of ad hom. He’s playing dirty because he’s being checkmated and obviously he can’t handle it. I beg you to please stop him now before this thread turns into another ff. If he continues and no one helps me, I will be forced to leave because it will be the lesser of two evils..

Guess what that is, peacegirl?

Determinism, that’s what it is. I will be forced to leave, not against my will, but after weighing what could happen (it would be a total travesty) due to your resentment (which I will not allow in my presence), I will prefer leaving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The ball is in your court unless someone comes to my rescue.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, you are promoting a book (just not the original). Therefore, the whole book is fair game for discussion. You’ll notice I’ve not brought up what else is in the book, besides the stuff you have posted. That is because I have been trying to help you make a fair case for your “two-sided equation,” which you have failed to do. Were you yourself planning to bring up what else is in the book?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, you are promoting a book (just not the original). Therefore, the whole book is fair game for discussion.

When the time is right, I will but only if I’m given respect. That doesn’t mean people can’t question, but won’t put up with the lulz that you hope will be created. I have known you long enough to bet on my odds that I’m right.

You’ll notice I’ve not brought up what else is in the book, besides the stuff you have posted. That is because I have been trying to help you make a fair case for your “two-sided equation,” which you have failed to do. Were you yourself planning to bring up what else is in the book?

I don’t want to switch to another topic when this one hasn’t scratched the surface. I don’t trust your motives Pood. You act like you’re on my side but I think it’s a ruse. You want me to fail which is why you want me to switch topics. I don’t need your help to make my case either. I do thank you for helping me with the subject line, but that’s about it!

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, you are promoting a book (just not the original). Therefore, the whole book is fair game for discussion.

When the time is right, I will but only if I’m given respect. That doesn’t mean people can’t question, but won’t put up with the lulz that you hope will be created. I have known you long enough to bet on my odds that I’m right.

You’ll notice I’ve not brought up what else is in the book, besides the stuff you have posted. That is because I have been trying to help you make a fair case for your “two-sided equation,” which you have failed to do. Were you yourself planning to bring up what else is in the book?

I don’t want to switch to another topic when this one hasn’t scratched the surface. I don’t trust your motives Pood. You act like you’re on my side but I think it’s a ruse. You want me to fail which is why you want me to switch topics. I don’t need your help to make my case either. I do thank you for helping me with the subject line, but that’s about it!

I am “on your side” only in the sense that I am trying to help you get a FAIR HEARING for your “two-sided equation” business. But you have rejected my advice and have done the same old things you have done everywhere, which is to post huge walls of text without explanation or commentary, and then complain that no one is reading the stuff or if they do, they don’t understand because if they did, they would obviously agree with it. How is that working out for you?

 

[pood]

I’m asking the moderators to please restrict Pood from trying to ruin this thread like he and two others succeeded doing on freethought forum. If the moderators are worth their salt, they will stop him. This is definitely a form of ad hom. He’s playing dirty because he’s being checkmated and obviously he can’t handle it. I beg you to please stop him now before this thread turns into another ff. If he continues and no one helps me, I will be forced to leave because it will be the lesser of two evils..

Guess what that is, peacegirl?

Determinism, that’s what it is. I will be forced to leave, not against my will, but after weighing what could happen (it would be a total travesty) due to your resentment (which I will not allow in my presence), I will prefer leaving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The ball is in your court unless someone comes to my rescue.

I meant the bolded part.

 

[peacegirl]

I’m asking the moderators to please restrict Pood from trying to ruin this thread like he and two others succeeded doing on freethought forum. If the moderators are worth their salt, they will stop him. This is definitely a form of ad hom. He’s playing dirty because he’s being checkmated and obviously he can’t handle it. I beg you to please stop him now before this thread turns into another ff. If he continues and no one helps me, I will be forced to leave because it will be the lesser of two evils..

Guess what that is, peacegirl?

Determinism, that’s what it is. I will be forced to leave, not against my will, but after weighing what could happen (it would be a total travesty) due to your resentment (which I will not allow in my presence), I will prefer leaving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The ball is in your court unless someone comes to my rescue.

I meant the bolded part.

You’ve tried to make a laughingstock out of me, so whether you call it an ad hom, or just plain mockery at my expense, you have no room to talk.

 

[pood]

I’m asking the moderators to please restrict Pood from trying to ruin this thread like he and two others succeeded doing on freethought forum. If the moderators are worth their salt, they will stop him. This is definitely a form of ad hom. He’s playing dirty because he’s being checkmated and obviously he can’t handle it. I beg you to please stop him now before this thread turns into another ff. If he continues and no one helps me, I will be forced to leave because it will be the lesser of two evils..

Guess what that is, peacegirl?

Determinism, that’s what it is. I will be forced to leave, not against my will, but after weighing what could happen (it would be a total travesty) due to your resentment (which I will not allow in my presence), I will prefer leaving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The ball is in your court unless someone comes to my rescue.

I meant the bolded part.

You’ve tried to make a laughingstock out of me, so whether you call it an ad hom, or just plain mockery at my expense, you have no room to talk.

If you feel like laughingstock, maybe it is you to blame, not anyone else. For example, I told you way back that we can provisionally accept your premise “man’s will is not free” for the sake of further discussion. I pointed out you were in the stage of building an argument to test for validity, and only later do we need to concern ourselves with whether the argument is sound (premises all true). But you have ignored all this, and with what result? Is ANYONE discussing this with you? DBT is only here to renew the old determinism debate. He has not commented at all on your writer’s work and I doubt he has read any of the passages you have posted.

 

[peacegirl]

Actually, as noted, I’ve tried to help you, but obviously you don’t want help, so …

No, not from you. I don't trust you with a ten-foot pole.

 

[peacegirl]

I’m asking the moderators to please restrict Pood from trying to ruin this thread like he and two others succeeded doing on freethought forum. If the moderators are worth their salt, they will stop him. This is definitely a form of ad hom. He’s playing dirty because he’s being checkmated and obviously he can’t handle it. I beg you to please stop him now before this thread turns into another ff. If he continues and no one helps me, I will be forced to leave because it will be the lesser of two evils..

Guess what that is, peacegirl?

Determinism, that’s what it is. I will be forced to leave, not against my will, but after weighing what could happen (it would be a total travesty) due to your resentment (which I will not allow in my presence), I will prefer leaving in the direction of greater satisfaction. The ball is in your court unless someone comes to my rescue.

I meant the bolded part.

You’ve tried to make a laughingstock out of me, so whether you call it an ad hom, or just plain mockery at my expense, you have no room to talk.

If you feel like laughingstock, maybe it is you to blame, not anyone else.

I'm not to blame for the quick conclusions people came to, especially Maturin. Then you joined in, and later Chuck. The mockery and the jokes weren't funny. There is nothing that justifies how I was treated. Even if the author was wrong (which I don't believe he is), to be trolled to that extent was uncalled for in a conversation that should have remained objective and civil. I was very naive, and it still stings that I wasted so much time there.

For example, I told you way back that we can provisionally accept your premise “man’s will is not free” for the sake of further discussion. I pointed out you were in the stage of building an argument to test for validity, and only later do we need to concern ourselves with whether the argument is sound (premises all true). But you have ignored all this, and with what result? Is ANYONE discussing this with you? DBT is only here to renew the old determinism debate. He has not commented at all on your writer’s work and I doubt he has read any of the passages you have posted.

It's not necessary that he reads the book. He will if he wants to. I'm grateful that DBT is the one person who understands that determinism is true. I'm just extending this truth to show how we can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Blame and punishment, which is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system, will continue to be necessary, until this discovery is recognized. It's a lonely task to defend determinism when most people believe in some form of free will. DBT and me both agree that determinism is true, and compatibilism is false, because their version is no different than libertarianism. It suggests a person could have done other than what they did because of blah blah blah. He didn't have to rob the bank; he wanted to; he wasn't compelled to this action, he had the free will not to do what he did, and now he has to pay. That is the theme. They have created a special definition of what constitutes their brand of free will and yet at the same time they believe we don't have free will. Can you see the contradiction or is it too hard to face? It undercuts all logic if you look deeply into it. Because they haven't found a way to reconcile "choosing of one's own accord" with "no free will", and they believe we don't have free will, they had to figure out a way to create a definition of "free" that sounded good and took away their cognitive/dissonance. But it fails the litmus test. If will is not free, no one (not the OCD types, the addicts, the victims, nor the perpetrators), are responsible for their actions once they have occurred. The whole point of this discovery is not to condone these behaviors, but to demonstrate how these behaviors can be prevented based on changes in the environment. Under these changed conditions, they will have no choice but to take a different course of action because it will give them greater satisfaction (the only direction we can take) not to hurt others with a first blow (an unprovoked strike) when to hurt others becomes the worst possible choice in comparison. Remember, if someone has been hurt, he is justified to retaliate, but when all hurt to him is removed, he won't be able to strike a first blow because no justification can be gotten.

 

[bilby]

The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and proceed with the investigation.

Given the observed reluctance of the vast majority of people to keep an open mind, or to rigorously and honestly investigate anything (particularly themselves); And further given the abject failure of your favourite author here to get more than a handful of zealots to give serious consideration to his thesis, for so long that it has become tired and dated in its presentation, and laughably erroneous in its prediction of its own imminent success within the century in which it was written (which century ended almost a quarter of a century ago):

How can you possibly say that "The time has arrived" with a straight face?