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

[pood]

Is this it? Does everyone think man’s will is free because of a modal fallacy that would ruin our chances of peace on earth? If anyone here has misgivings or proof that we cannot have free will at the same time we have free will (a complete contradiction), please come forward! I need help! DBT, if it were not for you, I would have given up with this thread entirely.

With this exception, I’ve skipped reading the latest posts from DBT and peacegirl, because this is all so tiresome. I’m commenting on this post, because it is just so … peacegirl.

I’ve engaged with her before on her author’s book on another forum, in a thread that has continued, off and on, for thirteen years. Contrary to her claim earlier in this thread, I did not invite her to this forum; I merely suggested she might consider this venue to make her argument.

Now that she is whining about losing her audience, I merely note that I TOLD her this would happen — or, that she would draw a chorus of ridicule — IF she posted in her usual fashion, which is to post up huge walls of copypasta from the book, without ever attempting to summarize the argument in her own words. Did she take my advice? No, she did not. Did she lose her audience? Yes, she did. And who is to blame for that? Oh, wait — me?? Hey, peacegirl, remember my advice? And remember how according to the author, you’re not supposed to fob off the blame for your acts on anyone else? In fact, according to him, it should be impossible for you to do that — yet here you are, doing it.

Now, a word about “impossible.” I have shown DBT that his argument to hard determinism contains a glaring modal fallacy, and always has. No one needs to take my word for it — there are reams of material on the modal fallacy online, including the modal fallacy. The argument to hard determinism is:

Given antecedents x, y, and z, John MUST NECESSARILY pick Coke over Pepsi.

But this is wrong, and upthread I showed exactly WHY it is wrong. The corrected argument is:

NECESSARILY (given x, y, and z, John WILL [but not MUST] pick Coke over Pepsi.)

But the corrected argument is just … soft determinism.

Because the crux of the dispute between the hard determinist and the soft determinist is just this: the soft determinist does not deny that John will pick Coke given antecedents x, y, and z; the soft determinist simply denies that John MUST do that.

Now if the hard determinist concedes the point that he has made a modal fallacy — and he will, if he is committed to logic and not just to posturing — does he have a fallback position?

Why, yes he does.

He can argue that given x, y, and z, it is physically (though not logically) impossible for John to choose Pepsi.

And, indeed, there are plenty of things that are physically (though not logically) impossible for anyone to do. It is physically impossible for me to flap my arms and fly. It is physically impossible for me to lift a Mack truck with my bare hands. It is physically impossible for me to teleport myself to the moon. The list goes on and on. None of these things are logically impossible, but they are physically impossible.

So the hard determinist can argue, “Look, granted it’s logically possible for John to choose Pepsi, but it is physically impossible.”

And why is that?

“Because of hard determinism,” the hard determinist perkily responds.

Huh.

Well let’s test that in the real world. Right now I’m at a bodega that carries Coke and Pepsi. Remember, I prefer Coke and always choose it, on those rare occasions when I drink a soda. But first, I’m going try to flap my arms and fly. Nope, can’t do it. Next, I’m going to go out into the street and lift a Mack truck with my bare hands. Nope, can’t do it. Next, I’m going to try and teleport myself to the moon. Nope, can’t do it.

Finally, I’m going to try to pick Pepsi over Coke.

Hey, look — I did it!

Now, I know, I know, the hard determinist will now argue that I HAD TO choose Pepsi in this particular context, because it was physically impossible for me to pick Coke. And why is that? Because of … wait for it … hard determinism!

So where the hard determinist argument to logical necessity is disproved modally, the hard determinist argument to physical impossibility is totally circular and empirically disproved. When I picked Pepsi, I demonstrated that doing so is neither logically nor physically impossible, and the hard determinist has no leg left to stand on. Q.E.D.

 

[pood]

I’d add that the reason the thread has gone on for thirteen years at the other forum, including innumerable participants, is because over there, peacegirl dropped what was in the REST of the book — and when she did, the LULZ train left the station, and has never looked back. The thread became like cocaine for the funny bone — irresistible. So far, she has not dropped what is in the rest of the book, in this forum.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this it? Does everyone

Hasty generalisation

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

Non sequitur

that would ruin our chances of peace on earth?

Argument from consequences

If anyone here has misgivings

Appeal to emotion

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

Question begging and poisoning the well

please come forward! I need help!

Evidently.

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

Don't try to shift the blame.

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

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

 

[peacegirl]

Is this it? Does everyone think man’s will is free because of a modal fallacy that would ruin our chances of peace on earth? If anyone here has misgivings or proof that we cannot have free will at the same time we have free will (a complete contradiction), please come forward! I need help! DBT, if it were not for you, I would have given up with this thread entirely.

With this exception, I’ve skipped reading the latest posts from DBT and peacegirl, because this is all so tiresome. I’m commenting on this post, because it is just so … peacegirl.

I’ve engaged with her before on her author’s book on another forum, in a thread that has continued, off and on, for thirteen years. Contrary to her claim earlier in this thread, I did not invite her to this forum; I merely suggested she might consider this venue to make her argument.

You encouraged me to come here. I was here before, but you said there was a change in administration and to try again.

Now that she is whining about losing her audience, I merely note that I TOLD her this would happen — or, that she would draw a chorus of ridicule — IF she posted in her usual fashion, which is to post up huge walls of copypasta from the book, without ever attempting to summarize the argument in her own words. Did she take my advice? No, she did not. Did she lose her audience? Yes, she did. And who is to blame for that? Oh, wait — me?? Hey, peacegirl, remember my advice? And remember how according to the author, you’re not supposed to fob off the blame for your acts on anyone else? In fact, according to him, it should be impossible for you to do that — yet here you are, doing it.

I told you though that due to the extraordinary claims, it is impossible for me to summarize it in a few words. It would only create more questions. I will give one sentence that no one will understand but to show you how difficult this is, here goes: The world can no longer blame what you can no longer justify. That is the two-sided equation in a nutshell. I already explained why man's will is not free as the gateway to the discovery. No one seems at all interested in this, probably because his explanation as to why man’s will is not free seems too easy. There is so much confusion and complication due to all the false definitions being put forth. Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one. It’s called Occam’s Razor.

DBT and I are in the minority for a variety of reasons, one being that most people believe in some type of free will, and also because it's boring to a lot of people to rehash the same old arguments. What they don't realize is what lies behind the door of determinism that makes all the difference in the world. They figure there's nothing here to get excited about, but have they really given the author a chance? No. Finally, this author was unknown, so to them he's just another peon. In their mind, the science is pretty much settled after thousands of years debating this topic. So, who is this unknown author to offer anything life altering? Aren't these the thoughts ruminating through people's minds? It's a losing battle in this type of format, not because of anything I'm doing wrong, but because the format doesn't lend itself to a deep dive which is required for something so new. Not only is determinism a less popular position, but it's the extension of this position that has significance beyond what anyone can even imagine given the state of affairs our world is in. So, this author has two strikes against him. For anyone to be truly objective in a give and take dialogue, it would require people to put aside their belief whether it is in compatibilist free will or libertarian free will, even temporarily, which would give this thread half a chance.

Now, a word about “impossible.” I have shown DBT that his argument to hard determinism contains a glaring modal fallacy, and always has. No one needs to take my word for it — there are reams of material on the modal fallacy online, including the modal fallacy. The argument to hard determinism is:

Given antecedents x, y, and z, John MUST NECESSARILY pick Coke over Pepsi.

But this is wrong, and upthread I showed exactly WHY it is wrong. The corrected argument is:

NECESSARILY (given x, y, and z, John WILL [but not MUST] pick Coke over Pepsi.)

But the corrected argument is just … soft determinism.

You're completely off base Pood, just like DBT said, according to the definition compatibilists use. You are a closet libertarian.

Because the crux of the dispute between the hard determinist and the soft determinist is just this: the soft determinist does not deny that John will pick Coke given antecedents x, y, and z; the soft determinist simply denies that John MUST do that.

Now if the hard determinist concedes the point that he has made a modal fallacy — and he will, if he is committed to logic and not just to posturing — does he have a fallback position?

Why, yes he does.

He can argue that given x, y, and z, it is physically (though not logically) impossible for John to choose Pepsi.

This logic has no real meaning because we are not talking about a logically possible world. We are talking about this world and why a choice made could not have been otherwise regardless of some future possibility. It makes no sense.

And, indeed, there are plenty of things that are physically (though not logically) impossible for anyone to do. It is physically impossible for me to flap my arms and fly. It is physically impossible for me to lift a Mack truck with my bare hands. It is physically impossible for me to teleport myself to the moon. The list goes on and on. None of these things are logically impossible, but they are physically impossible.

So the hard determinist can argue, “Look, granted it’s logically possible for John to choose Pepsi, but it is physically impossible.”

And why is that?

“Because of hard determinism,” the hard determinist perkily responds.

Huh.

It's logically possible for me to eat Cheerios for breakfast, but that doesn't mean that once I choose eggs, it was possible for me to eat Cheerios at that instant. This whole modal logic is completely and utterly flawed.

Well let’s test that in the real world. Right now I’m at a bodega that carries Coke and Pepsi. Remember, I prefer Coke and always choose it, on those rare occasions when I drink a soda. But first, I’m going try to flap my arms and fly. Nope, can’t do it. Next, I’m going to go out into the street and lift a Mack truck with my bare hands. Nope, can’t do it. Next, I’m going to try and teleport myself to the moon. Nope, can’t do it.

Finally, I’m going to try to pick Pepsi over Coke.

Hey, look — I did it!

Now, I know, I know, the hard determinist will now argue that I HAD TO choose Pepsi in this particular context, because it was physically impossible for me to pick Coke. And why is that? Because of … wait for it … hard determinism!

Of course you can choose Pepsi at a later date, which is not what we are talking about. You are comparing two distinct differences in events that make no difference when it comes to free choice. We know it's impossible to do certain things which modal logic uses to separate what is possible and what is impossible. But here's the catch: just because it's possible to do certain things at a different time has no bearing on whether we actually have freedom of the will or whether it's possible to choose otherwise at that exact moment in time. You have yet to prove anything even close.

So where the hard determinist argument to logical necessity is disproved modally, the hard determinist argument to physical impossibility is totally circular and empirically disproved. When I picked Pepsi, I demonstrated that doing so is neither logically nor physically impossible, and the hard determinist has no leg left to stand on. Q.E.D.

No Pood, it's you that has no leg to stand on. Even if it feels circular that what I choose is what I prefer and therefore I won't choose what I don't prefer, it actually has extreme relevance. Not everything that appears or even turns out to be tautological is meaningless.

Tautologies Must Not Be Dismissed | Steve Patterson

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

steve-patterson.com

 

[Janice Rael]

There are biological facts about human people and their brains some are in our DNA, dating back to before Homo Sapiens existed.

I laugh in the general direction of the dedication to arguing about why someone does or doesn't do things without any regards whatsoever to biological, genetic, and similar factors.


Furthermore, cultural factors are absent from these discussions, which is sad. Because obviously if you hood, you're gonna get Pepsi. Never Coke.

Well, not never, and not everywhere.

Me and my RC ... tastes mighty good to me.

 

[peacegirl]

There are biological facts about human people and their brains some are in our DNA, dating back to before Homo Sapiens existed.

I laugh in the general direction of the dedication to arguing about why someone does or doesn't do things without any regards whatsoever to biological, genetic, and similar factors.


Furthermore, cultural factors are absent from these discussions, which is sad. Because obviously if you hood, you're gonna get Pepsi. Never Coke.

Well, not never, and not everywhere.

Me and my RC ... tastes mighty good to me.

Everything you mentioned comes into play in regard to what someone does or doesn’t do, but that’s not what this book is about. It is only about preventing the conditions that lead to a first blow so someone doesn’t need to strike back or turn the other cheek.

 

[pood]

There are biological facts about human people and their brains some are in our DNA, dating back to before Homo Sapiens existed.

I laugh in the general direction of the dedication to arguing about why someone does or doesn't do things without any regards whatsoever to biological, genetic, and similar factors.


Furthermore, cultural factors are absent from these discussions, which is sad. Because obviously if you hood, you're gonna get Pepsi. Never Coke.

Well, not never, and not everywhere.

Me and my RC ... tastes mighty good to me.

Keep in mind that the compatibilist (soft determinist) fully agrees that we have no control over our genetics and our upbrining, both of which played a huge role in shaping us and our future choices. The soft determinist simply denies the clear non sequitur that because we have no control over our nature or nurture, we have no control over anything whatsoever — and can actually freely choose nothing at all, as the hard determinist would have it.

 

[Janice Rael]

Wait until you mortal fools find out how wrong you all are.

It has to be Vudu, or, "Voodoo." I think they have my Vudu Doll! and they won't put it down!!

There is no free will, no determinism of any softness or hardness. It's Vudu Dolls being thrown, really really hard, all the way down.

And they're eating the pets!

In a peacegirl-related, Lessans-books-related vein, I am very curious if peacegirl could tell us about her experiences with the books she has already published, the sites the books are sold on, and such.

Yo, Janis! May I ask you about your books, and the Seymour Lessans books that are sold online, under both of your names?

omg that is COOL, HOW did you get them there?

I wanted to publish some books. I was going to use an Amazon Publishing offering, maybe called Kindle Direct, I forget, but all I needed to do was create nice pdf files, use original images and art on them, upload them to Amazon, then, the books were not created unless ordered. Or, something. It was a few years ago, a lot has changed.

Do any of the sites where you currently have your books give you stats, when you sell a book? I have heard from authors who were always happy when 1 or 2 books sold in a month (and many other examples), but we never talked shop.

Do you have any other plans for your books? Such as maybe an author's night in your local library?

Not to derail, but, I think this is my only opportunity to ask anyone anything about publishing books. Thanks.

 

[DBT]

Is this it? Does everyone

Hasty generalisation

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

Non sequitur

that would ruin our chances of peace on earth?

Argument from consequences

If anyone here has misgivings

Appeal to emotion

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

Question begging and poisoning the well

please come forward! I need help!

Evidently.

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

Don't try to shift the blame.

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

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

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

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

 

[DBT]

Is this it? Does everyone think man’s will is free because of a modal fallacy that would ruin our chances of peace on earth? If anyone here has misgivings or proof that we cannot have free will at the same time we have free will (a complete contradiction), please come forward! I need help! DBT, if it were not for you, I would have given up with this thread entirely.

With this exception, I’ve skipped reading the latest posts from DBT and peacegirl, because this is all so tiresome. I’m commenting on this post, because it is just so … peacegirl.

I’ve engaged with her before on her author’s book on another forum, in a thread that has continued, off and on, for thirteen years. Contrary to her claim earlier in this thread, I did not invite her to this forum; I merely suggested she might consider this venue to make her argument.

Now that she is whining about losing her audience, I merely note that I TOLD her this would happen — or, that she would draw a chorus of ridicule — IF she posted in her usual fashion, which is to post up huge walls of copypasta from the book, without ever attempting to summarize the argument in her own words. Did she take my advice? No, she did not. Did she lose her audience? Yes, she did. And who is to blame for that? Oh, wait — me?? Hey, peacegirl, remember my advice? And remember how according to the author, you’re not supposed to fob off the blame for your acts on anyone else? In fact, according to him, it should be impossible for you to do that — yet here you are, doing it.

Now, a word about “impossible.” I have shown DBT that his argument to hard determinism contains a glaring modal fallacy, and always has. No one needs to take my word for it — there are reams of material on the modal fallacy online, including the modal fallacy. The argument to hard determinism is:

Given antecedents x, y, and z, John MUST NECESSARILY pick Coke over Pepsi.

But this is wrong, and upthread I showed exactly WHY it is wrong. The corrected argument is:

NECESSARILY (given x, y, and z, John WILL [but not MUST] pick Coke over Pepsi.)

But the corrected argument is just … soft determinism.

Because the crux of the dispute between the hard determinist and the soft determinist is just this: the soft determinist does not deny that John will pick Coke given antecedents x, y, and z; the soft determinist simply denies that John MUST do that.

Now if the hard determinist concedes the point that he has made a modal fallacy — and he will, if he is committed to logic and not just to posturing — does he have a fallback position?

Why, yes he does.

He can argue that given x, y, and z, it is physically (though not logically) impossible for John to choose Pepsi.

And, indeed, there are plenty of things that are physically (though not logically) impossible for anyone to do. It is physically impossible for me to flap my arms and fly. It is physically impossible for me to lift a Mack truck with my bare hands. It is physically impossible for me to teleport myself to the moon. The list goes on and on. None of these things are logically impossible, but they are physically impossible.

So the hard determinist can argue, “Look, granted it’s logically possible for John to choose Pepsi, but it is physically impossible.”

And why is that?

“Because of hard determinism,” the hard determinist perkily responds.

Huh.

Well let’s test that in the real world. Right now I’m at a bodega that carries Coke and Pepsi. Remember, I prefer Coke and always choose it, on those rare occasions when I drink a soda. But first, I’m going try to flap my arms and fly. Nope, can’t do it. Next, I’m going to go out into the street and lift a Mack truck with my bare hands. Nope, can’t do it. Next, I’m going to try and teleport myself to the moon. Nope, can’t do it.

Finally, I’m going to try to pick Pepsi over Coke.

Hey, look — I did it!

Now, I know, I know, the hard determinist will now argue that I HAD TO choose Pepsi in this particular context, because it was physically impossible for me to pick Coke. And why is that? Because of … wait for it … hard determinism!

So where the hard determinist argument to logical necessity is disproved modally, the hard determinist argument to physical impossibility is totally circular and empirically disproved. When I picked Pepsi, I demonstrated that doing so is neither logically nor physically impossible, and the hard determinist has no leg left to stand on. Q.E.D.

It is extremely tiresome. Especially when it's clear that compatibilism fails to make a case based on its own terms and references, its own definition of determinism and its own definition of free will, where 'had conditions been different,' or choice where any option can be taken is not relevant.

 

[peacegirl]

There are biological facts about human people and their brains some are in our DNA, dating back to before Homo Sapiens existed.

I laugh in the general direction of the dedication to arguing about why someone does or doesn't do things without any regards whatsoever to biological, genetic, and similar factors.


Furthermore, cultural factors are absent from these discussions, which is sad. Because obviously if you hood, you're gonna get Pepsi. Never Coke.

Well, not never, and not everywhere.

Me and my RC ... tastes mighty good to me.

Keep in mind that the compatibilist (soft determinist) fully agrees that we have no control over our genetics and our upbrining, both of which played a huge role in shaping us and our future choices. The soft determinist simply denies the clear non sequitur that because we have no control over our nature or nurture, we have no control over anything whatsoever — and can actually freely choose nothing at all, as the hard determinist would have it.

Here you go again in your defense of the indefensible: "We have no control over our genetics and our upbringing" and "Because we have no control over our nature or nurture, [this does not mean] we have no have control over anything whatsoever." A complete contradiction. What lies outside of nature and nurture Pood that frees up our free will to do other than what our nature and nurture compels us to do? Show me how compatibilists can deny the clear non sequitur to go beyond what our brains are given (our antecedents) to make decisions. Show me where free will intercedes and carries out a decision that is actually free to do otherwise (other than your dependence on modal logic, which is flawed). This author does state that we have absolute control over our choice not to do something if we don't want to do it. But our decision not to do something is in the direction of greater satisfaction also. We cannot escape our nature no matter how hard we try.

 

[peacegirl]

Wait until you mortal fools find out how wrong you all are.

It has to be Vudu, or, "Voodoo." I think they have my Vudu Doll! and they won't put it down!!

There is no free will, no determinism of any softness or hardness. It's Vudu Dolls being thrown, really really hard, all the way down.

And they're eating the pets!

In a peacegirl-related, Lessans-books-related vein, I am very curious if peacegirl could tell us about her experiences with the books she has already published, the sites the books are sold on, and such.

Yo, Janis! May I ask you about your books, and the Seymour Lessans books that are sold online, under both of your names?

omg that is COOL, HOW did you get them there?

I wanted to publish some books. I was going to use an Amazon Publishing offering, maybe called Kindle Direct, I forget, but all I needed to do was create nice pdf files, use original images and art on them, upload them to Amazon, then, the books were not created unless ordered. Or, something. It was a few years ago, a lot has changed.

Do any of the sites where you currently have your books give you stats, when you sell a book? I have heard from authors who were always happy when 1 or 2 books sold in a month (and many other examples), but we never talked shop.

Do you have any other plans for your books? Such as maybe an author's night in your local library?

Not to derail, but, I think this is my only opportunity to ask anyone anything about publishing books. Thanks.

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

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

 

[pood]

I wanted to publish some books. I was going to use an Amazon Publishing offering, maybe called Kindle Direct, I forget, but all I needed to do was create nice pdf files, use original images and art on them, upload them to Amazon, then, the books were not created unless ordered. Or, something. It was a few years ago, a lot has changed.

This is how Pood Paw Prints publishes books. It’s called the print-on-demand model, and how we will publish the iidb poetry book, which, btw, I’m sorry to have fallen a bit behind on, but we are working on several books. We just published volume three of a graphic novel trilogy called Pantheon, and forthcoming is Where Did Everything Come From? I think you saw the thread on that with the promo video. In the pipeline are several other books. Yes, they do sell, though it’s not very remunerative. The key is publicity, publicity, publicity, a tough nut to crack.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this it? Does everyone

Hasty generalisation

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

Non sequitur

that would ruin our chances of peace on earth?

Argument from consequences

If anyone here has misgivings

Appeal to emotion

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

Question begging and poisoning the well

please come forward! I need help!

Evidently.

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

Don't try to shift the blame.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DBT]

Will isn't exempt from determinism. Nor is determinism a matter of being forced.

 

[peacegirl]

Will isn't exempt from determinism. Nor is determinism a matter of being forced.

That’s an important nuance that seems to get overlooked. It needs to continue to be emphasized, as people hate the idea of being forced to do anything against their will.

 

[pood]

Is this it? Does everyone

Hasty generalisation

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

Non sequitur

that would ruin our chances of peace on earth?

Argument from consequences

If anyone here has misgivings

Appeal to emotion

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

Question begging and poisoning the well

please come forward! I need help!

Evidently.

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

Don't try to shift the blame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[peacegirl]

Is this it? Does everyone think man’s will is free because of a modal fallacy that would ruin our chances of peace on earth? If anyone here has misgivings or proof that we cannot have free will at the same time we have free will (a complete contradiction), please come forward! I need help! DBT, if it were not for you, I would have given up with this thread entirely.

With this exception, I’ve skipped reading the latest posts from DBT and peacegirl, because this is all so tiresome. I’m commenting on this post, because it is just so … peacegirl.

I’ve engaged with her before on her author’s book on another forum, in a thread that has continued, off and on, for thirteen years. Contrary to her claim earlier in this thread, I did not invite her to this forum; I merely suggested she might consider this venue to make her argument.

Now that she is whining about losing her audience, I merely note that I TOLD her this would happen — or, that she would draw a chorus of ridicule — IF she posted in her usual fashion, which is to post up huge walls of copypasta from the book, without ever attempting to summarize the argument in her own words. Did she take my advice? No, she did not. Did she lose her audience? Yes, she did. And who is to blame for that? Oh, wait — me?? Hey, peacegirl, remember my advice? And remember how according to the author, you’re not supposed to fob off the blame for your acts on anyone else? In fact, according to him, it should be impossible for you to do that — yet here you are, doing it.

Now, a word about “impossible.” I have shown DBT that his argument to hard determinism contains a glaring modal fallacy, and always has. No one needs to take my word for it — there are reams of material on the modal fallacy online, including the modal fallacy. The argument to hard determinism is:

Given antecedents x, y, and z, John MUST NECESSARILY pick Coke over Pepsi.

But this is wrong, and upthread I showed exactly WHY it is wrong. The corrected argument is:

NECESSARILY (given x, y, and z, John WILL [but not MUST] pick Coke over Pepsi.)

But the corrected argument is just … soft determinism.

Because the crux of the dispute between the hard determinist and the soft determinist is just this: the soft determinist does not deny that John will pick Coke given antecedents x, y, and z; the soft determinist simply denies that John MUST do that.

Now if the hard determinist concedes the point that he has made a modal fallacy — and he will, if he is committed to logic and not just to posturing — does he have a fallback position?

Why, yes he does.

He can argue that given x, y, and z, it is physically (though not logically) impossible for John to choose Pepsi.

And, indeed, there are plenty of things that are physically (though not logically) impossible for anyone to do. It is physically impossible for me to flap my arms and fly. It is physically impossible for me to lift a Mack truck with my bare hands. It is physically impossible for me to teleport myself to the moon. The list goes on and on. None of these things are logically impossible, but they are physically impossible.

So the hard determinist can argue, “Look, granted it’s logically possible for John to choose Pepsi, but it is physically impossible.”

And why is that?

“Because of hard determinism,” the hard determinist perkily responds.

Huh.

Well let’s test that in the real world. Right now I’m at a bodega that carries Coke and Pepsi. Remember, I prefer Coke and always choose it, on those rare occasions when I drink a soda. But first, I’m going try to flap my arms and fly. Nope, can’t do it. Next, I’m going to go out into the street and lift a Mack truck with my bare hands. Nope, can’t do it. Next, I’m going to try and teleport myself to the moon. Nope, can’t do it.

Finally, I’m going to try to pick Pepsi over Coke.

Hey, look — I did it!

Now, I know, I know, the hard determinist will now argue that I HAD TO choose Pepsi in this particular context, because it was physically impossible for me to pick Coke. And why is that? Because of … wait for it … hard determinism!

So where the hard determinist argument to logical necessity is disproved modally, the hard determinist argument to physical impossibility is totally circular and empirically disproved. When I picked Pepsi, I demonstrated that doing so is neither logically nor physically impossible, and the hard determinist has no leg left to stand on. Q.E.D.

It is extremely tiresome. Especially when it's clear that compatibilism fails to make a case based on its own terms and references, its own definition of determinism and its own definition of free will, where 'had conditions been different,' or choice where any option can be taken is not relevant.

There has to be some kind of block when the contradiction is staring them right in the face.

But this thread is not just about debating the falseness of compatibilism. It is about showing how the truth of determinism can save our world from destruction. I know that’s a big claim but before people laugh and reject it, they have to understand why this is true (as well as relevant), especially given our times.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this it? Does everyone

Hasty generalisation

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

Non sequitur

that would ruin our chances of peace on earth?

Argument from consequences

If anyone here has misgivings

Appeal to emotion

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

Question begging and poisoning the well

please come forward! I need help!

Evidently.

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

Don't try to shift the blame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pood]

Is this it? Does everyone

Hasty generalisation

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

Non sequitur

that would ruin our chances of peace on earth?

Argument from consequences

If anyone here has misgivings

Appeal to emotion

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

Question begging and poisoning the well

please come forward! I need help!

Evidently.

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

Don't try to shift the blame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not at all hard to grasp. We are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is just a way to say that we always do what we prefer, because why would we do what we don’t prefer? To say that nobody and nothing can make us do, what we don’t to do — and that includes determinism, as you just said — combines, with the first premise, to form … compatibilism. Determinism doesn’t make you do, what you don’t want to do, and doesn’t compel you to do, what you want to do — you do it because you want to, not because of the mythical hard determinism — is … compatibilism, stated in different words.