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

[peacegirl]

You know what, peacegirl? I’m tired of discussing determinism/free will, since I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and because I’m right and you and DBT are wrong. But especially I’m tired of bits like the bolded above in your posts.

You know what, peacegirl? I’m tired of discussing determinism/free will, since I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and because I’m right and you and DBT are wrong. But especially I’m tired of bits like the bolded above in your posts.

On a number of occasions, I’ve said that I was trying to HELP you formulate an argument in the proper way to an audience of skeptics, and you totally ignored my advice. And where is your audience? Gone.

I'm sorry if you call my curiosity regarding your motives an ad hom. It wasn’t mean-spirited. I’m just curious because you’re failing to understand the determinist position that does not prescribe anything. You must have a block. And you must be kidding when you sound so hurt when the things you have said on the ff forum was abusive and used for lulz. You only got away with it because it wasn’t moderated. And now a teeny tiny taste of your own medicine is so obviously unnerving to you that you feel compelled to report me to a moderator? What you and two others did to me makes my ad hom look like a compliment! Talk about wasting time!

It doesn't matter to me if these people are gone. I have no desire to kowtow to anyone who tells me how I should proceed. I already gave one sentence as to what this discovery is about: The world must excuse what man can no longer justify. That is the two-sided equation in a nutshell.

Maybe we can get an audience back by telling them what is in the REST of the book, which I have so far refrained from doing, specifically to try to help you out.

Want me to tell them what’s in the rest of the book? Or will you?

On a number of occasions, I’ve said that I was trying to HELP you formulate an argument in the proper way to an audience of skeptics, and you totally ignored my advice. And where is your audience? Gone.

Maybe we can get an audience back by telling them what is in the REST of the book, which I have so far refrained from doing, specifically to try to help you out.

Want me to tell them what’s in the rest of the book? Or will you?

I’m not getting involved with his other two discoveries because I haven’t shown why his first discovery can prevent war and crime. I think that’s pretty important, don’t you? You are very vindictive because your logic is being challenged, yet you are trying to make me out to be the bad guy. Go figure!

 

[pood]

You know what, peacegirl? I’m tired of discussing determinism/free will, since I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and because I’m right and you and DBT are wrong. But especially I’m tired of bits like the bolded above in your posts.

You know what, peacegirl? I’m tired of discussing determinism/free will, since I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and because I’m right and you and DBT are wrong. But especially I’m tired of bits like the bolded above in your posts.

On a number of occasions, I’ve said that I was trying to HELP you formulate an argument in the proper way to an audience of skeptics, and you totally ignored my advice. And where is your audience? Gone.

I'm sorry if you call my curiosity regarding your motives an ad hom. It wasn’t mean-spirited. I’m just curious because you’re failing to understand the determinist position that does not prescribe anything. You must have a block. And you must be kidding when you sound so hurt when the things you have said on the ff forum were insanely hurtful and used for lulz. You only got away with it because it wasn’t moderated. It doesn't matter to me if these people are gone. I have no desire to kowtow to anyone who tells me how I should proceed. I already gave one sentence as to what this discovery is about: The world must excuse what man can no longer justify. That is the two-sided equation in a nutshell.

Bold is ad hom.

Maybe we can get an audience back by telling them what is in the REST of the book, which I have so far refrained from doing, specifically to try to help you out.

Want me to tell them what’s in the rest of the book? Or will you?

On a number of occasions, I’ve said that I was trying to HELP you formulate an argument in the proper way to an audience of skeptics, and you totally ignored my advice. And where is your audience? Gone.

Maybe we can get an audience back by telling them what is in the REST of the book, which I have so far refrained from doing, specifically to try to help you out.

Want me to tell them what’s in the rest of the book? Or will you?

I’m not getting involved with his other two discoveries because I haven’t shown why his first discovery can prevent war and crime. I think that’s pretty important, don’t you? You are very vindictive because your logic is being challenged, yet you are trying to make me out to be the bad guy. Go figure!

Bold is ad hom.

And now that’s enough.

 

[pood]

Since peacegirl won’t do it, I think it’s time to “spill the tea,” as they say nowadays, on the rest of the book. Surely peacegirl won’t object — she is trying to sell it, after all.

So OK, let’s discuss this book, in which the author talks about the “new world” that will emerge when everyone accepts his argument, a world that he says may have to be enforced at military gunpoint for those laggards and slugabeds who don’t accept his claims.

Did you know that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone? That’s false, of course, but the author claims it is true. Do you know what follows from that assertion, according to the author? What follows is, the eye is not a sense organ (!). Not only is that false, obviously, but even if it were true that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone (which is false), the conclusion that eyes are not a sense organ (which is also laughably false) would be a total non sequitur.

And do you know what “the eye is not a sense organ” means, in practice? It means, among other things, that if God turned on the sun at noon, everyone on the side of the earth facing the sun would see the sun immediately, but would not be able to see their neighbors, or anything else, for eight and a half minutes.

Those on the dark side of the earth would see the sun when they wake up, because the photons from the sun “hang around” for those people to see them. Dig it?

Did you know that in the “new world” it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to desire to share the same bed (!)?

Did you know that in the “new world,” Harry, (stand-in for the author) will get to lick all the “juicy, juicy C’s” he wants, without shame or blame? (peacegirl cut all this out of the book but it’s hilarious, well-written, and even better than Henry Miller’s stuff).

Did you know that in the “new world,” “homo-sexuals” (as the author styles them) are destined to “pass by the wayside in due course”?

Also, there are three kinds of “homo-sexuals” — inherited (I-homos), glandular (g-homos), and environmental (e-homos). But all are totally fucked in the “new world,” and I don’t mean “fucked” in the sense of congress.

Did you know that in the “new world,” a wife will undertake a “scientific study” to learn how to cook the best damned spaghetti and meatballs in the world, because to do otherwise would be to blame her husband for wanting the best damned spaghetti and meatballs in the world?

Did you know that in the “new word,” husbands will go right ahead and fuck their wives on the dinner table, PROVIDED that no “littles ones” are present?

But, wait! Little ones get a break. Did you know that in the “new world” it would be impossible to wake a child, for to do so would be to blame it for sleeping?

Did you know that in the “new world,” a doctor won’t need any training to be a doctor? He will simply hang out a shingle saying “doctor” because he wouldn’t do so if he didn’t think he had the capacity to be a doctor.

Did you know that in the “new world,” there will be no more traffic accidents?

Did you know that the author couldn’t possibly be wrong, because if he was wrong he would have said so, and since he didn’t say so, he must be right?

Did you know that the author was an aluminum sidings salesman and a billiards champ? (The former is fine and dandy provided he was honest in his dealings, as I expect he was; and the latter is just way cool. I play billiards and would love to be a billiards champ. I’m not, alas. )

Did you know the author, Seymour Lessans, is peacegirl’s father?

Whaddya think, peacegirl? Maybe you’ll get an audience back?

Or maybe not, given that people have free will and can do whatever the hell they like provided it is neither physically nor logically impossible.

 

[peacegirl]

You know what, peacegirl? I’m tired of discussing determinism/free will, since I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and because I’m right and you and DBT are wrong. But especially I’m tired of bits like the bolded above in your posts.

You know what, peacegirl? I’m tired of discussing determinism/free will, since I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and because I’m right and you and DBT are wrong. But especially I’m tired of bits like the bolded above in your posts.

On a number of occasions, I’ve said that I was trying to HELP you formulate an argument in the proper way to an audience of skeptics, and you totally ignored my advice. And where is your audience? Gone.

I'm sorry if you call my curiosity regarding your motives an ad hom. It wasn’t mean-spirited. I’m just curious because you’re failing to understand the determinist position that does not prescribe anything. You must have a block. And you must be kidding when you sound so hurt when the things you have said on the ff forum were insanely hurtful and used for lulz. You only got away with it because it wasn’t moderated. It doesn't matter to me if these people are gone. I have no desire to kowtow to anyone who tells me how I should proceed. I already gave one sentence as to what this discovery is about: The world must excuse what man can no longer justify. That is the two-sided equation in a nutshell.

Bold is ad hom.

Maybe we can get an audience back by telling them what is in the REST of the book, which I have so far refrained from doing, specifically to try to help you out.

Want me to tell them what’s in the rest of the book? Or will you?

On a number of occasions, I’ve said that I was trying to HELP you formulate an argument in the proper way to an audience of skeptics, and you totally ignored my advice. And where is your audience? Gone.

Maybe we can get an audience back by telling them what is in the REST of the book, which I have so far refrained from doing, specifically to try to help you out.

Want me to tell them what’s in the rest of the book? Or will you?

I’m not getting involved with his other two discoveries because I haven’t shown why his first discovery can prevent war and crime. I think that’s pretty important, don’t you? You are very vindictive because your logic is being challenged, yet you are trying to make me out to be the bad guy. Go figure!

Bold is ad hom.

And now that’s enough.

You have no room to tell me to stop! Of all people!! THE NERVE!!!!!!

 

[peacegirl]

Since peacegirl won’t do it, I think it’s time to “spill the tea,” as they say nowadays, on the rest of the book. Surely peacegirl won’t object — she is trying to sell it, after all.

So OK, let’s discuss this book, in which the author talks about the “new world” that will emerge when everyone accepts his argument, a world that he says may have to be enforced at military gunpoint for those laggards and slugabeds who don’t accept his claims.

Did you know that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone? That’s false, of course, but the author claims it is true. Do you know what follows from that assertion, according to the author? What follows is, the eye is not a sense organ (!). Not only is that false, obviously, but even if it were true that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone (which is false), the conclusion that eyes are not a sense organ (which is also laughably false) would be a total non sequitur.

And do you know what “the eye is not a sense organ” means, in practice? It means, among other things, that if God turned on the sun at noon, everyone on the side of the earth facing the sun would see the sun immediately, but would not be able to see their neighbors, or anything else, for eight and a half minutes.

Those on the dark side of the earth would see the sun when they wake up, because the photons from the sun “hang around” for those people to see them. Dig it?

Did you know that in the “new world” it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to desire to share the same bed (!)?

Did you know that in the “new world,” Harry, (stand-in for the author) will get to lick all the “juicy, juicy C’s” he wants, without shame or blame? (peacegirl cut all this out of the book but it’s hilarious, well-written, and even better than Henry Miller’s stuff).

Did you know that in the “new world,” “homo-sexuals” (as the author styles them) are destined to “pass by the wayside in due course”?

Also, there are three kinds of “homo-sexuals” — inherited (I-homos), glandular (g-homos), and environmental (e-homos). But all are totally fucked in the “new world,” and I don’t mean “fucked” in the sense of congress.

Did you know that in the “new world,” a wife will undertake a “scientific study” to learn how to cook the best damned spaghetti and meatballs in the world, because to do otherwise would be to blame her husband for wanting the best damned spaghetti and meatballs in the world?

Did you know that in the “new word,” husbands will go right ahead and fuck their wives on the dinner table, PROVIDED that no “littles ones” are present?

But, wait! Little ones get a break. Did you know that in the “new world” it would be impossible to wake a child, for to do so would be to blame it for sleeping?

Did you know that in the “new world,” a doctor won’t need any training to be a doctor? He will simply hang out a shingle saying “doctor” because he wouldn’t do so if he didn’t think he had the capacity to be a doctor.

Did you know that in the “new world,” there will be no more traffic accidents?

Did you know that the author couldn’t possibly be wrong, because if he was wrong he would have said so, and since he didn’t say so, he must be right?

Did you know that the author was an aluminum sidings salesman and a billiards champ? (The former is fine and dandy provided he was honest in his dealings, as I expect he was; and the latter is just way cool. I play billiards and would love to be a billiards champ. I’m not, alas. )

Did you know the author, Seymour Lessans, is peacegirl’s father?

Whaddya think, peacegirl? Maybe you’ll get an audience back?

Or maybe not, given that people have free will and can do whatever the hell they like provided it is neither physically nor logically impossible.

It is not impossible for them to come back if this thread becomes fodder for lulz. But I won’t let that happen. After all these years, you still have no understanding of determinism or what lies behind this hermetically sealed door. Moral responsibility is increased, not decreased, when this natural law (yes Pood, determinism is a natural law) supercedes the manmade laws that have only been partial deterrents. I hope the moderators stop Pood because he will continue to sabotage this thread in order to hurt me for reasons I don’t quite understand.

In the link to my compilation, I was very clear that I was his daughter. What difference does this make in terms of the veracity of this knowledge? This is a vendetta! It’s also an ad hom which has nothing to do with the proof.

What does the fact that my father was an autodidact have anything to do with your belief that he couldn’t have something of great importance? He learned more on his own than any formal education could have given him. And why are you bringing this up as if to say this discovery is useless because he was a salesman and a nine ball champ? You’ve gone off the rails!

 

[pood]

Oh, I almost forgot — among the most important points of all about the “new world” — in the “new world,” boys and “goils,” as Seymour styled them, will prance around scantily clad, and fall in love with each other’s sex organs, and get hitched for life with the first sex organs they fall in love with!

 

[peacegirl]

Oh, I almost forgot — among the most important points of all about the “new world” — in the “new world,” boys and “goils,” as Seymour style them, will prance around scantily clad, and fall in love with each other’s sex organs, and get hitched for life with the first sex organs they fall in love with!

That’s a complete misrepresentation of what was meant by that, and he was right btw. What Pood is doing is to create a false perception in order to stop people from thinking for themselves. This is a challenge to anyone following this thread and if you do read the book, you will see that these excerpts make sense when read in context. Don’t listen to the man behind the curtain. He doesn’t have a clue. He just took parts of the book to make it sound funny. Anyone can do that if that’s their goal. What he just shared has no resemblance to the book at all. He’s just playing dirty. That should tell ya something about his motive to hurt me. I hope it backfires on him. That will be my vindication.

 

[bilby]

Show me that you are free to shoot someone without any provocation. The reason you could not think of doing this is because you know this person is innocent, and it doesn't satisfy you to hurt him when you cannot justify what you are about to do. Show me where you are not under any compulsion to refrain from taking this person's life. Given the free will compatibilists say you have, you should be able to shoot based on their special kind of free will. According to them, you are not under any compulsion if you have no addiction, no OCD, and no gun to your head. Can't you see that you are compelled, by the laws of your nature, not to hurt this person because it can give you no satisfaction whatsoever under the conditions just described? I don't know how to make this any clearer than this.

Plenty of people have shot strangers for no reason that anyone could ever determine. A two second Google threw up a case from last year: https://globalnews.ca/news/10083033/toronto-man-life-sentence-fatal-random-shooting/amp/

If your hypothesis is (as you just claimed) that this cannot happen because "it can give [the shooter] no satisfaction whatsoever", then you hypothesis has been falsified and your entire thesis is wrong.

Observation always trumps theory. Always.

 

[peacegirl]

Show me that you are free to shoot someone without any provocation. The reason you could not think of doing this is because you know this person is innocent, and it doesn't satisfy you to hurt him when you cannot justify what you are about to do. Show me where you are not under any compulsion to refrain from taking this person's life. Given the free will compatibilists say you have, you should be able to shoot based on their special kind of free will. According to them, you are not under any compulsion if you have no addiction, no OCD, and no gun to your head. Can't you see that you are compelled, by the laws of your nature, not to hurt this person because it can give you no satisfaction whatsoever under the conditions just described? I don't know how to make this any clearer than this.

Plenty of people have shot strangers for no reason that anyone could ever determine. A two second Google threw up a case from last year: https://globalnews.ca/news/10083033/toronto-man-life-sentence-fatal-random-shooting/amp/

I wasn’t referring to just anybody. I was directing my question to Pood for a reason. It is true people have shot strangers for apparently no reason. It’s often misplaced rage that sets them off.

If your hypothesis is (as you just claimed) that this cannot happen because "it can give [the shooter] no satisfaction whatsoever", then you hypothesis has been falsified and your entire thesis is wrong.

Observation always trumps theory. Always.

The shooter has a justification because he’s reacting to being hurt in ways that may not be noticed by an onlooker. The saying “Hurting people hurt people” is very true. We are not born with a desire to cause harm. The only way this principle can work is when all hurt is removed from the environment. That is a tall order but when you follow the extension you can see how this is not as hard to accomplish as you may think. This is also why the blueprint of this new world must be worked backwards for it to be understood. This involves seeing how the basic principle extends into all areas of human relations, especially the economic system that has caused a pervasive insecurity and which justifies self-preservation at any cost.

 

[bilby]

The only way this principle can work is when all hurt is removed from the environment. That is a tall order

No, it's an obvious impossibility. To live is to suffer.

So this principle cannot work.

 

[peacegirl]

The only way this principle can work is when all hurt is removed from the environment. That is a tall order

No, it's an obvious impossibility. To live is to suffer.

So this principle cannot work.

False premise! To live is to eradicate suffering as much as possible, especially suffering that is needless.

 

[bilby]

To live is to eradicate suffering as much as possible

Sure. But "completely" is more than is possible.

 

[peacegirl]

To live is to eradicate suffering as much as possible

Sure. But "completely" is more than is possible

The author never made the claim that all suffering would cease; only the hurt that is caused by man.

 

[DBT]

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

This is unrelated to the point I've been making.

It's relevant to the topic.

I've been posting in response to peacegirl's original claim that "compatibilism is contradictory, by definition" (a claim which you appear to support).

Therefore I made the comment - that the compatibilist definition of free will ignores inner necessity - to clarify my position, which I think is clear enough.

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority

It's not an appeal to authority. I'm not claiming compatibilism is true because 59% of professional philosophers agree. I'm simply pointing out that it's highly unlikely that compatibilism (as supported by these philosophers) is "contradictory by definition".

It's implied. Otherwise, if there is no significance in the percentage of 'professional philosophers' who support compatibilism, why even bring it up?

On a side note, it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of an appeal to authority when your posts repeatedly contain quotes from what you would presumably believe are authority sources.

There is a difference. I quote material that describes the definition of compatibilism in relation to determinism and the problems related to that, which has nothing to do with the percentage of compatibilists or incompatibilists as a part of the argument.

As I said, compatibilism either stands or falls on the basis of its own premises.

 

[DBT]

Ok. It seems that peacegirl and DBT really do believe that 59% of professional philosophers have failed to notice that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition".

If true this would be quite remarkable bearing in mind that one would expect philosophers, of all people, to be extremely sensitive to obvious logical inconsistencies in their thinking.

Far more likely is the high probability that the definition of compatibilism used by 59% of professional philosophers is not the same as the definition used by peacegirl and DBT.

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority, even where the difference is not even that large.

You could say that nearly as many 'professional philosophers disagree on the matter. So what?

The issue is still that inner necessity poses just as much a challenge to the notion of free will as external force, coercion or undue influence.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

Could you elaborate on what is means by “deterministic manipulation by other agents?” This is confusing to me so I can’t imagine how it must be confusing to people who are trying to figure out which position is the most influential and makes the most sense. Determinism is a given if people understand that we are controlled by laws over which we have absolutely no control. It’s just a matter of explaining where there is a disconnect and where that disconnect can be explained where people can finally say, “I get it.”

Other agents just means other people....those who are trying to make you do something against your will, be it by force, coercion or undue influence, manipulating you do what they want you to do.

Where unconscious inner processes, neural networks processing information determine how we think, what we want and how we respond milliseconds before it is brought to consciousness.

 

[DBT]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Nah, forget about your appeal to semantics. It fails. Playing with words won't help you rescue compatibilism when it's the underlying principles that are flawed.

Namely, that given a deterministic system, all events are necessarily fixed, set, shaped, formed by their antecedents as the system evolves from past to present and future states of the system without deviation or the possibility of alternate choices or actions.

Which of course includes thought and action, where what you will or want is fixed by an interaction of both external and internal events.

The system evolves. That's all.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

 

[peacegirl]

Ok. It seems that peacegirl and DBT really do believe that 59% of professional philosophers have failed to notice that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition".

If true this would be quite remarkable bearing in mind that one would expect philosophers, of all people, to be extremely sensitive to obvious logical inconsistencies in their thinking.

Far more likely is the high probability that the definition of compatibilism used by 59% of professional philosophers is not the same as the definition used by peacegirl and DBT.

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority, even where the difference is not even that large.

You could say that nearly as many 'professional philosophers disagree on the matter. So what?

The issue is still that inner necessity poses just as much a challenge to the notion of free will as external force, coercion or undue influence.

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

Could you elaborate on what is means by “deterministic manipulation by other agents?” This is confusing to me so I can’t imagine how it must be confusing to people who are trying to figure out which position is the most influential and makes the most sense. Determinism is a given if people understand that we are controlled by laws over which we have absolutely no control. It’s just a matter of explaining where there is a disconnect and where that disconnect can be explained where people can finally say, “I get it.”

Other agents just means other people....those who are trying to make you do something against your will, be it by force, coercion or undue influence, manipulating you do what they want you to do.

Where unconscious inner processes, neural networks processing information determine how we think, what we want and how we respond milliseconds before it is brought to consciousness.

Thank you!

 

[The AntiChris]

I said that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case because it does not account for inner necessity.

This is unrelated to the point I've been making.

It's relevant to the topic.

I've been posting in response to peacegirl's original claim that "compatibilism is contradictory, by definition" (a claim which you appear to support).

Therefore I made the comment - that the compatibilist definition of free will ignores inner necessity - to clarify my position, which I think is clear enough.

And your 59% of professional philosophers is an appeal to authority

It's not an appeal to authority. I'm not claiming compatibilism is true because 59% of professional philosophers agree. I'm simply pointing out that it's highly unlikely that compatibilism (as supported by these philosophers) is "contradictory by definition".

It's implied. Otherwise, if there is no significance in the percentage of 'professional philosophers' who support compatibilism, why even bring it up?

On a side note, it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of an appeal to authority when your posts repeatedly contain quotes from what you would presumably believe are authority sources.

There is a difference. I quote material that describes the definition of compatibilism in relation to determinism and the problems related to that, which has nothing to do with the percentage of compatibilists or incompatibilists as a part of the argument.

As I said, compatibilism either stands or falls on the basis of its own premises.

Thanks. I don't think there's any more I can usefully add.

 

[peacegirl]

No Pood. If the word contingent bothers you, let's change it to necessary.

The word contingent doesn’t bother ME, it bothers YOU, and DBT! And that’s just the point: both you and DBT are trying to change the word “contingent” to “necessary” AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DO THAT.

Use of the word "contingent" is fine when it's used in the context of making a decision (i.e., the antecedents), but if you really want to go deeper (which offers more proof that man's will is not free), one's choices are based on necessity going back to when life originated. Most people don't look back in total perspective, but if we could go back in time, we would see that everything that led up to the present moment happened out of necessity based on the motion of life itself, which moves in one direction ONLY (i.e., the direction of greater preference or satisfaction), INCLUDING ONE'S CHOICES. How many more times am I going to have to explain this to you before you get it?

You can’t “explain” that which is wrong, because then there is nothing to explain.

And that word “necessity,” you still do not know what it means.

Causal, choice, necessity, compelled, fixed, contingent, predetermined, fatalistic, preordained, foreknowledge, etc. are leading people astray unless each is defined in the clearest possible way.

Right, which is exactly what I have done. You’re welcome.

You and DBT are repeatedly confusing and conflating these words.

You are the one using definitions that try to negate the absolute fact that we can only make one choice at each moment of time …

Yes, if you mean, “I can’t both choose and not choose Coke, at the same time.” So?

….and that choice can only be what is believed to be the most preferable.

Yeah, I choose what I prefer. OK.

Even if it's tautological, this does not mean it doesn't have major significance. Let's try this: Show me that you are free to shoot someone who has given you no reason. The reason you could not think of doing this is because you know this person is innocent, and it doesn't satisfy you to hurt him when you cannot justify it.

“I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.” Johnny Cash.

Show me where you are not under a compulsion to choose the option of not shooting him rather than shooting him.

Compelled by what? Crickets.

Compelled by the laws that dictate what you can only choose in the direction of greater satisfaction. This isn't rocket science Pood.

Given the definition of the free will compatibilists say you have, you should be able to shoot him just as easily as not shooting him.

Correct. But given antecedents x, y, z, I will NOT shoot him. It does not follow that I CANNOT shoot him. This is where you and DBT always run off the rails.

It does follow that you cannot shoot him if the alternative not to shoot him is better for you. You won't let this go, but that's not my problem, and it certainly doesn't prove Lessans was wrong.

According to compatibilists, you are not under a compulsion because you have no addiction, no OCD, and no gun to your head. Can't you see that you are compelled, by the laws of your nature, not to hurt this person because it can give you no satisfaction whatsoever under the conditions just described? I don't know how to make this any clearer than this.

There are no “laws” of my nature.

Of course we are subject to the laws of our nature. Are you kidding me? Everything is not helter skelter, where nothing we do can be depended upon.

 

[peacegirl]

Since peacegirl won’t do it, I think it’s time to “spill the tea,” as they say nowadays, on the rest of the book. Surely peacegirl won’t object — she is trying to sell it, after all.

You're just copying Chuck. who came into the thread late and decided that I must be doing this for lucre. This is insane!

So OK, let’s discuss this book, in which the author talks about the “new world” that will emerge when everyone accepts his argument, a world that he says may have to be enforced at military gunpoint for those laggards and slugabeds who don’t accept his claims.

Show me in any passage where he said this, or you're lying!!

Did you know that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone? That’s false, of course, but the author claims it is true. Do you know what follows from that assertion, according to the author? What follows is, the eye is not a sense organ (!). Not only is that false, obviously, but even if it were true that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone (which is false), the conclusion that eyes are not a sense organ (which is also laughably false) would be a total non sequitur.

Stop trying to distract people from the conversation so you can let go of your false interpretation of free will. You are being sleazy, and you know it!!

And do you know what “the eye is not a sense organ” means, in practice? It means, among other things, that if God turned on the sun at noon, everyone on the side of the earth facing the sun would see the sun immediately, but would not be able to see their neighbors, or anything else, for eight and a half minutes.

Those on the dark side of the earth would see the sun when they wake up, because the photons from the sun “hang around” for those people to see them. Dig it?

Did you know that in the “new world” it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to desire to share the same bed (!)?
You obviously understood nothing. I'm not getting into this for reasons that you know are to hurt me.

Did you know that in the “new world,” Harry, (stand-in for the author) will get to lick all the “juicy, juicy C’s” he wants, without shame or blame? (peacegirl cut all this out of the book but it’s hilarious, well-written, and even better than Henry Miller’s stuff).

You are out the door. I didn't cut this out. I uploaded all of his books, which include his sense of humor that he used as comic relief. It's horrible what you, Maturin, and Chuck have done to destroy this important work. I just hope people here will be open minded enough to hear the truth of his words. If not, it's okay. I am not in any way dependent on this forum. I just thought people here would like to know why man's will is not free is so important as we begin to know thyself, as Socrates proclaimed.

Did you know that in the “new world,” “homo-sexuals” (as the author styles them) are destined to “pass by the wayside in due course”?

Also, there are three kinds of “homo-sexuals” — inherited (I-homos), glandular (g-homos), and environmental (e-homos). But all are totally fucked in the “new world,” and I don’t mean “fucked” in the sense of congress.

Environment plays a huge part in how we see ourselves sexually and otherwise. He was the most unbigoted person you ever wanted to know. You are once again playing with words to make him look bad. I still don't get why you are using this false perception about him against him. It is you that has been brainwashed by the ff forum, and you went for it. It's no wonder you can't let go of your false conclusions. I'm amazed how little you understand of this book, probably because you took so much time finding clips that have nothing to do with the core of why man's will is not free and the positive benefits that are waiting for us once we apply this knowledge to our environment. If what you just posted is all you have against him, you have no leg to stand on. NOTHING! The sad part is the most likely reason you cannot let go at this point is because you've hurt him so much that you have to believe you're right or your guilt would be overwhelming, just like a prosecutor who finds out that the person he put in jail for 30 years was innocent.

Did you know that in the “new world,” a wife will undertake a “scientific study” to learn how to cook the best damned spaghetti and meatballs in the world, because to do otherwise would be to blame her husband for wanting the best damned spaghetti and meatballs in the world?

Did you know that in the “new word,” husbands will go right ahead and fuck their wives on the dinner table, PROVIDED that no “littles ones” are present?

But, wait! Little ones get a break. Did you know that in the “new world” it would be impossible to wake a child, for to do so would be to blame it for sleeping?

He didn't say that. If a house was burning down, of course you wake a child up. Can people see how he has tried to falsely accuse Lessans over something he didn't say?

Did you know that in the “new world,” a doctor won’t need any training to be a doctor? He will simply hang out a shingle saying “doctor” because he wouldn’t do so if he didn’t think he had the capacity to be a doctor.

That is so false, it makes me vomit. Conscience is what will drive someone to become a doctor and if his conscience cannot prove that what he is doing is better than nothing, he will be reluctant to prescribe it for fear of making matters worse when there is no blame. To repeat: if he can't prove to himself that what he is prescribing won't make matters worse, he won't be able to prescribe his therapy for fear of causing damage that cannot be justified.

Did you know that in the “new world,” there will be no more traffic accidents?

Did you know that the author couldn’t possibly be wrong, because if he was wrong he would have said so, and since he didn’t say so, he must be right?

Did you know that the author was an aluminum sidings salesman and a billiards champ? (The former is fine and dandy provided he was honest in his dealings, as I expect he was; and the latter is just way cool. I play billiards and would love to be a billiards champ. I’m not, alas. )

Did you know the author, Seymour Lessans, is peacegirl’s father?

Whaddya think, peacegirl? Maybe you’ll get an audience back?

Or maybe not, given that people have free will and can do whatever the hell they like provided it is neither physically nor logically impossible.

Thank God people don't have free will or we could not create the kind of world we all want because people would be free to hurt others indiscriminately. But this is impossible under the changed conditions. God (for all the atheists out there, you can disregard the word and replace it with something else; it doesn't change the facts), knew what he was doing much more than you, Pood.