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

[DBT]

The article that peacegirl quoted, thinking it attacked compatibilism, is an actually very good explanation and demonstration of it. I highly recommend the article. All that is missing from it is the modal logical demonstration of the illogic of hard determinism, but I have already supplied that here.

It's the compatibilist definition of free will as acting according to your will without external force, coercion or undue influence that fails to make a case for compatibility.

The rationales of 'could have done differently had conditions been different, to choose any option as they present in any given moment,' etc, is irrelevant. Just more window dressing and hand waving.

Compatibilism fails because it doesn't take inner processes that fix outcomes into account. Which is just as much a problem for free will as external elements, force, coercion, undue influence.

 

[peacegirl]

The article that peacegirl quoted, thinking it attacked compatibilism, is an actually very good explanation and demonstration of it. I highly recommend the article. All that is missing from it is the modal logical demonstration of the illogic of hard determinism, but I have already supplied that here.

It's the compatibilist definition of free will as acting according to your will without external force, coercion or undue influence that fails to make a case for compatibility.

The rationales of 'could have done differently had conditions been different, to choose any option as they present in any given moment,' etc, is irrelevant. Just more window dressing and hand waving.

Compatibilism fails because it doesn't take inner processes that fix outcomes into account. Which is just as much a problem for free will as external elements, force, coercion, undue influence.

DBT, thank you so much for your input to this thread. Why compatibilists do not see the contradiction is beyond me. Their belief in free will that does not conflict with determinism due to modal logic (which has major problems) is logically false by their own definition of determinism and their agreement with it. This feeling of their rightness that free will (the ability to do otherwise) is possible is emotionally laden and cannot easily be dismantled.. Modal logic tries to convince us that free will is somehow true within a deterministic system. They have it wrong but again it’s too emotional for them to admit that it’s not contradictory unless they can no longer live with the charade when it is shown by scientists to be impossible, given the truth that we could not have done otherwise, cannot do otherwise, and the fact that we will never be able to do other than what our brain is dictating us to do every moment of our existence.This feeling of moral responsibility is the elephant in the room. I don’t know if we can put this belief to rest in this thread. All we can do is to keep trying.

 

[pood]

I certainly didn’t say that anything exists in the eye that flows in the other direction.

Oh, I am sorry; I assumed that when you introduced the words "afferent" and "efferent" to the conversation, you knew what they meant. But apparently, you don't.

No, she does not understand what those words mean. However, they are used (wrongly) in the text, so they must be right even though they are wrong, because as she has “explained” many times, if the author was wrong about anything, he would have said so; and since he never said he was wrong, he must be right.

 

[pood]

The article that peacegirl quoted, thinking it attacked compatibilism, is an actually very good explanation and demonstration of it. I highly recommend the article. All that is missing from it is the modal logical demonstration of the illogic of hard determinism, but I have already supplied that here.

It's the compatibilist definition of free will as acting according to your will without external force, coercion or undue influence that fails to make a case for compatibility.

The rationales of 'could have done differently had conditions been different, to choose any option as they present in any given moment,' etc, is irrelevant. Just more window dressing and hand waving.

Compatibilism fails because it doesn't take inner processes that fix outcomes into account. Which is just as much a problem for free will as external elements, force, coercion, undue influence.

DBT, thank you so much for your input to this thread.

I look forward to DBT’s “input,” if he chooses to offer it, on the author’s claims about light and sight.

I’m going to take a wild stab in the dark here and suggest if he does, you will no longer appreciate his input.

 

[peacegirl]

Nothing changes other than his clue that without the other sense experience, which focuses the eyes to see, sight would not be possible.

That clue is clueless. There is exactly zero evidence that this random assertion is anything other than pure imagination, and zero excuse for anyone hearing it for the first time not to call it out for the bullshit it so obviously is.

Sight is very clearly not only possible but commonplace amongst animals. The eye evolved independently at least four times, because an ability to detect light is useful, and the photochemistry to do so is fairly straightforward; And because having acquired the ability to detect light, it is hugely advantageous to be better (more precise) at doing it than your competitors, predators, and/or prey.

The sense of sight is likely easier than that of touch, and certainly easier than that of sound or smell/taste* to evolve.




*Smell and taste are not really separate senses, which is yet another thing Aristotle got wrong when he picked 5 as his wild underestimate.

 

[peacegirl]

I certainly didn’t say that anything exists in the eye that flows in the other direction.

Oh, I am sorry; I assumed that when you introduced the words "afferent" and "efferent" to the conversation, you knew what they meant. But apparently, you don't.

No, she does not understand what those words mean. However, they are used (wrongly) in the text, so they must be right even though they are wrong, because as she has “explained” many times, if the author was wrong about anything, he would have said so; and since he never said he was wrong, he must be right.

Be quiet Pood. This response is a remnant from ff. You have no ability to determine whether this claim is correct or not. You're too embroiled in finding him wrong, which disqualifies you.

 

[pood]

I certainly didn’t say that anything exists in the eye that flows in the other direction.

Oh, I am sorry; I assumed that when you introduced the words "afferent" and "efferent" to the conversation, you knew what they meant. But apparently, you don't.

No, she does not understand what those words mean. However, they are used (wrongly) in the text, so they must be right even though they are wrong, because as she has “explained” many times, if the author was wrong about anything, he would have said so; and since he never said he was wrong, he must be right.

Be quiet Pood. This response is a remnant from ff. You have no ability to determine whether this claim is correct or not. You're too embroiled in finding him wrong, which disqualifies you.

You know what that is, right? Or haven’t you yet figured it out?

 

[peacegirl]

Nothing changes other than his clue that without the other sense experience, which focuses the eyes to see, sight would not be possible.

That clue is clueless. There is exactly zero evidence that this random assertion is anything other than pure imagination, and zero excuse for anyone hearing it for the first time not to call it out for the bullshit it so obviously is.

Sight is very clearly not only possible but commonplace amongst animals. The eye evolved independently at least four times, because an ability to detect light is useful, and the photochemistry to do so is fairly straightforward; And because having acquired the ability to detect light, it is hugely advantageous to be better (more precise) at doing it than your competitors, predators, and/or prey.

The sense of sight is likely easier than that of touch, and certainly easier than that of sound or smell/taste* to evolve.




*Smell and taste are not really separate senses, which is yet another thing Aristotle got wrong when he picked 5 as his wild underestimate.

He never denied that sight was not only possible but commonplace among animals. They may not need the same sense experience to focus. We know that light has to be at the eye in order to see. No one is disputing this, as Pood tried to make it appear. Once again, animals are not human which means that their sight may have nothing to do with their focusing ability. We have to stick with human sight and go from there.

 

[peacegirl]

I certainly didn’t say that anything exists in the eye that flows in the other direction.

Oh, I am sorry; I assumed that when you introduced the words "afferent" and "efferent" to the conversation, you knew what they meant. But apparently, you don't.

No, she does not understand what those words mean. However, they are used (wrongly) in the text, so they must be right even though they are wrong, because as she has “explained” many times, if the author was wrong about anything, he would have said so; and since he never said he was wrong, he must be right.

Be quiet Pood. This response is a remnant from ff. You have no ability to determine whether this claim is correct or not. You're too embroiled in finding him wrong, which disqualifies you.

You know what that is, right? Or haven’t you yet figured it out?

I have no friggin clue what you are talking about.

 

[pood]

I certainly didn’t say that anything exists in the eye that flows in the other direction.

Oh, I am sorry; I assumed that when you introduced the words "afferent" and "efferent" to the conversation, you knew what they meant. But apparently, you don't.

No, she does not understand what those words mean. However, they are used (wrongly) in the text, so they must be right even though they are wrong, because as she has “explained” many times, if the author was wrong about anything, he would have said so; and since he never said he was wrong, he must be right.

Be quiet Pood. This response is a remnant from ff. You have no ability to determine whether this claim is correct or not. You're too embroiled in finding him wrong, which disqualifies you.

You know what that is, right? Or haven’t you yet figured it out?

I have no friggin clue what you are talking about.

Of course you don’t. You never learn. You have no friggin clue about anything.

 

[peacegirl]

A statement is necessarily true if the statement is true in all possible worlds. It can be said, therefore, that in all possible worlds, everyone moves in the direction of what they prefer more from moment to moment, not what they prefer less. This is a formal, necessary tautology regardless of one's environment or heredity; therefore, according to modal logic, it has truth value.

A tautology is a statement that is true in virtue of its form. Thus, we don’t even have to know what the statement means to know that it is true.

2.10: Tautologies, Contradictions, and Contingent Statements

human.libretexts.org

 

[bilby]

That’s being disingenuous because my response was a result of your lack of restraint in concluding the author MUST be wrong without hearing him out.

I already explained that it is unnecessary to hear out an argument, if it begins with a false premise.

You need to hear a complete and detailed account in order to conclude that an argument is right; But you can justly conclude that an argument is worthless just from a single falsehood therein.

Particularly when it's a whopper like "The eye is not a sense organ".

The image that says vision problems can develop doesn’t mention blindness, so it’s not showing cause and effect. These children probably had some stimulation from sound, hearing, and touch at birth, so it can’t be used as proof. Sorry.

I don't think you are qualified to instruct anyone on what constitutes "proof", or even "evidence". You argue like a religionist, without regard for the philosophy of science, nor the basics of logic and reason, nor even simple observation of reality.

The Truth^TM cannot be found in a book. Nor even in books (plural).

To understand reality, we must observe reality.

 

[peacegirl]

That’s being disingenuous because my response was a result of your lack of restraint in concluding the author MUST be wrong without hearing him out.

I already explained that it is unnecessary to hear out an argument, if it begins with a false premise.

You need to hear a complete and detailed account in order to conclude that an argument is right; But you can justly conclude that an argument is worthless just from a single falsehood therein.

Particularly when it's a whopper like "The eye is not a sense organ".

The image that says vision problems can develop doesn’t mention blindness, so it’s not showing cause and effect. These children probably had some stimulation from sound, hearing, and touch at birth, so it can’t be used as proof. Sorry.

I don't think you are qualified to instruct anyone on what constitutes "proof", or even "evidence".

He was a very astute observer. To disqualify him just because you’ve made up your mind that the claim must be wrong is premature and doesn’t give him a chance to explain why he came to that conclusion. You can always disagree but before you do, give yourself time to think about why he said what he said before reacting in a knee jerk way.

You argue like a religionist, without regard for the philosophy of science, nor the basics of logic and reason, nor even simple observation of reality.

The Truth^TM cannot be found in a book. Nor even in books (plural).

To understand reality, we must observe reality.

That is exactly what he’s done, looked at reality squarely in the eyes.

 

[pood]

A statement is necessarily true if the statement is true in all possible worlds.

Right.

It can be said, therefore, that in all possible worlds, everyone moves in the direction of what they prefer more from moment to moment, not what they prefer less.

Wrong.

 

[bilby]

He never denied that sight was not only possible but commonplace among animals.

I don't care what he didn't claim; I do care that his claim requires us all to disregard reality.

They may not need the same sense experience to focus.

Or they may. Given that there is no difference in form, or apparent function, between human eyes and those of other mammals (and indeed most vertebrates), the very suggestion that these other animals may differ from humans in the way their eyes function is a radical and extraordinary claim, that requires detailed and compelling evidence.

"May not" is a vague handwave; It is the very antithesis of the detailed and compelling evidence that is required.

We know that light has to be at the eye in order to see. No one is disputing this, as Pood tried to make it appear.

I am not arguing with Pood, and none of what I say has anything to do with his comments; I am addressing only what you are posting.

And yes, we are in agreement that "light has to be at the eye in order to see".

Once again, animals are not human which means that their sight may have nothing to do with their focusing ability. We have to stick with human sight and go from there.

Again with the "may have" handwave, in a place where a successful argument would demand detailed evidence for the radical departure from the obvious.

This is such a blatant case of ad-hoc reasoning that it astonishes me that you have the gall to post it in a rationalist forum.

If you want others to accept that human sight is different from that of other mammals in any important and significant way, then you need to demonstrate that it is.

 

[pood]

We know that light has to be at the eye in order to see. No one is disputing this, as Pood tried to make it appear.

Oh? Well then explain how, if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately (but not anything else!) when it takes light about 8.5 minutes to reach the eye from the sun?

 

[bilby]

He was a very astute observer.

I don't dispute this. He was also wrong. It happens to us all - that's why biros have erasers.

To disqualify him just because you’ve made up your mind that the claim must be wrong is premature and doesn’t give him a chance to explain why he came to that conclusion.

No, it's not. It is not in any way premature to reject an argument that depends upon a false premise, as soon as that premise is introduced.

If the rest of the argument can be recovered with a new (true) premise, then that new premise must be introduced before the rest of the argument is anything other than a waste of valuable time.

And if the rest of the argument stands on its own without the false premise, it should never have been introduced at all.

You can always disagree but before you do, give yourself time to think about why he said what he said before reacting in a knee jerk way.

I have. He's wrong.

It is quite possible for people to reject an argument that you (or I) think is hugely compelling, on the simple basis that it (or one or more of its foundational premises) is factually wrong. That's not evidence that the audience are prejudiced; It's evidence that your argument isn't convincing, and requires improvement.

 

[peacegirl]

A statement is necessarily true if the statement is true in all possible worlds.

Right.

It can be said, therefore, that in all possible worlds, everyone moves in the direction of what they prefer more from moment to moment, not what they prefer less.

Wrong.

Where is it anymore wrong than saying in all possible worlds, you could do otherwise?

 

[pood]

A statement is necessarily true if the statement is true in all possible worlds.

Right.

It can be said, therefore, that in all possible worlds, everyone moves in the direction of what they prefer more from moment to moment, not what they prefer less.

Wrong.

Where is it anymore wrong than saying in all possible worlds, you could do otherwise?

As I’ve mentioned several times, there is a straightforward test to distinguish contingent propositions from necessary ones.

You imagine that something true in this world, is false in a different world. If you can imagine such a different world without bringing about a logical contradiction, then the truth is contingent — it could be otherwise.

If you CANNOT imagine a different world without bringing about a logical contradiction, then the proposition is necessary.

I cannot imagine a world with four-sided triangles without bringing about a logical contradiction.

I can imagine a world where people move in the direction of greater dissatisfaction, without bringing about a logical contradiction.

 

[pood]

It works the other way, too. There are contingently false propositions, and necessarily false propositions.

It is contingently false that pigs fly, since I can imagine a world in which pigs fly without bringing about a logical contradiction.

It is necessarily false that there are married bachelors.

The truth values of some propositions, like Goldbach’s Conjecture, are unknown. But we do know if it is true, it is necessarily true, and if it is false, it is necessarily false.