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

[pood]

Hi all! Vice President of Internet Infidels & Social Media Manager Edouard Tahmizian here! For an interesting article on determinism and the origin of evil, check out my published article: https://infidels.org/library/modern/edouard-tahmizian-the-origin-of-evil/

Carry on the interesting convo!

Edouard Tahmizian

This is a very interesting article, by the way. I’ve been editing this and other Sec Web essays for a book to mark the 30th anniversary of the Sec Web.

 

[peacegirl]

This doesn't prove what you think it does. He knows the sounds of his master's car, the time his master gets home, his master's gait, and finally anticipates seeing his master walk up to the house.

Literally none of these are factors in the experiment I was suggesting.

My dogs recognise me by sight. If they are in the car while I nip in to the service station to pay for fuel, they respond to me as soon as I come back into view. They can't hear me, smell me, touch me, or taste me. They recognise me by sight.

This does not prove what you think it does. They know they’re in the car with you and they are anticipating you coming back. And they know it’s you by these cues. Try FaceTiming them on your computer. Don’t make any sounds. Tell me if they get excited or show any kind of recognition when they see your face.

 

[pood]

This doesn't prove what you think it does. He knows the sounds of his master's car, the time his master gets home, his master's gait, and finally anticipates seeing his master walk up to the house.

Literally none of these are factors in the experiment I was suggesting.

My dogs recognise me by sight. If they are in the car while I nip in to the service station to pay for fuel, they respond to me as soon as I come back into view. They can't hear me, smell me, touch me, or taste me. They recognise me by sight.

This does not prove what you think it does. They know they’re in the car with you and they are anticipating you coming back. And they know it’s you by these cues. Try FaceTiming them on your computer. Don’t make any sounds. Tell me if they get excited or show any kind of recognition when they see your face.

peacegirl, we have already shown you scientific studies that dogs recognize their humans in photos and videos, without sound or odor to guide them.

 

[peacegirl]

I can imagine that in another logical world it is possible to do otherwise; yes, in another time and place, but not here, not now. This modal logic is way off. It is a tautological necessary truth that in all possible worlds, I can only move in the direction of greater preference, not less. This is true under all conditions which make it necessary.

No, it is not. I can also imagine a world in which things fall up without invoking a logical contradiction, which makes gravity, which is universal, a contingent truth about the world.

So what if it’s contingent. It’s a necessary truth that gravity works on earth the way it does by keeping us grounded.

 

[peacegirl]

This doesn't prove what you think it does. He knows the sounds of his master's car, the time his master gets home, his master's gait, and finally anticipates seeing his master walk up to the house.

Literally none of these are factors in the experiment I was suggesting.

My dogs recognise me by sight. If they are in the car while I nip in to the service station to pay for fuel, they respond to me as soon as I come back into view. They can't hear me, smell me, touch me, or taste me. They recognise me by sight.

This does not prove what you think it does. They know they’re in the car with you and they are anticipating you coming back. And they know it’s you by these cues. Try FaceTiming them on your computer. Don’t make any sounds. Tell me if they get excited or show any kind of recognition when they see your face.

peacegirl, we have already shown you scientific studies that dogs recognize their humans in photos and videos, without sound or odor to guide them.

Show me the actual experiments. I couldn’t find any. Please don’t give me the lever one. It is so flawed, it’s a joke.

 

[pood]

Hi all! Vice President of Internet Infidels & Social Media Manager Edouard Tahmizian here! For an interesting article on determinism and the origin of evil, check out my published article: https://infidels.org/library/modern/edouard-tahmizian-the-origin-of-evil/

Carry on the interesting convo!

Edouard Tahmizian

With reference to hard determinism, I’d say there is a form of it involving a hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent entity.

We can imagine, for the sake of argument, that the Christian fairy tale is real, and that this omni God created the world in six days, the Garden, Adam and Eve, the whole nine yards.

He tells Adam and Eve not to eat the apple, but they do, and God gets pissed and throws them out of the Garden.

But did Adam and Eve have free will?

Well, it depends on how you look at it. If God foreknew that they would eat the apple — but only foreknew! — then, they had free will. It was their choice whether or not to gobble it down.

It’s because foreknowledge can’t force a choice. Adam and Eve could have done whatever they wanted, but whatever they did, God would have foreknown.

So:

If God knows in advance that Adam and Eve will eat the apple, they MUST NECESSARILY eat the apple and have no free will. This is false.

What is true is:

Necessarily (If God knows in advance that A & E will eat the apple, they will [but not MUST] eat it).

Which means that if they eat the apple, God will infallibly foreknow that fact; and if they DON’T eat the apple, God will infallibly foreknow that fact instead.

HOWEVER, if we now assume God MADE the world, AND is omnipotent as well as omniscient, then he must be responsible for A & E eating the apple. This is because he would have infallibly foreknown all the counterfactual worlds in which A & E refused to eat the apple, but declined to make those worlds. Instead, he made the world in which they ate the apple, and his omnipotence gave then no access to counterfactual possibilities. The upshot is that the Christian God is responsible for all evil in the world. Hard determinism makes sense in a Calvinist sense, but not in a naturalist sense.

 

[pood]

I can imagine that in another logical world it is possible to do otherwise; yes, in another time and place, but not here, not now. This modal logic is way off. It is a tautological necessary truth that in all possible worlds, I can only move in the direction of greater preference, not less. This is true under all conditions which make it necessary.

No, it is not. I can also imagine a world in which things fall up without invoking a logical contradiction, which makes gravity, which is universal, a contingent truth about the world.

So what if it’s contingent. It’s a necessary truth that gravity works on earth the way it does by keeping us grounded.

No, peacegirl, you still do not understand the meaning of the word “necessary.” While it is true that gravity works on earth and everywhere, that does not HAVE TO be the case.

 

[pood]

This doesn't prove what you think it does. He knows the sounds of his master's car, the time his master gets home, his master's gait, and finally anticipates seeing his master walk up to the house.

Literally none of these are factors in the experiment I was suggesting.

My dogs recognise me by sight. If they are in the car while I nip in to the service station to pay for fuel, they respond to me as soon as I come back into view. They can't hear me, smell me, touch me, or taste me. They recognise me by sight.

This does not prove what you think it does. They know they’re in the car with you and they are anticipating you coming back. And they know it’s you by these cues. Try FaceTiming them on your computer. Don’t make any sounds. Tell me if they get excited or show any kind of recognition when they see your face.

peacegirl, we have already shown you scientific studies that dogs recognize their humans in photos and videos, without sound or odor to guide them.

Show me the actual experiments. I couldn’t find any. Please don’t give me the lever one. It is so flawed, it’s a joke.

LOL, levers.

We showed you a number of studies at FF. I’m not going to look them up again for you. Do your own homework.

 

[pood]

And, peacegirl, a true proposition cannot both be contingent and necessary at the same time.

 

[peacegirl]

And, peacegirl, a true proposition cannot both be contingent and necessary at the same time.

There is something off with this logic. Anyway, it’s a tautological necessary truth that we move in the direction of greater, not less, satisfaction than what the present position offers. You have not shown how you can move against your very nature. Imagining that you can do this means absolutely nothing! I can imagine that in another world there are pink flying pigs!

 

[pood]

And, peacegirl, a true proposition cannot both be contingent and necessary at the same time.

There is something off with this logic. Anyway, it’s a tautological necessary truth that we move in the direction of greater, not less, satisfaction than what the present position offers. You have not shown how you can move against your very nature. Imagining that you can do this means absolutely nothing! I can imagine that in another world there are pink flying pigs!

Yes, the fact that there are no pink flying pigs is a contingently false proposition.

 

[pood]

It is necessarily false, however, that there are invisible pink unicorns, because pinkness and invisibility are logical contradictions.

 

[pood]

peacegirl, since you agree light must be at the eye for us to see, please explain how if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, even though it takes light 8.5 minutes to arrive at our eyes from the sun. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

[peacegirl]

they don't have the capacity since they don't have the language, which is necessary for recognition.

Even if that were true, it would be equally true of recognition using senses other than sight.

It would if they worked alike, but they don't. Smell and sound ARE sense organs, which impinge on nerve endings that allow for recognition.

Eyes are sense organs, too, and work on the same principle as the other sense organs. You can even get inputs and outputs mixed up, producing the phenomenon of synesthesia, in which some people can hear colors or see sounds.

There's some kind of cross wiring, but this doesn't prove that we see in delayed time.

Language is demonstrably not necessary for recognition, as is obvious to anybody who is capable of joined up thinking.

Joined up thinking? Language is necessary for recognition.

That is demonstrably untrue. Pigeons and crows, among other birds, can recognize individual humans. Bees can, too. And dogs certainly can, with ease.

Show me where they can recognize individual faces without any type of cue, especially bees. I'd like to see it.

Let us continue our discussion to observe how our brain operates.”

Oh, good, more copypasta.

There's nothing wrong with me pasting certain excerpts, Pood. You are obviously more concerned with how I demonstrate these principles than the principles themselves.

 

[peacegirl]

It is necessarily false, however, that there are invisible pink unicorns, because pinkness and invisibility are logical contradictions.

And so is moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. It cannot be done. We don't move from dissatisfaction to greater dis-satisfaction. Pood. We move from dissatisfaction to "greater" satisfaction, even if it's the lesser of two evils.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl, since you agree light must be at the eye for us to see, please explain how if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, even though it takes light 8.5 minutes to arrive at our eyes from the sun. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I've tried to, but all you do is laugh because you cannot see how this is possible. I said that light doesn't change. Physics doesn't change. The only thing that is different is how the eyes and brain work. Light waves do not travel through time to reach the optic nerve, which is an assumption. The eyes see the object in real time due to the eyes being efferent, not afferent. He explained the mechanism as to how this works, which means that if the Sun was large enough and bright enough after it was turned on at noon, it would be seen instantly, but we wouldn't see each other for 8 minutes. The reason is that the requirement for sight (brightness and the object's size) would not have been met. You still don't get it. Please don't make lulz out of this or I'm done.

 

[pood]

peacegirl, since you agree light must be at the eye for us to see, please explain how if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, even though it takes light 8.5 minutes to arrive at our eyes from the sun. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I've tried to, but all you do is laugh because you cannot see how this is possible. I said that light doesn't change. Physics doesn't change. The only thing that is different is how the eyes and brain work. Light waves do not travel through time to reach the optic nerve, which is an assumption. The eyes see the object in real time due to the eyes being efferent, not afferent. He explained the mechanism as to how this works, which means that if the Sun was large enough and bright enough after it was turned on at noon, it would be seen instantly, but we wouldn't see each other for 8 minutes. The reason is that the requirement for sight (brightness and the object's size) would not have been met. You still don't get it. Please don't make lulz out of this or I'm done.

Bilby? DBT? What do you think?

 

[pood]

peacegirl, since you agree light must be at the eye for us to see, please explain how if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, even though it takes light 8.5 minutes to arrive at our eyes from the sun. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I've tried to, but all you do is laugh because you cannot see how this is possible. I said that light doesn't change.

OK.

Physics doesn't change.

Okie-doke.

The only thing that is different is how the eyes and brain work.

I see!

Light waves do not travel through time to reach the optic nerve, which is an assumption.

The eyes see the object in real time due to the eyes being efferent, not afferent.

Those words, they do not mean, what you think they mean.

He explained the mechanism as to how this works, which means that if the Sun was large enough and bright enough after it was turned on at noon, it would be seen instantly, but we wouldn't see each other for 8 minutes. The reason is that the requirement for sight (brightness and the object's size) would not have been met. You still don't get it. Please don't make lulz out of this or I'm done.

OK. So even though the light must be at the eye for us to see, as you admit, we would see the sun instantly if God turned it on at noon, even though the light from the sun would not arrive at our eyes for 8.5 minutes, because … and here is the “explanation” … the sun would be large enough … and bright enough … to be seen.

Got it.

 

[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.

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.

I argue for nothing more than the failure of the compatibilist argument for free will in relation to the compatibilist definition of determinism.

My position is that the compatibilist notion of free will serves no useful purpose. It doesn't explain human behaviour or its means and mechanisms.

Simply saying that we are able to act according to our will when not forced, coerced or unduly influenced, says nothing about the nature or means by which this is achieved.

That's all.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl, since you agree light must be at the eye for us to see, please explain how if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, even though it takes light 8.5 minutes to arrive at our eyes from the sun. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I've tried to, but all you do is laugh because you cannot see how this is possible. I said that light doesn't change.

OK.

Physics doesn't change.

Okie-doke.

The only thing that is different is how the eyes and brain work.

I see!

Light waves do not travel through time to reach the optic nerve, which is an assumption.

The eyes see the object in real time due to the eyes being efferent, not afferent.

Those words, they do not mean, what you think they mean.

These were the words that came closest to what he was trying to explain, just like greater satisfaction.

He explained the mechanism as to how this works, which means that if the Sun was large enough and bright enough after it was turned on at noon, it would be seen instantly, but we wouldn't see each other for 8 minutes. The reason is that the requirement for sight (brightness and the object's size) would not have been met. You still don't get it. Please don't make lulz out of this or I'm done.

OK. So even though the light must be at the eye for us to see, as you admit, we would see the sun instantly if God turned it on at noon, even though the light from the sun would not arrive at our eyes for 8.5 minutes, because … and here is the “explanation” … the sun would be large enough … and bright enough … to be seen.

Yes, that’s true. The light would be at our eyes and we would see the object instantly if it met the requirements because there’s no travel time when the eyes work the opposite way from what you believe.

Got it.