Ecmandu: Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It’s a really good response to you.
My reply to you peacegirl is this:
The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don’t submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.
This is called the self referential step.
Peacegirl: He looked very carefully at his observations and inferences thereof.
Ecmandu: For example:
What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, “wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they’ll all see me as a hero, so, that’s the best possible choice!”
Peacegirl: How can people pick the worst possible choice when that is impossible to do? What you don’t understand is that people will be able to connive, cheat, and do any number of things to take advantage of others IF THEY WANT TO. But they won’t want to under the changes conditions of a no blame world. Eliminating all first blows is what this discovery accomplishes. That should make you overjoyed but instead I sense resentment.
Ecmandu: Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he’d have seen the disproof and never would have published.
Peacegirl: He spent his whole adult life refining his discovery so that others could understand it. He knew what he was talking about!
Ecmandu: But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.
Peacegirl: A book you never read! Wow!
Peacegirl,
People don’t read books on message forums to engage in discussion or debate, they expect you to condense and defend it.
Peacegirl: I have and I am, but it can’t be condensed to the point where it loses its cohesiveness.
Ecmandu: They might watch videos or read studies that are linked, but not whole books.
Peacegirl: I wonder what the famous philosophers would have felt about people skimming their work or reading cliff notes.
Ecmandu: That’s basic forum etiquette …
As I pointed out, you’re argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.
Peacegirl: How can that be when I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.
Ecmandu: You can’t wiggle out of that.
Peacegirl: I just did.
Ecmandu: It never occurred to you or the author, that the ONLY thing that matters to a large majority of people is the existence of freewill.
Peacegirl: That’s because they think something is being taken away from them and they also want to take pride in their accomplishments which is not a bad thing as long as they know they didn’t accomplish anything of their own free will. Determinism is a threat for that reason but it need not be especially when the knowledge that man’s will is not free is the gateway that opens the door to world peace.
Ecmandu: The argument was never analyzing its own set upon itself.
This was an oversight of the author .
Peacegirl: There were no oversights.