Determinism

[iambiguous]

The Dogmatic Determinism of Daniel Dennett
Eyal Mozes
BOOK REVIEW: Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves.
at The Atlas Society

DENNETT’S TREATMENT OF CAUSALITY

Dennett continually exhorts the reader to question commonly held assumptions about determinism and freedom. He complains about “the complacency with which these theses are commonly granted without argument”.

Of course, that’s what I’d point out to the Dnaiel Dennetts and the Ayn Rands of the world. I’d suggest that the complacency with which they presume that the arguments used to concoct their own theses may well in turn be but a manifestation of the only possible reality. They are both right, but only because right and wrong are interchangeable in a world where all arguments and all theses are only as they ever could have been.

Yet his entire project depends on one assumption that he complacently accepts without argument and never thinks of questioning. Dennett assumes that causality is a relation between events: The motions of atoms or ions at one moment cause their motions at the next moment; the firing of a nerve in the brain causes a muscle to contract.

And how is that not the case in regard to the matter that evolved into the human brain? Yes, it may be that the human brain is like no other matter. That “somehow” it does include autonomy. And this has nothing to do with God. Only Ayn Rand herself took determinism into the is/ought world. In other words, in regard to moral and political and even esthetic value judgments, what she believed [dogmatically] determined what you believed. Or else.

Now, back up into the intellectual contraption clouds:

In all his discussions of causality, he discusses it as a relation between events; analyzing causality, to Dennett, means analyzing precisely when one event can be said to be the cause of another. He states that he finds the ordinary concept of causality “informal, vague, often self-contradictory” and hard to analyze precisely, but it never occurs to him that this seeming difficulty is the result of an attempt to treat causality as the wrong kind of relationship.

Right, the wrong kind of relationship. As though the author here has access to all of the empirical, material, phenomenological facts that would need to be known in order to explain precisely how the human brain itself did manage to step outside the causal chain that seems to intertwine all other matter.

And then [No God] why it happened as it did and not some other way.

[iambiguous]

Daniel Dennett is Wrong About Free Will
by Daniel Miessler

How is Daniel Dennett—one of the best philosophers of our time, capable of making such an obvious mistake?

How about this:

Given determinism as some understand it, making a mistake is no less ultimately a psychologiocal delusion than not making one. If your brain compels you think, feel, say and do only what you are ever able to think, feel, say and do, how can anything be deemed a mistake other than because our brains no less compel us to call it one.

And all I can do is to imagine that I do have free will such that someone will finally be able to explain to me why I am making a mistake in regarding determinism as I just suggested that some do.

Let me walk you through this:

Harris says that randomness doesn’t grant you freedom
Dennett says he has a counterexample, and then shows an example of randomness, to which a human responds in a predictable way (given the input), and then claims a free choice was made.

What? This is logically blasphemous. If you’re trying to prove that the human made a free choice you can’t use a response to random stimuli as your evidence. You can program a “moral” robot to make the proper choice if the light flashes a certain way as well, so if this happens did it too make a “responsible action”?

Again, this is why I am always attempting to bring “intellectual contraptions” of this sort down out of the didactic clouds.

Mary aborting Jane.

How would Harris explain to Mary what he means by “randomness not granting her freedom” in regard to her pregnancy?

And wouldn’t he have to assume that “somehow” his explanation in and of itself was not an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Same with Dennett’s own take on randomness.

In other words, are we or are we not Nature’s equivalent of, say, the Terminator? Nothing that we think, feel, say or do is ever entirely random because everything is entirely in sync with the laws of matter. The human brain is just Nature’s…masterpiece?

Then the most profound mystery of all: Nature, the human brain and teleology.

In other words, sans God, in the way that, perhaps, the pantheists encompass the universe itself?

“Pantheism is the philosophical religious belief that reality, the universe and the cosmos are identical to divinity and a supreme being or entity.” wiki

But how to even begin to grasp something like this? No God but “somehow” the universe itself has an ultimate meaning and purpose?

[iambiguous]

Freedom: An Impossible Reality by Raymond Tallis
This issue we consider ultimate human realities as Raymond Tallis has the intention of proving free will.
Book Review
Jonathan Head

In Chapter 3 Tallis considers the important notion of physical causation. If all events in the material world are brought about by chains of causes, then it may seem that all our physical actions are constrained by what has come before.

Here, of course, that is easy to grasp in regard to the interactions of matter lacking in consciousness. A weather event might occur somewhere in the world. And meteorologists can tell us step by step how it happened and why it happened given what they know scientifically about all the material components of weather.

But then we came along. Conscious matter able to create an industrial world that many scientists now insist has caused the climate to change such that there is a very real threat to the lives of millions as weather events become and more severe and prolonged.

So, if matter is matter is matter, what’s the difference? Or is the matter that evolved into the human brain so unlike any other matter that [God or No God] there’s a profound difference indeed.

As Tallis succinctly puts it, “If causation were an intrinsic property of nature, a material necessity binding all the events in the material world, we might be justified in viewing our actions as mere links in a causal network that weaves itself unbroken from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch”.

Or, perhaps: Since causation is an intrinsic property of nature, a material necessity binding all the events in the material world, whatever we believe is either justified or not, it’s all inherently, necessarily embedded in a causal network that weaves itself unbroken from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch.

In order to safeguard our free agency, then, Tallis argues that causation is not an intrinsic property of nature; rather, it is a result of the way in which we view the world as free agents.

As though he can pin down that what he argues and how he views things is not in itself part of this unbroken causal network stretching back to the Big Bang. Let alone to an ontological understanding of existence itself.

Instead, as with all the rest of us, he can only fall back on the assumptions he makes about the laws of matter and the human brain embedded in largely abstract arguments themselves:

Pointing out, quite rightly, that our identification of causes for particular effects often depends upon our practical interests (for example, I might say a house fire is caused by the relatively unusual circumstance of the electrical short-circuit rather than by the somewhat unavoidable condition of there being oxygen present) Tallis concludes that causation is a subjective structure projected onto the world in order to connect events that hold our interest.

Next up: A YouTube video where he instructs brain scientists exploring all of this experimentally/experientially how to demonstrate that he is correct with an actual brain.

His own say.

[iambiguous]

The Dogmatic Determinism of Daniel Dennett
Eyal Mozes
BOOK REVIEW: Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves.
at The Atlas Society

The alternative view is that causality is a relationship, not between one event and another, but between an entity and its action: the way a thing acts (including the way it reacts to the actions of other entities) is a function of its nature.

Yes, but the problematic element here still revolves around distinguishing between the lifeless/mindless interactions of matter, the interactions of conscious matter driven entirely by instinct/biological imperatives and the interactions of self-conscious human brains seemingly able to opt among alternative behaviors.

Nature encompasses all of them together. But are the laws of matter embedded in nature “somehow” different for each of them?

Are there any scientists or philosophers around able to answer that conclusively? And, if not, why one frame of mind and not another?

While it is often convenient to refer to some action as the “cause” of a subsequent action, such usage is derivative; primarily, an action’s cause is the nature of the acting entity. For example, the motions of atoms or ions are caused by their mass, electric charge, etc., which determine how the forces operating on them affect their movement. If the nature of these entities were different, then they would act differently in response to the same external forces.

See how it works? The author is not able himself to establish definitively how the laws of matter do their thing in, say, an erupting volcano or when a lion attacks a zebra or when a human being chooses an abortion. But trust him: the human being has free will. The main difference with this particular author is that he will also insist that Ayn Rand’s assessment of the ethics of abortion – the acorn and the oak tree analogy – also reflects the objective moral assessment in turn.

It all revolves around Rand’s understanding of the human Self:

In the case of living things, whose actions are self-generated (i.e., the action’s direction and energy come from sources internal to the acting entity), entity causation becomes agent causation; the contraction of a muscle is caused by the nature of the animal’s muscular and nervous systems. This understanding of causality makes it possible to see how human agents, whose nature includes the ability to weigh alternative courses of action and deliberate about them, and consequently the capacity for genuine choice, act in accordance with causality, not in any way in contradiction to it.

Yeah, all of this may well be true. But that doesn’t make the “proof” of it any less a world of words. A bunch of “philosophical” assumptions about human brain matter and “agency”. And, for me, as long as “in my dreams” I am also convinced I am weighing between alternative courses of action only to wake up and realize it was entirely my brain doing the weighing, I’ll always come back to the profound mystery of human consciousness itself.

Calling the waking brain’s choices genuine doesn’t make them so. And then the part where even the waking brain can be crippled by afflictions such that the things we are “opting” for wide-awake are not really genuine choices at all.

In fact, I recall as a boy the first time I was prompted to think about these things from an entirely new perspective. This one: youtu.be/4QewNm9dsS4

[Magnus_Anderson]

@"[url=https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198323&start=1050#p2905330

peacegirl[/url]"]It’s more than the irrelevance of LFW. Thank god we don’t have it for if we did we could choose to kill or not kill indiscriminately. Who wants a world like that?

The kind of LFW that most people believe exists contains an amount of randomness so small that it is insignificant. In other words, from their vantage point, most people kill for a reason and the number of those who kill for no reason at all is so small it’s insignificant.

There is, really, very little difference between determinism and their version of indeterminism ( “statistical determinism”. )

[peacegirl]

dupllicate

[iambiguous]

Daniel Dennett is Wrong About Free Will
by Daniel Miessler

The replay

Next, Dennett attacks the concept of the replay of the past as a thought experiment for the lack of free will:

Harris:

To say that they were free not to rape and murder is to say that they could have resisted the impulse to do so (or could have avoided feeling such an impulse altogether)—with the universe, including their brains, in precisely the same state it was in at the moment they committed their crimes.

Well, there you go. How do we go about demonstrating it either one way or the other? Other than [here] by “thinking up” various [ofttimes conflicting] philosophical arguments, the truth of which revolve entirely around the assumptions we make about what the words means when fitted together to create the argument itself. We can’t then go to the brain scientists and say, “confirm this, please”.

Are we free to rape or compelled to rape? Well, if not compelled, we take our own subjective, existential leaps. From fierce feminists to sociopathic men who actually rationalize it as “natural” behavior.

Dennett:

Just not true. If we are interested in whether somebody has free will, it is some kind of ability that we want to assess, and you can’t assess any ability by “replaying the tape.”

And around and around I go. What if you are interested in whether human beings have free will, but you were never freely able to not to be interested? And what if human beings do assess particular abilities but only because they were never able to assess them other than as their brains compel them to?

The point was made long ago by A. M. Honoré in his classic paper “Can and Can’t,” in Mind, 1964, and more recently deeply grounded in Judea Pearl’s Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, [CUP] 2000. This is as true of the abilities of automobiles as of people. Suppose I am driving along at 60 MPH and am asked if my car can also go 80 MPH. Yes, I reply, but not in precisely the same conditions; I have to press harder on the accelerator. In fact, I add, it can also go 40 MPH, but not with conditions precisely as they are. Replay the tape till eternity, and it will never go 40MPH in just these conditions. So if you want to know whether some rapist/murderer was “free not to rape and murder,” don’t distract yourself with fantasies about determinism and rewinding the tape; rely on the sorts of observations and tests that everyday folk use to confirm and disconfirm their verdicts about who could have done otherwise and who couldn’t. Rely on observations and tests of everyday folks? Is that what he really said?

Again, how is any of this an exception to the laws of matter if the human brain itself is not an exception? How are human beings to nature not what an automobile engine is to human beings? The engine works as it does because human beings put all of the parts in their proper place. The human brain works as it does because nature put all of the parts in their proper place.

It’s just that the engine doesn’t have the capacity to “just know” that it is responsible for all the parts being where they are. Whereas human brains do have the capacity to think and to feel that certain aspects of its own parts resulting in different behaviors are as a result of human autonomy. But only because “somehow” nature itself programed our brains to think that. What some call “the psychological illusion of free choice”.

Everyday folks think Bigfoot is real. Everyday folks are waiting for Jesus to return. Everyday folks don’t believe in evolution. Everyday folks can’t find Australia on a map.

Be serious.

So?

Forget everyday folks. Consider well educated scientists and philosophers grappling with determinism and free will. What have they concluded we should all be serious about?

[peacegirl]

@Magnus Anderson

@"[url=https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198323&start=1050#p2905330

peacegirl[/url]"]It’s more than the irrelevance of LFW. Thank god we don’t have it for if we did we could choose to kill or not kill indiscriminately. Who wants a world like that?

The kind of LFW that most people believe exists contains an amount of randomness so small that it is insignificant. In other words, from their vantage point, most people kill for a reason and the number of those who kill for no reason at all is so small it’s insignificant.

There is, really, very little difference between determinism and their version of indeterminism ( “statistical determinism”. )

So if there is a reason why most people kill, according to libertarians, where does indeterminism fit in? The two don’t go together. Determinism means caused; indeterminism means uncaused. So they believe some things are uncaused but most things are caused? This is very confusing. Statistical determinism (I believe) means being able to predict an outcome among large populations. Do they believe we have free will just because some things cannot be predicted? Just because man can’t predict everything does not mean free will exists. Conversely, if compatibilists believe in no free will because they believe our behavior is part of the causal chain — based on reason — how can they then say we have free will under certain conditions? Contradiction 101.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

Similarly, if compatibilists believe in no free will because of reasons, how can they then believe in free will? Contradiction 101.

Because LFW and CFW are two different things. LFW means “the ability to make decisions that are not fully determined by the past”. CFW means “the ability to make decisions that are fully determined by one’s beliefs and by one’s highest goal – and in a logical way”. The former is incompatible with determinism since it requires a degree of freedom from the past. If the universe is deterministic, then LFW does not exist. The same does not apply to CFW. Compatibilists, in general, believe that 1) the universe is deterministic, 2) LFW does not exist ( or, if they do not deny the existence of LFW, they say that whether or not LFW exists is an irrelevant question ), and 3) CFW exists.

The problematic part is that those who are promoting the idea that free will does not exist are, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading people into thinking that their choices have no effect on the future. They are promoting fatalism. Fatalism is the idea that, regardless of what you do, the future will be the same. If you were trying to enslave people, what belief system would you promote to them? You’d promote fatalism, wouldn’t you? And one way to do it – perhaps the most efficient way to do it – is by being “truthfully misleading”. To be truthfully misleading means to say something that is true in such a way that it will be misinterpreted as something that is false. For example, most people will interpret the statement “Free will does not exist” to mean “You have no control over the future”. If you know that, and if that’s precisely what you want your audience to hear, but you yourself do not want to commit to that position, you can commit to “LFW does exist” instead and use “Free will does not exist” to express it. If anyone accuses of you promoting fatalism, you can just shift the responsibility to your audience by saying “I never said that. They misunderstood me. It’s their fault.”

[peacegirl]

@Magnus Anderson

@peacegirl

Similarly, if compatibilists believe in no free will because of reasons, how can they then believe in free will? Contradiction 101.

Because LFW and CFW are two different things. LFW means “the ability to make decisions that are not fully determined by the past”. CFW means “the ability to make decisions that are fully determined by one’s beliefs and by one’s highest goal – and in a logical way”. The former is incompatible with determinism since it requires a degree of freedom from the past. If the universe is deterministic, then LFW does not exist. The same does not apply to CFW. Compatibilists, in general, believe that 1) the universe is deterministic, 2) LFW does not exist ( or, if they do not deny the existence of LFW, they say that whether or not LFW exists is an irrelevant question ), and 3) CFW exists.

The problematic part is that those who are promoting the idea that free will does not exist are, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading people into thinking that their choices have no effect on the future. They are promoting fatalism. Fatalism is the idea that, regardless of what you do, the future will be the same. If you were trying to enslave people, what belief system would you promote to them? You’d promote fatalism, wouldn’t you? And one way to do it – perhaps the most efficient way to do it – is by being “truthfully misleading”. To be truthfully misleading means to say something that is true in such a way that it will be misinterpreted as something that is false. For example, most people will interpret the statement “Free will does not exist” to mean “You have no control over the future”. If you know that, and if that’s precisely what you want your audience to hear, but you yourself do not want to commit to that position, you can commit to “LFW does exist” instead and use “Free will does not exist” to express it. If anyone accuses of you promoting fatalism, you can just shift the responsibility to your audience by saying “I never said that. They misunderstood me. It’s their fault.”

I think both phrases are problematic. The truth is we have no free will. Why should I water it down? I cannot say libertarian free will does not exist, but compatibilist free will does. Fatalism does not mean that our choices have no effect on the future. The author explains that fatalism means after we have done everything to prevent something, and it still happens, then we say it was fate ordained.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

Fatalism does not mean that our choices have no effect on the future. The author explains that fatalism means after we have done everything to prevent something, and it still happens, then we say it was fate ordained.

What’s the difference? You tried everything you can to have an effect on the future and it didn’t work. Perhaps you tried everything you can to prevent the death of someone and that someone died anyways. The idea is that the outcome will be the same regardless of what you do. That’s what fatalism is.

Why should I water it down?

The term “free will” is normally understood to be synonymous with CFW. Thus, when you say “Free will does not exist” people will interpret it as “CFW does not exist”. And when you say that CFW does not exist, you are saying that people have no power to determine their choices, and by extension, their actions. Instead, someone or something else is determining their choices and actions. In a way, you’re saying that they are slaves, that they are ghosts in a machine who have no control over the machine. By doing that, you’re telling people that they are lacking a very important ability. When you convince people that they have no control over themselves, they give up trying to control themselves and they surrender to external influences. This isn’t really fatalism, of course, but it’s a step in that direction.

I cannot say libertarian free will does not exist, but compatibilist free will does.

You very much can. You just have to understand what CFW means.

[peacegirl]

M

@peacegirl

Fatalism does not mean that our choices have no effect on the future. The author explains that fatalism means after we have done everything to prevent something, and it still happens, then we say it was fate ordained.

Magnus: What’s the difference? You tried everything you can to have an effect on the future and it didn’t work. Perhaps you tried everything you can to prevent the death of someone and that someone died anyways. The idea is that the outcome will be the same regardless of what you do. That’s what fatalism is.

Peacegirl: I think people confuse fatalism to mean resigning oneself to doing nothing because their actions would not affect the outcome. That’s not what true however and is depressing.

Why should I water it down?

The term “free will” is normally understood to be synonymous with CFW.

Peacegirl: Please define CFW. We may be talking about two different things.

Magnus Anderson: Thus, when you say “Free will does not exist” people will interpret it as “CFW does not exist”. And when you say that CFW does not exist, you are saying that people have no power to determine their choices, and by extension, their actions. Instead, someone or something else is determining their choices and actions. In a way, you’re saying that they are slaves, that they are ghosts in a machine who have no control over the machine.

Peacegirl: He clarified this more than enough times that determinism does not take away choice.

Magnus Anderson: By doing that, you’re telling people that they are lacking a very important ability. When you convince people that they have no control over themselves, they give up trying to control themselves and they surrender to external influences. This isn’t really fatalism, of course, but it’s a step in that direction.

Peacegirl: Once again, that’s not what he said or in any way insinuated. He clarified his terms to make sure they were not misinterpreted. I can’t help if people keep using the definition that would make them slaves.

I cannot say libertarian free will does not exist, but compatibilist free will does.

Magnus: You very much can.

Peacegirl: Of course you can, but you would be wrong. You can make the definition of compatibilism conform to what you want it to, but if you examine it carefully there are glaring flaws

Magnus: You just have to understand what CFW means.

Peacegirl: I think I do Magnus. Your emotional attachment is getting in the way.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

I think people confuse fatalism to mean resigning oneself to doing nothing because their actions would not affect the outcome. That’s not what true however and is depressing.

Fatalism is the belief that regardless of what you do the outcome will be the same; in other words, it’s the belief that human choices have no effect on the future.

If a person accepts that belief, they will resign to doing nothing. Why bother? If there is nothing you can do to influence what will happen in the future, why do anything?

Please define CFW. We may be talking about two different things.

CFW is short for “compatibilist free will” and it refers to any concept of free will that is compatible with determinism.

The term “free will” means “the faculty of making decisions that is free from certain influences”. There isn’t one but many concepts of free will. Their differences lie in what kind of influences they are free from.

For example, libertarian free will ( “LFW” ) refers to a decision making process that is completely or partially free from what took place in the past. It’s illustrated by the following example:

@"[url=https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/free-will-question.56629/post-732479

ch1355[/url]"]Let me give an example that illustrates what libertarian free-will is like. Suppose you made a choice a long time ago and suppose history were rolled back to the date and time that you made that choice. Suppose that everything is the same as it was before. Suppose that God’s plan, the circumstances, and your desires are the same as it was before. According to libertarian free-will, you could choose to not make the choice you did. You could have chosen otherwise. There was no sufficient cause of your choice. There was nothing that guaranteed that you would make that choice.

That’s what you and Lessans mean by “free will”. And that’s what the two of you are denying.

An example of CFW, on the other hand, would be a process of making decisions where you choose what you’re going to do by applying logic to your beliefs and your highest goal. For example, if your highest goal is to live as long as possible, and if you believe that choosing A will make you live longer than choosing B, then, if you have CFW, you will choose A. Every single time. If you don’t have CFW, you may end up choosing B.

He clarified this more than enough times that determinism does not take away choice.

How do you know it’s “more than enough”? What about Urwrong? He thinks you’re denying choice. And he isn’t the only one.

Once again, that’s not what he said or in any way insinuated. He clarified his terms to make sure they were not misinterpreted. I can’t help if people keep using the definition that would make them slaves.

You don’t seem to care much about the consequences, don’t you? “Oh, if the book ends up turning people into slaves, I don’t give a damn, it’s their fault!” Very, very careless.

Your emotional attachment is getting in the way.

You’re projecting, PG. You are the one who is excessively attached to Lessans. You really are too defensive. And you’re completely blind to it.

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl

I think people confuse fatalism to mean resigning oneself to doing nothing because their actions would not affect the outcome. That’s not what true however and is depressing.

@Magnus Anderson

Fatalism is the belief that regardless of what you do the outcome will be the same; in other words, it’s the belief that human choices have no effect on the future.

If a person accepts that belief, they will resign to doing nothing. Right? Why bother. If there is nothing they can do to influence what will happen in the future, why do anything?

Please define CFW. We may be talking about two different things.

@Magnus Anderson

CFW is short for “compatibilist free will” and it refers to any concept of free will that is compatible with determinism.

@peacegirl

It is also be an abbreviation for contra-causal free will, is it not?

@Magnus Anderson

The term “free will” means “the faculty of making decisions that is free from certain influences”. There isn’t one but many concepts of free will. Their differences lie in what kind of influences they are free from.

No, there is only one definition when it comes to this debate. Either we could have chosen otherwise (giving us free will to choose B instead of A), or we could not. Stop moving the goalposts.

@Magnus Anderson

For example, libertarian free will ( “LFW” ) refers to a decision making process that is completely or partially free from what took place in the past. It’s illustrated by the following example:

@"[url=https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/free-will-question.56629/post-732479

ch1355[/url]"]Let me give an example that illustrates what libertarian free-will is like. Suppose you made a choice a long time ago and suppose history were rolled back to the date and time that you made that choice. Suppose that everything is the same as it was before. Suppose that God’s plan, the circumstances, and your desires are the same as it was before. According to libertarian free-will, you could choose to not make the choice you did. You could have chosen otherwise. There was no sufficient cause of your choice. There was nothing that guaranteed that you would make that choice.

That’s what you and Lessans mean by “free will”. And that’s what the two of you are denying. An example of CFW, on the other hand, would be a process of making decisions where you choose what you’re going to do by applying logic to your beliefs and your highest goal. For example, if your highest goal is to live as long as possible, and if you believe that choosing A will make you live longer than choosing B, then, if you have CFW, you will choose A. Every single time. If you don’t have CFW, you may end up choosing B.

How could you choose A instead of B if choosing B was the better choice AT THAT MOMENT!!! This made-up definition by compatibilists is just that: made up. They want you to believe that you could have chosen A rather than B if choosing B, based on what they had available to base their choice B on, could miraculously have been A. No one is saying that you may choose A at the next moment but you could not have chosen A at the moment you chose B. I cannot debate someone who believes that this proves free will. You will be too defensive to hear anything i have to say.

He clarified this more than enough times that determinism does not take away choice.

Who is the two of us? This IS the definition of free will. You can try all you want to shape it into something you want, which is what you’re doing.

@Magnus Anderson

How do you know it’s “more than enough”? What about Urwrong? He thinks you’re denying choice. And he isn’t the only one.

Because it’s clear and explanatory.

Once again, that’s not what he said or in any way insinuated. He clarified his terms to make sure they were not misinterpreted. I can’t help if people keep using the definition that would make them slaves.

@Magnus Anderson

You don’t seem to care much about the consequences, don’t you? “Oh, if the book ends up turning people into slaves, I don’t give a damn, it’s their fault!” Very, very careless.

OMG, you are so completely off track. This is because you read nothing. I cannot help you if you refuse to try to understand what he’s saying.

Your emotional attachment is getting in the way.

@Magnus Anderson

You’re projecting, PG. You are the one who is excessively attached to Lessans. You really are too defensive. And you’re completely blind to it.

No, you are the one projecting. Your logic is faulty and there is no getting around it.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

It can also be an abbreviation for contra-causal free will, is it not?

It’s my own abbreviation. I use it so that I don’t have to write “compatibilist free will” every single time. And no, I don’t use it to mean “contra-casual free will”. Contra-casual free will is LFW.

No there are not Magnus when it comes to this debate. Either we could have chosen differently (giving us free will) or we could not. Stop moving the goalposts.

Perhaps you should try to understand what the other side is saying instead of pointlessly repeating yourself.

This IS the definition of free will. You can try all you want to shape it into something you want, which is what you’re doing.

They lied to you when they told you that’s the definition of free will.

Because it’s clear and explanatory.

Maybe in your own head.

No, you are the one projecting Magnus. Your logic is faulty and you can’t deal with it. It’s okay. I understand.

You’re not cooperating, PG. And you’re not cooperating because you’re too sensitive to criticism. You felt threatened so you initiated a sequence of verbal attacks. And all I did was tell you that I do not think you understand what CFW is. That was enough to trigger you. You really don’t like it when people disagree with you, don’t you? We call it being intolerant of other people’s opinions. You are quite intolerant.

[peacegirl]

@Magnus Anderson

@peacegirl

It can also be an abbreviation for contra-causal free will, is it not?

It’s my own abbreviation. I use it so that I don’t have to write “compatibilist free will” every single time. And no, I don’t use it to mean “contra-casual free will”. Contra-casual free will is LFW.

No there are not Magnus when it comes to this debate. Either we could have chosen differently (giving us free will) or we could not. Stop moving the goalposts.

Perhaps you should try to understand what the other side is saying instead of pointlessly repeating yourself.

To you, trying to understand what the other person is saying IS agreeing what the other person is saying. I can’t do that.

This IS the definition of free will. You can try all you want to shape it into something you want, which is what you’re doing.

@Magnus Anderson

They lied to you when they told you that’s the definition of free will.

Who are you talking about that lied? It has been the definition of free will forever. If you could not have chosen A (AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME) because it gave you less satisfaction or preference under YOUR particular circumstances, then you were NOT free to choose B. It’s really that simple.

Because it’s clear and explanatory.

@Magnus Anderson

Maybe in your own head.

Now you’re being snarky.

No, you are the one projecting Magnus. Your logic is faulty and you can’t deal with it. It’s okay. I understand.

@Magnus Anderson

You’re not cooperating, PG. And you’re not cooperating because you’re too sensitive to criticism.

I’m very receptive to criticism if the criticism is legit. It’s not.

@Magnus Anderson

You felt threatened so you initiated a sequence of verbal attacks. And all I did was tell you that I do not think you understand what CFW is. That was enough to trigger you. You really don’t like it when people disagree with you, don’t you? We call it being intolerant of other people’s opinions. You are quite intolerant.

Where did I verbally attack? Show me where I don’t understand compatibilism other than it’s flawed, BIG TIME. I’m intolerant to you because I don’t agree with your thoughts. This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

How could you choose A instead of B if choosing B was the better choice AT THAT MOMENT!!!

Because your perception that A is better than B did not determine your choice. Instead, something else did.

You will be too defensive to hear anything i have to say.

Stop projecting, PG.

To you, trying to understand what the other person is saying IS agreeing what the other person is saying. I can’t do that.

You need to learn how to converse. You complain too much about other people not being convinced by your book. It’s what children do.

I’m very receptive to criticism if the criticism is legit. It’s not.

Yeah, in your head.

PG, do you really believe that when someone says that you’re doing something wrong, that you should respond to them with “No, I am not doing it wrong! I know better than you! Fuck off!” Doesn’t that strike you as a bit idiotic?

Where did I verbally attack? Show me where

When other people tell you that you’re doing something wrong, and instead of showing interest in why they believe that to be the case, you respond with something as stupid as “No, I am not wrong! Your emotional attachment is getting in the way!”, you are responding to a perceived threat and you’re doing so with a verbal attack. Accusing the other person of being “emotionally attached” to their beliefs is a verbal attack, if you didn’t know. You’re making it personal. You’re not addressing what they are saying. You’re addressing the person.

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl

How could you choose A instead of B if choosing B was the better choice AT THAT MOMENT!!!

@Magnus Anderson

Because your perception that A is better than B did not determine your choice. Instead, something else did.

No Magnus. Nothing else determined my choice but my heredity and environment, and the options that were available to me at that moment in time.

You will be too defensive to hear anything i have to say.

@Magnus Anderson

Stop projecting, PG.

You are the one projecting because you are being defensive regarding compatibilism. You won’t entertain the idea that compatibilism is a semantic shift. It’s word salad. If that is true, we are back to square one, right? How do we reconcile determinism with responsibility? That is the pressing question.

To you, trying to understand what the other person is saying IS agreeing what the other person is saying. I can’t do that.

@Magnus Anderson

You need to learn how to converse. You complain too much about other people not being convinced by your book. It’s what children do.

It’s easy to criticize. In all honesty, you have no idea what his discovery is. No one is convinced of the book because no one has read it. They are only arguing over whether we have free will or not. This is not his discovery. It’s the gateway to his discovery. What am I supposed to do, not complain when I have a perfect reason to complain? You gave an inaccurate analysis of his proof of determinism. Logic can make something appear valid the way it’s constructed, but can be far from sound.

I’m very receptive to criticism if the criticism is legit. It’s not.

@Magnus Anderson

Yeah, in your head.

Where else would it be other than in my head?

@Magnus

PG, do you really believe that when someone says that you’re doing something wrong, that you should respond to them with “No, I am not doing it wrong! I know better than you! Fuck off!” Doesn’t that strike you as a bit idiotic?

I don’t say it that way and you know it, but I will call a spade a spade without apology.

Where did I verbally attack? Show me where

@Magnus Anderson

When other people tell you that you’re doing something wrong, and instead of showing interest in why they believe that to be the case, you respond with something as stupid as “No, I am not wrong! Your emotional attachment is getting in the way!”, you are responding to a perceived threat and you’re doing so with a verbal attack. Accusing the other person of being “emotionally attached” to their beliefs is a verbal attack, if you didn’t know. You’re making it personal. You’re not addressing what they are saying. You’re addressing the person.

I think there is an emotional component to our beliefs, whether true or not, and sometimes our emotions won’t let us listen to another point of view. I know you are trying to be objective, and so am I. I have listened intently to everything you have said regarding LFW and CFW and I disagree that either of them are true. Now what? Maybe this is a dead end.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

You are the one projecting because you are being defensive regarding compatibilism.

These accusations of yours are entirely pointless, serving no purpose whatsoever other than to distract.

I have explained to you the difference between LFW and CFW. And I have also told you that I don’t believe that you understand what CFW is. Because of that, it would help us all if you demonstrated to us that you actually do. If you don’t want to do that, for whatever reason, you should simply say so. Instead, what I got is a series of entirely pointless, discussion derailing, accusations. And repetitions. You absolutely love pointless repetitions.

It’s easy to criticize.

I did more than just tell you that I find Lessans’s proof of determinism unconvincing. I told you why I find it unconvincing. That sort of thing isn’t exactly easy. I went through quite a bit of trouble in order to actually understand his argument ( given how poorly written it is. )

In all honesty, you have no idea what his discovery is.

Does it matter? I am telling you that the argument he’s using to prove that LFW does not exist ( and by extension, that determinism is true ) is a poor one and all you do is “But you didn’t read the entire book!” Why do I have to read the entire book in order to assess the quality of his argument? And why would anyone bother with anything else he says if everything else he’s saying is based on the conclusion of that argument? Not to mention that, if the argument he opens his book with is a poor one, why would anyone expect his other arguments to be any better?

No one is convinced of the book because no one has read it.

You have to convince people that it’s worth reading. Otherwise, they won’t read it. There are too many books out there and too little time. Why yours and not someone else? If the first three chapters can’t do it, then you are doing something wrong, and you should do something about it.

I don’t say it that way and you know it, but I will call a spade a spade without apology.

So if we remove “Fuck off” and “I know better than you” then the response ceases to be idiotic?

I wouldn’t say so.

[iambiguous]

wrong thread