They’re not equivalent because “the present” is where decisions are actually made, not in the past, and not in the future.
This is also why any definition of free-will cannot depend upon the past as its basis.
Okay Mr. Ad Hom criticizing me of Ad Hom, why don’t you take a dose of your own medicine?
I think if you could produce a good argument, or superior definition, then you’d have done it by now. Again, prove me wrong, anytime you like. I’m waiiiiiitinngggg…!
“…for without the ability to choose otherwise, how can we blame someone for doing what he had no choice not to do?”
…but they can do -so could have done- otherwise… as I’m sure granny can testify, when she had said to him to please take the valuables and go… but he didn’t, because he chose not to… no gun to his head, no extraneous circumstances… just a will, exercising its own, over another’s.
How did Lessans envision this shift from a society of ‘blame’, to his ideal vision of one of a blame-free/100% moral society?
I see… that would make some positive difference, but there would still be criminals and crime… because crime isn’t always about a lack of money is it.
Less crime is never a bad thing… less criminals, is a more difficult benchmark to achieve, as some can want more or want what others have or simply want to exercise their immoral-will on others.
I still don’t see that why/how demonstrating determinism reigns supreme, matters? …and doesn’t determinism simply mean, being determined to exert One’s will over another?
MagsJ: I see… that would make some positive difference, but there would still be criminals and crime… because crime isn’t always about a lack of money is it.
Peacegirl: It’s not always about money but lack of security leads to many bad things. People will go to great lengths to steal and take from others if it’s a benefit to himself in an insecure world.
MagsJ: Less crime is never a bad thing… less criminals, is a more difficult benchmark to achieve, as some can want more or want what others have or simply want to exercise their immoral-will on others.
Peacegirl: Yes, in the world we are living people will do whatever it takes to get what they want, but in this new environment we are removing the many hurts that exist which then removes any desire to hurt others whether it’s through self- preservation or due to retaliation.
Mags: I still don’t see that why/how demonstrating determinism reigns supreme, matters? …and doesn’t determinism simply mean, being determined to exert One’s will over another?
Peacegirl: It matters tremendously. We can get a glimpse of how a more humane prison system helps to rehabilitate the offender rather than just desert or punishment. What this basic principle does is takes it to another level which actually prevents (BEFORE the decision is made to hurt someone, not after) to choose not to do this, not because of the threats of punishment but because not being threatened when there is no justification for this act creates a consequence that is worse than any consequence punishment can offer.
Decisions were made in the past, they are made in the present and they will be made in the future.
You had certain abilities in the past, you didn’t have others. You have certain abilities in the present, you don’t have others. And you will have certain abilities in the future and you won’t have others.
The word “present” merely refers to the most recent point in time. Every past moment was once the present moment and every future moment will once be the present moment.
You can describe any ability of your choice in terms of any moment of your choice ( past, present or future. )
Take the ability to jump, as an example.
We can describe it in terms of some past moment. We can say you had the ability to jump at some point in time in the past if and only if by deciding to jump at that point in time you would have jumped.
We can describe it in terms of the present moment. We can say you have the ability to jump in the present moment if and only if by deciding to jump in the present you will jump.
We can describe it in terms of some future moment. We can say you have the ability to jump at some future point in time if and only if by deciding to jump at that future point in time you will end up jumping.
They are three different descriptions of one and the same thing.
Right, you want to be the only person Ad Hom-ing other people. If they return the favor, they are necessarily hypocrites, so they ought to shut up and let you Ad Hom everyone in peace, without offering any sort of resistance. It’s a nice trick, but unfortunately, a worn one.
How would you know? In order to recognize a good argument, you must first possess the ability to recognize it. What makes you think you possess one?
That’s one of those propositions for which I would highly appreciate if you could present a clear argument. Namely, I’d like to see an argument of yours ( or Lessans’s, it doesn’t really matter ) in favor of the claim that we cannot blame someone unless they possess libertarian free will ( i.e. the ability to make decisions that are not fully determined by the past. ) I am not trying to pressure you into doing it, there is no need to rush, and you don’t even have to do it at all, I’m just saying that it’s something that will be highly appreciated. Take it or leave it, it’s your prerogative. But yeah, I’d love to see that.
Decisions are NOT made in the present. Decisions WERE made in the past.
Everything that happened was in the past, up until the point in time that we call “now.” When you made a decision it was in the past. Every part of the decision making process occurred in the past. “Now” is the end point of the past, which is always increasing at 1 second per second. EVERYTHING that happens happened in the past. When you made a decision it was in the past. When you were in the process of making a decision it was in the past. If you have not made a final decision on something you were undecided in the past. If you completed the decision it was in the past. There is no such thing as “making a decision in the present” because there is no duration of time that is the present. The present is a POINT IN TIME that is called “now.” “Now” is the most current endpoint of the past. Now is the finish line of the past. If you make a decision it was made in the past from the start line up until the point in time now, which is the finish line. There is no decision made at the finish line “now” because the finish line has no distance, it is simply a point which has no distance and has no time.
Can we be dead and alive at the same time? We cannot have freedom of the will and no freedom of the will. They cancel each other out. We cannot have the ability to have chosen otherwise and not have the ability to have chosen otherwise.
I am not going to respond anymore to this thread. It’s outrageous that Unwrong thinks he’s right without question. From here on in, if anyone wants to discuss this discovery with me you can go back to the determinism thread or New Discovery.
We went over this in the past ( a number of times ) and I don’t think it’s necessary to revive it – at least not in this thread. It is certainly irrelevant within the context of whether or not “free will” can be described in terms of the past ( as Peace Girl does. )
Right, we went over it in the past, yet you continue to make claims that decisions can be made in the “present.” NO THEY CAN’T! Decisions WERE made in the past. Nothing can happen “now” because it is a point in time with no duration.
You never did answer my question as to what duration of time you are referring to when you say “the present?”
All I can say to this is that libertarian free will means you could have gone otherwise, which justifies blame and punishment in order to get the “right” behavior. No one understands that this is only a partial deterrent to the superior deterrent that is based on the truth that we don’t have free will.
Yes, and I will continue to do so, because your arguments are utterly unconvincing. And you should stop hijacking threads by picking random statements you disagree with, with no regard whatsoever for how relevant they are within the context of the existing discussion, and arguing against them.
I actually did. You just missed it.
There is no such thing as making choices in the past or the future. They don’t exist other than in the brain so your logic is false no matter how you try to defend it.
peacegirl, Do you think it’s possible for you to choose which you will do tomorrow, either go to the store or go to visit a friend? Do you think you have a choice today what you will do tomorrow?
I made a choice yesterday (which was the past) to respond to one of your posts, so your statement is false. Choices were made in the past.
So just tell me, what duration of time is “the present?”
You keep making statements that are simply false. This concept you have of “making decisions in the present” is FALSE. Your case falls apart because you are basing your case on false claims. Take that false statement away and your whole house of cards collapses!
I won’t. Guess why.
Because you don’t want to prove yourself wrong? Because it makes your house of cards collapse!
Nah. It’s because I already did in another thread and it’s because it’s irrelevant within the context of this thread. If you want to look for it, t’s probably in one of those threads you hijacked. Of course, it will be a bit difficult for you to find it, considering it’s not where it belongs to, but then, it’s your own fault, you enjoy hijacking threads.
Either way, I am currently not interested in explaining to you why your objection is irrelevant, so will you kindly fuck off?
Laugh Out Loud!
Funny how you have so much to say until you are questioned, then it’s “I won’t so fuck off.”
Laugh Out Loud!
Your house of cards is COLLAPSED!!! Try again??
Fuck. Off.
Good enough?