Free will versus determinism

[peacegirl]

What your saying here is essentially, "it's all my fault but it's not my fault at all." Which makes no sense.

No, what it's saying that once you do something to hurt another, you could not help yourself, but you are prevented from doing that something, therefore, there is no reason to punish.

The only real examples of something along those lines would be exemplified in animal behaviour, survival instincts, or some human addictions like alcoholism and drug abuse. But even then, the moment that being becomes aware of their behaviour - regardless of how difficult it is to overcome that behaviour - it is not a form of determinism.

You came here late. I don't think you understand the proposed definition that is the entire basis for this debate.

By simply being aware of the fact that you have done something wrong, is already an acknowledgement of your free will. Once you are aware that you are responsible for any previous and upcoming acts - even if you are helpless to stop yourself from doing those things, determinism is already lost. There is no duality of free will and determinism in that respect.

That's just the point. You are not helpless to stop yourself if you really wanted to, even though it might be a painful process. But if you knew a family member would die unless you stopped, you would find the strength to stop (if you loved that person).

What you are really describing is the self-deprecating attitude that is championed by many different religions - primarily Christianity. It is the moral equivalent of a constant sacrifice, regardless of consequence, because there is no alternative. While that sort of attitude has inadvertently propelled some individuals to actually strive for magnificence in defiance (Joan of Arc for instance), it has come with the oppression of many others who have been manipulated by religious leaders. It's unfortunate, but that sort of ethical brainwashing is still happening today.

If you read Chapter Eight, you would see that this has nothing to do with altruism, or ethical brainwashing. It's amazing how misinterpreted this knowledge is.

 

[JLM]

You really don't understand much of what's going on here, but you're pretty good at transference. My motive comes from the fact that you're obsessively peddling BS and it needs to be challenged. If you can't see that Wayne Dyer is full of New Age woo woo and mystic nonsense there's something wrong with your judgment. Doesn't it strike you as significant that in 50 years of trying Lessans and you have convinced nobody and everywhere you go you get the same response? Everybody but you and Lessans must be just too dumb or arrogant or hidebound or frightened to understand.

That is exactly the way I see it and I think this "subject" is taking up far too much cyberspace.

 

[karrie]

I don't think you understand... It's amazing how misinterpreted this knowledge is.

Now you're entering the realm of one trick pony. You have explained it fine. It's flawed. People have told you a dozen different ways it's flawed. You stick to your mantra of 'you don't understand', 'it's misunderstood'. No, it's not. People understand exactly what you're saying, and they're telling you it's WRONG, not misunderstood. Stop insulting other people's intelligence, and look at what they're telling you is wrong with the theory.

 

[JLM]

Now you're entering the realm of one trick pony. You have explained it fine. It's flawed. People have told you a dozen different ways it's flawed. You stick to your mantra of 'you don't understand', 'it's misunderstood'. No, it's not. People understand exactly what you're saying, and they're telling you it's WRONG, not misunderstood. Stop insulting other people's intelligence, and look at what they're telling you is wrong with the theory.

Absolutely- in other words

It don't frickin' fly.

 

[mentalfloss]

No, what it's saying that once you do something to hurt another, you could not help yourself, but you are prevented from doing that something, therefore, there is no reason to punish.

Okay.. I'm really trying here, believe me. Let's break this down to understand what you've just said with an example.

..once you do something to hurt another, you could not help yourself..

So, let's just say, for instance, that the "something" = "I cheated on my wife." I just couldn't help myself. Determinism inevitably lead me down this path of cheating.

..but you are prevented from doing that something..

I'm not sure how you mean to use the word prevented here. Because it wouldn't make any sense that determinism both made me do something specific and prevented me from doing that same act. It has to be one or the other if the scenario remains the same. In this example, I couldn't have been forced to and prevented from cheating on my wife at the same time.

I'm going to assume you meant to say that I am prevented from doing "something else", because at least that makes sense.

..therefore, there is no reason to punish.

Oh.. so, like.. there is no responsibility. So we're now strictly back to the argument of hard determinism. A bit earlier you said that responsibility was heightened... Remember this?

Let me repeat: This new definition of determinism in no way takes away from our responsibility; it increases it, which is why it is a fantastic discovery, and why I am putting myself out there in spite of the risk of being laughed or [at worst] despised.

So, if this new version of determinism heightens responsibility, it directly contradicts your later statement that admits there is "no reason to punish." If you are held accountable or responsible for something - you are to some degree, punished for committing that act. One way that you are punished is that responsibility requires to justify your actions - this is an informal punishment that won't be relieved until a justification has been delivered.

Ironically, that sort of justification mimics your situation right now. You've clearly contradicted yourself here, and I'd like to give you some concessions regarding this theory, but you're not really providing anything cohesive. Maybe it was just meant to be this way.

 

[peacegirl]

No Peacegirl, you simply don't understand. I suggest you read my last post a few times carefully and you will see that what I say is mathematically undeniable.

(How do you like the taste of your own medicine? )

I can very well see the two sides. But it's the two sides of a contradiction! What's the contradiction? The fact that I supposedly would feel the full guilt of my actions after it was conclusively demonstrated that I can't blame myself and hold myself responsible because my will isn't free. Others can't blame me. But neither can I. Therefore the fact that nobody can make me do anything against my will has no impact at all. i can't blame myself! I can't feel responsible!

Yes, you can feel responsible and have no free will. It's not that you are blaming yourself for anything; you would just feel the weight of responsibility by imagining doing something that could cause harm to someone and never be blamed for it.

Wrong. That's not a fact, just an assumption. Suppose I live in the new world. There's this new iPod that's really cool and it would make me very happy to have one. But I can't afford it. I'm one of those who can only afford to pay for the minimum requirements of life plus the occasional luxury, but not an iPod. So I decide to go in an apple store and take one. What's my excuse? Apple has A LOT of money. One free iPod can't hurt them.

And there you go... an excuse in a blameless environment! That wasn't so hard was it?

S_lone, you wouldn't be able to use this as an excuse. Your conscience would be bothered which would prevent you from taking what does not belong to you. If you think Apple has a lot of money and that's your justification for stealing, then why just take one ipod? Why not take the whole storefull and give them out to your friends? You will not have to worry about anyone coming after you, because no one in the new world will ever blame you for this hurt to them.

Perhaps you should give up. Do you realize how crazy this last sentence sounds? I should feel responsible because I am not?

There are no shoulds. If you don't feel responsible for hurting people this way, even though you are trying to justify why you want to do it, then go ahead. Why do you need a justification at all when no one is going to ask you why you did this?

But if we have the capacity to prevent things from happening, this means we have free will! You're being inconsistent again. You can't prevent anything if you are not free. Whatever will happen will happen. But if we can change the future from what it could have been, then that makes us at least partly free.

If you can't get over this idea that we are robots with no say in the matter, you will continue to say this is all wrong. That's what the classical definition says. It says if I do what I want to do, and if I can prevent some future happening, then my will is free. No it's not because even that choice to prevent something from happening is in the direction of greater satisfaction. I hope you understand 'greater satisfaction' at this point.

You are the ones mixing words. You use the word responsibility only when it suits you, contradicting yourself in the process. I can't be forced to assume responsibility if I'm not responsible in the first place! We already established that Peacegirl. The will is not free and therefore it is NOT responsible. Remember this is the reason nobody is blaming you in the first place. The fact that they aren't doesn't magically change the laws of logic to suddenly make you responsible. That's a contradiction. You can either be responsible or you can't be and in this case, you are not, because the will is not free.

You are not responsible in any situation, once it is performed, but before you perform an action, knowing that you would not be blamed if you hurt someone, would give you no satisfaction, where in this world the knowledge that you would be blamed, gives you more than enough satisfaction to continue with your plans.

I already showed that you don't need anybody holding you responsible for having an excuse. Apple makes a lot more money. I don't. I want that iPod. Taking that iPod for free doesn't hurt them.

But it does hurt them. It hurts their profits, even if it's a small amount of money. That's the beauty of this knowledge; you couldn't steal a penny from someone if you knew that it didn't belong to you.

There's my excuse. I'm not even saying I did it because I'm not free. I'm saying I did it because I want that iPod and from my point of view, I'm not hurting anyone. And here is one of the keys to this whole affair, the fact that moral conscience is not an absolute. It shifts and varies from one individual to the next.

There is a very clear standard as to what is a concrete hurt to another. Moral conscience does not shift as long as long as you are not struggling to survive. Then your conscience would allow you to take from another in order to save yourself. An ipod is not a necessity, but the irony is that everyone will be brought up to a standard of living that would allow them to buy many of these luxuries.

I'm not buying any of it. You wrote this part after I revealed a major contradiction and you're doing your best to avoid it. As I said, you either are responsible or you are not. If the will is not free, then you are not responsible, and that is why nobody is blaming you in the first place. But that means you can't blame yourself either.

It's not a matter of 'can't'. You won't be able to justify your actions, no matter how you try to rationalize them away.

And if you don't blame yourself, the fact nobody can force me to do anything against my will changes nothing to the fact that I can't feel guilt because I know with 100% certainty that I am not responsible!

That's where you are wrong. The guilt someone would feel would be overwhelming if they killed someone, even accidentally, and no one blamed them or made them pay for their actions in any way. A person in this situation would want to be punished. They would want to pay in some way for what they know was their responsibility. Do you think they could just say, "Well, my will is not free, so I'm not going to take responsibility for my actions?" This is utterly absurd.

All intellectual debate is not over because Lessans world has never come to be. It doesn't exist. All we can do is theorize about it. Nothing has been proven about it except that it's contradictory.

If you think it's just a theory, that's okay. But if this world ever came to be, believe me when I tell you that you could not steal a thing from anyone and use the excuse that your will is not free, when you know the person you are about to hurt would never blame you for this. In fact, if they knew you really needed something, they would be more than happy to give it to you, so why steal?

Yes it will. Especially if my conscience establishes that I'm not hurting anyone, such as in the case where I'm stealing from someone who is very rich.

Once it's established by science what is a genuine hurt to another, you could never desire to take from someone who worked for what they have. But if you still think you can take their things, go ahead, because the doors will be open.

Yes he did say that the past can't cause the present!

''it is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation.''

That's true, time is an illusion.

Absolute control means free will Peacegirl. If you don't have free will you don't have absolute control. It's as simple as that.

You don't, once you make a choice.

You're afraid to use the word 'cause' because you know what that means.

I'm not afraid of the word 'cause'. There is nothing to be afraid of.

If a robot was programmed not to hurt someone, then it would indeed start to behave a bit like humans. That means the robot would be filled with contradicting desires (selfishness vs. altruism). But that still doesn't make us any different from robots if our will isn't free. In that case, our conscience is just an elaborate program.

Right, but that program would tell the robot not to act on his desire to take something that is not his. His conscience would stop him, and if he tried, the program would crash.

''Cooperate with those who are close to you... especially those that are genetically related to you'' This is a widespread principle throughout nature and we are part of it. Altruism in nature tends to appear in situations where one has an advantage to help someone that is genetically close, because that enhances the chances of propagating one's genetic stuff.

This is not about altruism. This isn't even about cooperation. It's about following the laws of our nature, which does not always imply selflessness.

''Don't cooperate with someone who isn't genetically close to you'' This is the principle of competition and of the selfish gene. Genetic competition. Nature is ruthlessly competitive and we humans are not immune to that.

Competition is alive and well in the new world. And he explains who the selfish person is, and it's not who you think.

The complexity of human behaviour can largely be explained by this dilemma between the drive to cooperate and the aggressive drive to compete with others. As humanity evolves, we gather into larger and larger groups, meaning we tend to cooperate with more and more people, but that doesn't suppress our aggressive drive.

That's why there will be a lot of competition in all kinds of sports and business. The aggressive drive will still exist (we aren't changing human nature), but that drive will never be a reason to step over the line and hurt an innocent person at his expense.

The point of this is that our conscience can be understood in terms of selective natural ''programming''. With no free will, we are just very elaborate robots, our conscience just being one more non-free layer of complexity.

Whatever you want to call it, when conscience is part of the entity, then the factors that this entity is considering to determine whether an action is justifiable, will prevent the action from occurring whether it's in a robot or in a human.

This desire of ours is subject to causal determinism as much as anything else. If I have no control over what I desire (I don't if I'm not free), something can cause me to want to hurt another.

That is very true. And when all of those factors are eliminated, you won't want to hurt another. If someone has hurt you, then you have reason to hurt someone, even if that person is a symbol of that hurt. How many men rape women because they hate their mothers?

There is no difference. A conscience is just a highly elaborate set of principles concerned with social interaction. A very elaborate program.

It's much more than that. It's a whisper in someone's ear that lets them know whether they are doing something that is wrong or hurtful. It is programmed into us for a reason, otherwise we wouldn't care if we hurt others, just so we get what we want. Can you imagine what this world would be like if no one had a conscience? It's just that our conscience is now at a 6 when it could be at a 10.

That's exactly what I'm doing. NOTHING escapes causality if we're not free. Not your conscience, not your desires, not your will... NOTHING.

Instead of using the word 'cause', let's reframe it and say: Once something occurs, it could have never been otherwise, which is a true statement.

I won't live in that world. The only reason why I couldn't hurt someone is because I hold myself morally responsible of my actions. And in order for me to hold myself morally responsible, I need to consider myself free. No freedom, no moral responsibility.

You are very close in understanding. I think the word 'free' is making you uncomfortable because you think your freedom is being taken away, when in actuality it is not being taken away. We are able to do what we want or desire, and no one will tell us what to do. He says this throughout the book: "I am doing this of my own free will, which only means of my own desire, because I want to."

You're just wrong. Blame and punishment exist BECAUSE of the concept of moral responsibility. They go together. Yes, some parts of the world are a mess, but not all of it!

It exists because there was no other way to deter people from hurting others. We had to believe in freedom of the will in order to justify blame and punishment, for how could we punish someone if we believed he had no choice? This has been the cornerstone of all civilization up to now.

Your observation that the world is a rough place will lead you nowhere. We DID evolve. I live in a country where I have access to free health care, drinkable water and if I'm willing to work, I can pay for food and shelter. Heck, even I don't work, the social safety net can help me pay for that. The risk of me being attacked by an enemy in the streets when I go out is very poor. That's not that bad is it?

Our standards of living have drastically improved. That doesn't mean there are no challenges. Many countries are still struggling. There is still too much poverty. Too many people don't have their basic needs fulfilled. But to be realist, pessimism must be balanced with optimism.

Yeah some things are horribly wrong in this world. But you're dishonest if you think nothing is right.

I guess you didn't read when I agreed that we are all developing. I said we have made huge strides from tolerance to international diplomacy, to our national infrastructure, but we are still left with war and crime. We can continue with the peacemaking process, and hopefully find an agreement that will satisfy all sides, but it only takes one suicide bomber to ruin the whole process. This knowledge just takes it a step further in helping to prevent the need for war and crime as a solution to man's problems.

Ultimately, I am the direct cause of my actions. But my self is connected to the causal deterministic chain. My genetic history does cause me to have certain desires and needs. In the end my actions are caused by a multitude of factors beyond myself.

Agreed.

The bottom line is that Lessans' world has not come to be. It hasn't been tested and thus it has not been proven. It's a hypothetical construct... filled with contradictions.

Not true, those contradictions were addressed. They are not contradictory and until you see this, you will continue to say they are contradictory.

What you need is to learn how gurus do their work. You need to be able to brainwash people because unless you develop that capacity to sweet talk people into believing that you have the truth, you won't be able to convince anyone who can actually think.

I'm not good at sweet talk. I don't like to manipulate anyone, and if that's what you think I'm doing, it's not true. In fact, if you are absolutely convinced Lessans is wrong, I will will accept that and I promise I won't try to sweet talk you again.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes, you can feel responsible and have no free will. It's not that you are blaming yourself for anything; you would just feel the weight of responsibility by imagining doing something that could cause harm to someone and never be blamed for it.

Give me a specific, real-world example of this and back it up please. I'm having a hard time conceptualizing this premise.

 

[peacegirl]

Okay.. I'm really trying here, believe me. Let's break this down to understand what you've just said with an example.

So, let's just say, for instance, that the "something" = "I cheated on my wife." I just couldn't help myself. Determinism inevitably lead me down this path of cheating.

I'm not sure how you mean to use the word prevented here. Because it wouldn't make any sense that determinism both made me do something specific and prevented me from doing that same act. It has to be one or the other if the scenario remains the same. In this example, I couldn't have been forced to and prevented from cheating on my wife at the same time.

I'm going to assume you meant to say that I am prevented from doing "something else", because at least that makes sense.



Oh.. so, like.. there is no responsibility. So we're now strictly back to the argument of hard determinism. A bit earlier you said that responsibility was heightened... Remember this?



So, if this new version of determinism heightens responsibility, it directly contradicts your later statement that admits there is "no reason to punish." If you are held accountable or responsible for something - you are to some degree, punished for committing that act. One way that you are punished is that responsibility requires to justify your actions - this is an informal punishment that won't be relieved until a justification has been delivered.

Ironically, that sort of justification mimics your situation right now. You've clearly contradicted yourself here, and I'd like to give you some concessions regarding this theory, but you're not really providing anything cohesive. Maybe it was just meant to be this way.

As I said earlier, I don't think you have followed this whole thread. Do you understand the author's definition of determinism? If you don't, then there is no possible way you can understand how responsibiity is increased, not decreased, in a world without blame.

Give me a specific, real-world example of this and back it up please. I'm having a hard time conceptualizing this premise.

There are a lot of examples in the book. In the third chapter, what makes responsiblity increase when driving is that the very thought of being careless and hurting or killing someone at one's own hand is so difficult to contemplate, knowing there would be no blame, punishment, or penalty, even if the victim should die, that the driver would do everything possible to stay away from this type of situation by learning all the do's and don'ts of safe driving before getting behind the wheel. Even though there are many good driver's in society, there are a lot of people who would rather take a risk by speeding, or doing any number of things that are dangerous, and if someone gets hurt as a consequence, they can try to come up with an excuse to mitigate the circumstances, or they will pay a price. All these things alleviate one's conscience. In fact, in a situation where someone dies, the person who was responsible would welcome some form of punishment because his guilt would be overwhelming.

 

[JLM]

Hey, if you are trying to sell fish on the street corner and after a week you haven't sold any fish, a smart person would either try different fish or a different corner. :lol:

 

[peacegirl]

Hey, if you are trying to sell fish on the street corner and after a week you haven't sold any fish, a smart person would either try different fish or a different corner. :lol:

I know, and I am ready to move to a different street corner. Thanks for reminding me on what a smart person would do. You are so right.

 

[JLM]

I know, and I am ready to move to a different street corner. Thanks for reminding me on what a smart person would do. You are so right.

I just don't know what else there is to say, Peacegirl, except that I don't think anyone is trying to be mean here. The idea just doesn't stand up to normal reasoning and just doesn't have any professional backing, so it's probably best just to retire the idea. I'm sure everyone here would like to see you engage in the other threads- there's is lots to learn there. :smile:

 

[s_lone]

Peacegirl, I decided I'm not going to post anymore lengthy posts concerning Lessans' theory. I've reached the limit of the time I'm willing to invest in this discussion and as I'm sure you already know, time is precious. Even if you feel I don't understand, I think you can at least say with honesty that I clearly explained what my issues are. And for your own sake, don't waste any more of your time trying to convince me.

That being said, I'll keep on reading whatever pops up in here and might very well continue to comment. But I think it's clear we reached a wall in terms of what we can agree and disagree with.

I thank you for your patience. I honestly enjoyed our elaborate exchange even though it was often frustrating, as I'm sure it was for you too. I was and am very critical of Lessans but that doesn't mean I don't respect what he tried to do. As I already said, we need people who think about how the world can be a better place. While I remain unconvinced, I enjoyed the unusual perspective on morality and free will and it will positively contribute to the broadening of my own.

 

[peacegirl]

I just don't know what else there is to say, Peacegirl, except that I don't think anyone is trying to be mean here. The idea just doesn't stand up to normal reasoning and just doesn't have any professional backing, so it's probably best just to retire the idea. I'm sure everyone here would like to see you engage in the other threads- there's is lots to learn there. :smile:

Thanks for your suggestion. I will definitely think about it.

Peacegirl, I decided I'm not going to post anymore lengthy posts concerning Lessans' theory. I've reached the limit of the time I'm willing to invest in this discussion and as I'm sure you already know, time is precious. Even if you feel I don't understand, I think you can at least say with honesty that I clearly explained what my issues are. And for your own sake, don't waste any more of your time trying to convince me.

That being said, I'll keep on reading whatever pops up in here and might very well continue to comment. But I think it's clear we reached a wall in terms of what we can agree and disagree with.

I thank you for your patience. I honestly enjoyed our elaborate exchange even though it was often frustrating, as I'm sure it was for you too. I was and am very critical of Lessans but that doesn't mean I don't respect what he tried to do. As I already said, we need people who think about how the world can be a better place. While I remain unconvinced, I enjoyed the unusual perspective on morality and free will and it will positively contribute to the broadening of my own.

I am sorry you are not interested in reading the rest of the book because it would give you a better understanding of how this principle works in real life, not just in theory. That said, I'm glad the discussion has, in some small way, contributed to your worldview. This thread may very well peter out now that we're not conversing, because it is believed that you won the argument and I just can't accept it. If that happens, I bid you adieu, and, as the author stated in Chapter Ten, Our Posterity, no matter how long it takes for this new world to begin, YOU will be there.

 

[mentalfloss]

There are a lot of examples in the book. In the third chapter, what makes responsiblity increase when driving is that the very thought of being careless and hurting or killing someone at one's own hand is so difficult to contemplate, knowing there would be no blame, punishment, or penalty, even if the victim should die, that the driver would do everything possible to stay away from this type of situation by learning all the do's and don'ts of safe driving before getting behind the wheel.

Well that's patently false. If I'm driving my '82 pinto and think of running someone over, I know there will be a punishment to follow. In addition to possibly feeling some sense of guilt, assuming I was at fault, I won't be too happy when I receive my higher premium, demerit points and court hearing to determine what punitive damages to the dead party's family, I would be responsible for.

A court could justly blame me as the cause of that party's death. I would bear the punishment for being that cause. There is no determinism there. If there is, according to you, and according to this new definition of determinism - well then it's not determinism at all. It's reiterating principles of free will and deeming them to be principles of determinism.

And that's why everything you have said has been so incomprehensible.

Even though there are many good driver's in society, there are a lot of people who would rather take a risk by speeding, or doing any number of things that are dangerous, and if someone gets hurt as a consequence, they can try to come up with an excuse to mitigate the circumstances, or they will pay a price. All these things alleviate one's conscience.

Yes. They can exhibit their free will to either choose to be cautious drivers or reckless drivers. Again, none of this has any inkling of determinism - old or new.

In fact, in a situation where someone dies, the person who was responsible would welcome some form of punishment because his guilt would be overwhelming.

That claim is also unjustified. Many leaders, who have been responsible for the deaths of billions of people do not feel guilty at all. As that counter of deaths goes up and up, their sense of guilt is not overflowing in the slightest.

That claim is also unjustified on a citizen's level, especially when they make this popular plea:

Insanity defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A defendant making the insanity argument might be said to be pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period.

Ironically, in this case, the defendant will try to rid themselves of responsibility by claiming there was a... deterministic factor.. outside of their control. Hmm.. determinism used to ward off personal responsibility.. imagine that..

Clearly determinism should invoke this person to take responsibility for their actions and accept their punishment. Or maybe determinism invoking responsibility is clearly bull****. Yes, that seems more appropriate.

Though, if determinism was actually free will, then yes that might apply. But then, if we define determinism as free will, that's a bit silly - almost crazy. Or insane if that helps you sleep at night.

 

[peacegirl]

Well that's patently false. If I'm driving my '82 pinto and think of running someone over, I know there will be a punishment to follow. In addition to possibly feeling some sense of guilt, assuming I was at fault, I won't be too happy when I receive my higher premium, demerit points and court hearing to determine what punitive damages to the dead party's family, I would be responsible for.

A court could justly blame me as the cause of that party's death. I would bear the punishment for being that cause. There is no determinism there. If there is, according to you, and according to this new definition of determinism - well then it's not determinism at all. It's reiterating principles of free will and deeming them to be principles of determinism.

And that's why everything you have said has been so incomprehensible.

What I don't get is your lack of understanding mentalfloss. In the last post to you I had explicitly stated that no one would blame you. So where is all this blame coming from? :-(

Yes. They can exhibit their free will to either choose to be cautious drivers or reckless drivers. Again, none of this has any inkling of determinism - old or new.

This just shows the danger of offering a new definition, and everyone sticks with the old. It's incredible to me.

That claim is also unjustified. Many leaders, who have been responsible for the deaths of billions of people do not feel guilty at all. As that counter of deaths goes up and up, their sense of guilt is not overflowing in the slightest.

Oh my godddddd. Are you trying to use this knowledge as a reason to discredit it when it hasn't even been applied to our world? You are so confused MentalFloss, I don't even want to continue the conversation, but I will try to hold out until your last comment.

That claim is also unjustified on a citizen's level, especially when they make this popular plea:

Insanity defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironically, in this case, the defendant will try to rid themselves of responsibility by claiming there was a... deterministic factor.. outside of their control. Hmm.. determinism used to ward off personal responsibility.. imagine that..

Once again, you are so far removed from being a deep thinker, it absolutely boggles my mind. How can someone offer an excuse when they are already excused? Can you at least answer this question MentalFloss?

Clearly determinism should invoke this person to take responsibility for their actions and accept their punishment. Or maybe determinism invoking responsibility is clearly bull****. Yes, that seems more appropriate.

You are so caught up in free will, and your reasons for it, that you have no way of even grasping this knowledge. It's like talking to a brick wall. Sorry, but I will not shrink in fear of people telling me this author was wrong because they failed to see these mathematical relations.

Though, if determinism was actually free will, then yes that might apply. But then, if we define determinism as free will, that's a bit silly - almost crazy. Or insane if that helps you sleep at night.

You have no clue what I contributed in this forum. It's time for you to move on. I cannot even begin to argue with you because you are so adamant and determined to prove determinism wrong. I bid you farewell, and I wish you the best, but you have added nothing to the proof of free will (because it doesn't exist), and therefore you have added NOTHING to this discussion. All you are doing is trying to add some reason to give justification to your beliefs, without any real objectivity whatsoever.

 

[mentalfloss]

I gave you examples which were backed up by concrete theory and at least some form of rudimentary logic. You give me ad hominem fluff. I think you should not only bid me farewell, but the rest of the forum might appreciate it as well.

 

[peacegirl]

I gave you examples which were backed up by concrete theory and at least some form of rudimentary logic. You give me ad hominem fluff. I think you should not only bid me farewell, but the rest of the forum might appreciate it as well.

Please move on to another thread. You have offered nothing at all that this author was not aware of. If you can't even take the time to understand this knowledge, you are a PHONEY in your desire to understand the author's proof.

 

[JLM]

Please move on to another thread. You have offered nothing at all that this author was not aware of. If you can't even take the time to understand this knowledge, you are a PHONEY in you effort to at least try to understand another point of view.

That is most unfair Peacegirl, we've all explained the fallacies and when asked for substantiation of your claims (by independent sources) you've failed to provide them.

 

[peacegirl]

That is most unfair Peacegirl, we've all explained the fallacies and when asked for substantiation of your claims (by independent sources) you've failed to provide them.

Are you kidding? There IS no independent source. That's why we can't have a conversation, because if I disagree with the people in here, there is a gang mentality that goes along with the big wheels. How in the world can this author win in a forum such as this that is already biased toward free will, and refuses to really hear the proof? I know, s_lone thinks he proved free will; he did nothing of the sort. But I still wish the best for him and everyone in here, but if I cannot have an objective conversation, unfortunately, the conversation is over.

 

[s_lone]

Are you kidding? There IS no independent source. That's why we can't have a conversation, because if I disagree with the people in here, there is a gang mentality that goes along with the big wheels. How in the world can this author win in a forum such as this that is already biased toward free will, and refuses to really hear the proof? I know, s_lone thinks he proved free will; he did nothing of the sort. But I still wish the best for him and everyone in here, but if I cannot have an objective conversation, unfortunately, the conversation is over.

Actually Peacegirl, I don't think I proved free will at all. I know I haven't. In this thread's very first posts you can see my position in regards to free will. I clearly stated that I can't think of any way to show that free will is actually true. (How could I think I proved free will when I clearly admit I don't know how to prove it?)

Despite this, I consider myself free and I choose to have faith in this. It's pretty much the only thing towards which I do have solid faith. I choose to consider my will free. That is how I can assume responsibility for my actions.

I take decisions.

I'm responsible for them.

It's as simple as that really.

I didn't achieve anything here beyond showing you what I think doesn't work in Lessans' theory. I didn't win or lose. And that is why I can so freely decide that I've had enough. It was a stimulating exchange but it's clear we reached a dead end as to what we can agree with.

So please be careful in your statements about me.

I did not prove free will and never thought I could do it.