New Discovery

[Belinda]

You are conflating freedom with freedom of the will

(Peacegirl to me)

I am not. What you call "freedom of the will" is voluntarism. Voluntarism fits with determinism.

It is possible to be free and responsible despite being in some terrible prison, or despite being physically disabled, or despite being despised or rejected by all the other people around you.

[peacegirl]

You are conflating freedom with freedom of the will

(Peacegirl to me)

I am not. What you call "freedom of the will" is voluntarism. Voluntarism fits with determinism.

PEACEGIRL: You are conflating. Voluntarism is not the opposite of determinism. You can believe what you want, but you can't change reality.

BELINDA: It is possible to be free and responsible despite being in some terrible prison, or despite being physically disabled, or despite being despised or rejected by all the other people around you.

You're still conflating terms. Every person is different in how they may react to unfortunate circumstances because each person's genetics and environment are unique to them. Nobody has the free will to act in ways that are counter to who they are. For example, their genetics may give them an edge when it comes to difficult circumstances because they lean toward positivity. There was research done where twins that were separated at birth and found each other later in life both had sunny dispositions despite coming from very different backgrounds. I think you are finding it hard to accept that free will doesn't exist because of the concern over moral responsibility. But, as I have said, responsibility increases with this knowledge, not decreases. Wouldn't you want this even if it meant giving up the belief that we have free will? Just remember that we either have free will or we don't by definition. They are complete opposites, and anyone who believes they are compatible doesn't understand why this is impossible. In fact, the idea that we have free will and no free will in the same breath is a complete and utter contradiction. You seem to be ignoring how free will is defined in the free will/determinism debate (by inserting "freedom" as a replacement for "free will"), similar to what compatibilists do. The problem is that we are not even using the same definitions, so how can this conversation be productive? Just to clarify the definition of free will that the author used is as follows.

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option that was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

[Belinda]

You are conflating freedom with freedom of the will

(Peacegirl to me)

I am not. What you call "freedom of the will" is voluntarism. Voluntarism fits with determinism.

PEACEGIRL: You are conflating. Voluntarism is not the opposite of determinism. You can believe what you want, but you can't change reality.

BELINDA: It is possible to be free and responsible despite being in some terrible prison, or despite being physically disabled, or despite being despised or rejected by all the other people around you.

You're still conflating terms again. Every person is different in how they may react to unfortunate circumstances because each person's genetics and environment are unique to them. Nobody has the free will to act in ways that are counter to who they are. For example, their genetics may give them an edge when it comes to difficult circumstances because they lean toward positivity. There was research done where twins that were separated at birth and found each other later in life both had sunny dispositions despite coming from very different backgrounds. I think you are finding it hard to accept that free will doesn't exist because of the concern over moral responsibility. But, as I have said, responsibility increases with this knowledge, not decreases. Wouldn't you want this even if it meant giving up the belief that we have free will? Just remember that we either have free will or we don't by definition. They are complete opposites, and anyone who believes they are compatible doesn't understand why this is impossible. In fact, to say we can have free will and no free will in the same breath is a complete and utter contradiction. You seem to be ignoring how free will is defined in the free will/determinism debate (by inserting "freedom" as a replacement for "free will"), similar to what compatibilists do.

There is no such thing as metaphysical "free will". If there were such a thing as metaphysical free will then indeed it would be utterly incompatible with determinism, and would not even render humans more free.But there is no such thing as metaphysical free will.
You wrote:

Just remember that we either have free will or we don't by definition

If by free will you mean absolute free will then I agree. I think you might agree that events in the world are relatively this and relatively that, but events are never absolutely this or that.

Even dying is relative to living. Events are a continuum. It is only for convenience we talk as if events are separate events.

[peacegirl]

(Peacegirl to me)

I am not. What you call "freedom of the will" is voluntarism. Voluntarism fits with determinism.

PEACEGIRL: You are conflating. Voluntarism is not the opposite of determinism. You can believe what you want, but you can't change reality.

BELINDA: It is possible to be free and responsible despite being in some terrible prison, or despite being physically disabled, or despite being despised or rejected by all the other people around you.

You're still conflating terms again. Every person is different in how they may react to unfortunate circumstances because each person's genetics and environment are unique to them. Nobody has the free will to act in ways that are counter to who they are. For example, their genetics may give them an edge when it comes to difficult circumstances because they lean toward positivity. There was research done where twins that were separated at birth and found each other later in life both had sunny dispositions despite coming from very different backgrounds. I think you are finding it hard to accept that free will doesn't exist because of the concern over moral responsibility. But, as I have said, responsibility increases with this knowledge, not decreases. Wouldn't you want this even if it meant giving up the belief in freedom of the will? Just remember that we either have free will or we don't by definition. They are complete opposites, and anyone who believes they are compatible doesn't understand why this is impossible. In fact, saying we can have free will and no free will in the same breath is a complete and utter contradiction. You seem to be ignoring how free will is defined in the free will/determinism debate (by inserting "freedom" as a replacement for "free will"), similar to what compatibilists do.

There is no such thing as metaphysical "free will". If there were such a thing as metaphysical free will then indeed it would be utterly incompatible with determinism, and would not even render humans more free.But there is no such thing as metaphysical free will.

What is the difference between metaphysical free will and free will? Are you saying that the compatibility of free will and determinism can now be made because there is a different type of free will where we could have done otherwise? That is the issue at hand, and you can't go changing definitions in order to bypass what is at stake here. Inserting "freedom" into the mix is creating confusion because that is a different term with a different meaning. We know people are more free than others in the sense that they have more opportunities and more options available to them. But this not what is under discussion. I don't know if you get what I'm saying.

[peacegirl]

(Peacegirl to me)

I am not. What you call "freedom of the will" is voluntarism. Voluntarism fits with determinism.

PEACEGIRL: You are conflating. Voluntarism is not the opposite of determinism. You can believe what you want, but you can't change reality.

BELINDA: It is possible to be free and responsible despite being in some terrible prison, or despite being physically disabled, or despite being despised or rejected by all the other people around you.

You're still conflating terms again. Every person is different in how they may react to unfortunate circumstances because each person's genetics and environment are unique to them. Nobody has the free will to act in ways that are counter to who they are. For example, their genetics may give them an edge when it comes to difficult circumstances because they lean toward positivity. There was research done where twins that were separated at birth and found each other later in life both had sunny dispositions despite coming from very different backgrounds. I think you are finding it hard to accept that free will doesn't exist because of the concern over moral responsibility. But, as I have said, responsibility increases with this knowledge, not decreases. Wouldn't you want this even if it meant giving up the belief that we have free will? Just remember that we either have free will or we don't by definition. They are complete opposites, and anyone who believes they are compatible doesn't understand why this is impossible. In fact, to say we can have free will and no free will in the same breath is a complete and utter contradiction. You seem to be ignoring how free will is defined in the free will/determinism debate (by inserting "freedom" as a replacement for "free will"), similar to what compatibilists do.

There is no such thing as metaphysical "free will". If there were such a thing as metaphysical free will then indeed it would be utterly incompatible with determinism, and would not even render humans more free.But there is no such thing as metaphysical free will.
You wrote:

Just remember that we either have free will or we don't by definition

If by free will you mean absolute free will then I agree. I think you might agree that events in the world are relatively this and relatively that, but events are never absolutely this or that.

Even dying is relative to living. Events are a continuum. It is only for convenience we talk as if events are separate events.

Some are, some are not. I agree that most things are on a continuum, but not all things. Death is the opposite of life. I am not talking about when a person is in the dying process. Being dead means not being alive. They are opposites.

In the course of many years, man developed words to describe opposites (this was absolutely necessary for his development), but though it is true that death is the opposite of life and determinism is the opposite of free will, the word “tall” is not the opposite of “short,” nor is the word “educated” the opposite of “uneducated.” It should be clear from our earlier discussion that certain opposites represent a range of imaginary values from one extreme to the other. The word “brilliant” is not the opposite of “stupidity,” and yet these fallacious differences (which you will understand much better when education is discussed) were perceived because we were looking through word slides that were projected realistically onto substance in relation to certain undeniable experiences.

[Belinda]

I agree , except that I have doubts as the usefulness for peace and prosperity, of the use notion of opposites.
Even if I were talking to Adolph Hitler I could agree with him that German shepherd dogs are great and that Bavarian scenery is beautiful.

Also, what is the opposite of water? Or what is the opposite of New York?

Also, the opposite of life is not death but is arguably the loss of selfhood.

Peacegirl wrote:

Being dead means not being alive. They are opposites.

No , they are not opposites. Death is not only decayed flesh, it's also the loss of the self.

[peacegirl]

I agree , except that I have doubts as the usefulness for peace and prosperity, of the use notion of opposites.
Even if I were talking to Adolph Hitler I could agree with him that German shepherd dogs are great and that Bavarian scenery is beautiful.

Also, what is the opposite of water? Or what is the opposite of New York?

PEACEGIRL: Why are you bringing up things that have no opposites? I am talking about things that do. I don't get where you prove that opposites don't exist.

BELINDA: Also, the opposite of life is not death but is arguably the loss of selfhood.

Peacegirl wrote:

Being dead means not being alive. They are opposites.

No , they are not opposites. Death is not only decayed flesh, it's also the loss of the self.

You said: Decayed flesh is not only decayed flesh, but also the loss of self. Tell me: Where does this loss of self prove that death is not the opposite of life? I still say: If you are not alive, YOU ARE DEAD! No one has ever come back (besides Jesus ) from the dead. If you can show me that life and death are not opposites, show me where someone is stone-cold dead but still alive (proving death and life are not opposites), and my hat would be off to you! That would deserve the Nobel Prize of the century.

[Belinda]

I agree , except that I have doubts as the usefulness for peace and prosperity, of the use notion of opposites.
Even if I were talking to Adolph Hitler I could agree with him that German shepherd dogs are great and that Bavarian scenery is beautiful.

Also, what is the opposite of water? Or what is the opposite of New York?

PEACEGIRL: Why are you bringing up things that have no opposites? I am talking about things that do. I don't get where you prove that opposites don't exist.

BELINDA: Also, the opposite of life is not death but is arguably the loss of selfhood.

Peacegirl wrote:

Being dead means not being alive. They are opposites.

No , they are not opposites. Death is not only decayed flesh, it's also the loss of the self.

You said: Decayed flesh is not only decayed flesh, but also the loss of self. Tell me: Where does this loss of self prove that death is not the opposite of life? I still say: If you are not alive, YOU ARE DEAD! No one has ever come back (besides Jesus ) from the dead. If you can show me that life and death are not opposites, show me where someone is stone-cold dead but still alive (proving death and life are not opposites), and my hat would be off to you! That would deserve the Nobel Prize of the century.

The sense of being a self pertains to animals with central nervous systems that can reflect on their experiences. Brain death is the way death is confirmed .Once the brain is dead the sense of self is also dead.
Death of other body parts is not accompanied by loss of sense of self.Death and life is a continuum it's not binary. Popularly ,life or death is taken to be binary but it is not really binary.

It's your turn now. You tell me what thing or idea has an opposite.

[peacegirl]

I agree , except that I have doubts as the usefulness for peace and prosperity, of the use notion of opposites.
Even if I were talking to Adolph Hitler I could agree with him that German shepherd dogs are great and that Bavarian scenery is beautiful.

Also, what is the opposite of water? Or what is the opposite of New York?

PEACEGIRL: Why are you bringing up things that have no opposites? I am talking about things that do. I don't get where you prove that opposites don't exist.

BELINDA: Also, the opposite of life is not death but is arguably the loss of selfhood.

Peacegirl wrote:

No , they are not opposites. Death is not only decayed flesh, it's also the loss of the self.

You said: Decayed flesh is not only decayed flesh, but also the loss of self. Tell me: Where does this loss of self prove that death is not the opposite of life? I still say: If you are not alive, YOU ARE DEAD! No one has ever come back (besides Jesus ) from the dead. If you can show me that life and death are not opposites, show me where someone is stone-cold dead but still alive (proving death and life are not opposites), and my hat would be off to you! That would deserve the Nobel Prize of the century.

The sense of being a self pertains to animals with central nervous systems that can reflect on their experiences. Brain death is the way death is confirmed .Once the brain is dead the sense of self is also dead.
Death of other body parts is not accompanied by loss of sense of self.Death and life is a continuum it's not binary. Popularly ,life or death is taken to be binary but it is not really binary.

It's your turn now. You tell me what thing or idea has an opposite.

You can tell me that life and death are not opposites, just like you can tell me that one plus one is three. Anybody can challenge existing facts if they want to and believe that there are no facts that can be counted on with absolute certainty. But when a person is dead because his biological processes (that sustain living organisms) are no longer functioning, and where there is no chance of coming back from that state, he is not alive. This definition is universally accepted. If you tell me that this person can be dead and alive at the same time because they are not opposites, I don't think we have any basis for communication because you will also argue that freedom of the will (not the "freedom" that you have mistakenly inserted in place of free will) and determinism are also not opposites, which will prevent me from being able to move forward.

[Belinda]

You said: Decayed flesh is not only decayed flesh, but also the loss of self. Tell me: Where does this loss of self prove that death is not the opposite of life? I still say: If you are not alive, YOU ARE DEAD! No one has ever come back (besides Jesus ) from the dead. If you can show me that life and death are not opposites, show me where someone is stone-cold dead but still alive (proving death and life are not opposites), and my hat would be off to you! That would deserve the Nobel Prize of the century.

The sense of being a self pertains to animals with central nervous systems that can reflect on their experiences. Brain death is the way death is confirmed .Once the brain is dead the sense of self is also dead.
Death of other body parts is not accompanied by loss of sense of self.Death and life is a continuum it's not binary. Popularly ,life or death is taken to be binary but it is not really binary.

It's your turn now. You tell me what thing or idea has an opposite.

You can tell me that life and death are not opposites, just like you can tell me that one plus one is three. Anybody can challenge existing facts if they want to and believe that there are no facts that can be counted on with absolute certainty. But when a person is dead because his biological processes (that sustain living organisms) are no longer functioning, and where there is no chance of coming back from that state, he is not alive. This definition is universally accepted. If you tell me that this person can be dead and alive at the same time because they are not opposites, I don't think we have any basis for communication because you will also argue that freedom of the will (not the "freedom" that you have mistakenly inserted in place of free will) and determinism are also not opposites, which will prevent me from being able to move forward.

You need to understand what 'binary' and 'continuum' refer to'. Unless I think you understand binary and continuum we should just agree to differ and go our separate ways

[peacegirl]

The sense of being a self pertains to animals with central nervous systems that can reflect on their experiences. Brain death is the way death is confirmed .Once the brain is dead the sense of self is also dead.
Death of other body parts is not accompanied by loss of sense of self.Death and life is a continuum it's not binary. Popularly ,life or death is taken to be binary but it is not really binary.

It's your turn now. You tell me what thing or idea has an opposite.

You can tell me that life and death are not opposites, just like you can tell me that one plus one is three. Anybody can challenge existing facts if they want to and believe that there are no facts that can be counted on with absolute certainty. But when a person is dead because his biological processes (that sustain living organisms) are no longer functioning, and where there is no chance of coming back from that state, he is not alive. This definition is universally accepted. If you tell me that this person can be dead and alive at the same time because they are not opposites, I don't think we have any basis for communication because you will also argue that freedom of the will (not the "freedom" that you have mistakenly inserted in place of free will) and determinism are also not opposites, which will prevent me from being able to move forward.

You need to understand what 'binary' and 'continuum' refer to'. Unless I think you understand binary and continuum we should just agree to differ and go our separate ways

Things can be binary and things can work on a continuum, but this does not mean opposites don't exist. Dark is the opposite of light, whether you think you can outwit this fact or not by saying it's on a continuum. I agree that we need to go our separate ways. You even said this thread is not to learn anything, but for entertainment only. You never gave this author a chance. Let me try to clue you in again: Having free will (the ability to have chosen otherwise) and having no free will (the inability to have chosen otherwise) are complete contradictions and do not work on a continuum. They are polar opposites. You cannot just go changing the definition of "free will" in order to make these two appear compatible. Such simple concepts, but your inability for careful analysis has gotten in the way because you seem to want to argue just for the sake of argument. You would have gotten a lot out of this book, but you were determined from the get-go to find flaws that aren't there.

[Belinda]

I don't resist the temptation to reply.

Dark and light are not binary; there are shades of grey between the poles of light and dark.

[peacegirl]

I don't resist the temptation to reply.

Dark and light are not binary; there are shades of grey between the poles of light and dark.

You seem to be missing the point. We are not talking about shades of grey. Black and white are opposites, period. Don’t try to wiggle yourself out of this because you don’t want to be wrong. We cannot have a little bit of free will (the ability to choose otherwise) and no free will (the inability to choose otherwise). They are contradictory terms. There are no exceptions to this, just as someone cannot be a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead. They either are or they aren’t.

[Belinda]

I don't resist the temptation to reply.

Dark and light are not binary; there are shades of grey between the poles of light and dark.

You seem to be missing the point. We are not talking about shades of grey. Black and white are opposites, period. Don’t try to wiggle yourself out of this because you don’t want to be wrong. We cannot have a little bit of free will (the ability to choose otherwise) and no free will (the inability to choose otherwise). They are contradictory terms. There are no exceptions to this, just as someone cannot be a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead. They either are or they aren’t.

A woman who has a uterine bleed during her pregnancy is a little bit pregnant to some degree. If the doctor arrests the bleed the woman is more pregnant than if she had not stopped bleeding from her uterus., in which case she is likely to abort.
Neither is a healthy pregnancy ever 100% assured as accidents can happen.

An animal is more dead than alive at a point during the process of its dying.What that point is is arbitrary.


On the other hand I agree that absolute "free will" is binary. And 1 and 0 are binary.

Popular language is imprecise. (e.g. the usage of popular expression "black and white"). When we do philosophy we use explicit language not popular language.

[peacegirl]

I don't resist the temptation to reply.

Dark and light are not binary; there are shades of grey between the poles of light and dark.

You seem to be missing the point. We are not talking about shades of grey. Black and white are opposites, period. Don’t try to wiggle yourself out of this because you don’t want to be wrong. We cannot have a little bit of free will (the ability to choose otherwise) and no free will (the inability to choose otherwise). They are contradictory terms. There are no exceptions to this, just as someone cannot be a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead. They either are or they aren’t.

A woman who has a uterine bleed during her pregnancy is a little bit pregnant to some degree. If the doctor arrests the bleed the woman is more pregnant than if she had not stopped bleeding from her uterus., in which case she is likely to abort.
Neither is a healthy pregnancy ever 100% assured as accidents can happen.

PEACEGIRL: Belinda, stop grasping at straws. I am not getting into the minutia of what constitutes a pregnancy or not. The fact remains: if a person is pregnant, they cannot be pregnent. You are too bent on trying to prove this author wrong, and it's not working.

BELINDA: An animal is more dead than alive at a point during the process of its dying.What that point is is arbitrary.

PEACEGIRL: I actually said that the process of dying does not mean DEAD. You are not listening, but one thing is for sure, being DEAD IS NOT ARBITRARY.

BELINDA: On the other hand I agree that absolute "free will" is binary. And 1 and 0 are binary.

Popular language is imprecise. (e.g. the usage of popular expression "black and white"). When we do philosophy we use explicit language not popular language.

I totally agree that language is imprecise. In fact, language can be seen to be the culprit, but when it comes to laws that cannot be broken, language has nothing to do with it. You can try to twist this truth by saying there is no way to prove determinism or free will, but you're absolutely mistaken. I know how hard it must be to realize that free will doesn't exist because it doesn’t appear to address the issue of moral responsibility. Yet that is the very thing that it does address with great precision. I will not be stopped from trying to get through to you people that determinism does not take away from your freedom; it actually increases it. Just as there are diseases with many different symptoms that can be traced back to one root cause, here too, are many of the world’s problems traced back to one ROOT cause, the belief in free will. It's the very belief that is preventing a solution. There was no way this belief could have been identified as problematic at an earlier time since it served humanity for thousands of years. But it no longer does. If you want to believe you are right because you don't want to be wrong, there is nothing I can do. You can lead a horse to water, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE HIM DRINK.