Page 31 of 46
three strikes
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:37 pm
by henry quirk
"an observant man who nevertheless feels that he can originate what he does."
Wrong: I'm an observant man who knows he originates what he does.
Nice try, B...gold star for effort.
##
"That's what everybody does without having free will. Welcome to the club!"
Wrong: that's what everyone does because each is a free will. Welcome to MY club, PG.
No gold star for you...honorable mention will have to do.
##
"Libertarians believe actions are uncaused."
Wrong: as an advocate of libertarian agent causation, I know I -- the agent -- am the cause.
No star for this one, B.
Re: three strikes
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:46 pm
by peacegirl
henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:37 pm
"an observant man who nevertheless feels that he can originate what he does."
Wrong: I'm an observant man who
knows he originates what he does.
Nice try, B...gold star for effort.
Backatcha henry! You can have the gold star. lol No one is saying you aren't observant but that doesn't mean you're always right.
Nobody originates what they do, as if they are a first cause. Do you create your thoughts, or do they just appear as if out of nowhere?
##
peacegirl wrote:"That's what everybody does without having free will. Welcome to the club!"
henry quirk wrote:Wrong: that's what everyone does because each is a free will. Welcome to MY club, PG.
No gold star for you...honorable mention will have to do.
##
peacegirl wrote:"Libertarians believe actions are uncaused."
henry quirk wrote:Wrong: as an advocate of libertarian agent causation, I know I -- the agent -- am the cause.
No star for this one, B.
You're on the wrong tack. But who am I to try to help you see the light?
"You can have the gold star"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:58 pm
by henry quirk
Nah, that's for B.
Besides: I got 'me' (way better than a yellow paper star).
"But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:01 pm
by henry quirk
Exactly.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:17 pm
by peacegirl
If you don't agree with me, why are you compelled to come here (IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION). Believe me, you aren't going to convince me that you're a free will. If you are so free, why can't you go to another thread instead of wasting your time here? You should be able to choose A (stay) or B (go) equally. That is what free will entails in the free will/determinism debate. It's hard to do, isn't it, because your compulsion to stay isn't giving you much of a choice, is it? Use this as an experiment.
The letters A and
B, representing small or large differences are compared. The
comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The
difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is
the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which
makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply
because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances.
Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to
choose A. Is it humanly possible, providing no other conditions are
introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as
an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any
way.”
“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could
you prefer the other alternative?”
“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t
given me any choice.”
You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you
should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In
other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of
alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A.
It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it
could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as
an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice you are
not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of
the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control. Let
me explain this in another way.
Once it is understood that life is
compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and if two such
alternatives were presented to you as in the example above, what
choice would you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils?
Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still
worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled,
completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer
A; and since the definition of free will states that man can choose
good over evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for
the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount
of compulsion since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not
be selected in this comparison of possibilities?
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:22 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:17 pm
If you don't agree with me, why are you compelled to come here (IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION). Believe me, you aren't going to convince me that you're a free will. If you are so free, why can't you go to another thread instead of wasting your time here? You should be able to choose A (stay) or B (go) equally.
False dichotomy?
Are those the only two options available? Surely not.
I have been exercising the choice of 'observing and saying nothing' all day. Not just this thread - many others too.
I have also been exercising my choice to work. Which is not all that pleasant - but hey. I chose it against 'GREATER SATISFACTION'.
Why? Because I got bills to pay.
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:30 pm
by henry quirk
"If you don't agree with me, why are you compelled to come here (IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION). Believe me, you aren't going to convince me that you're a free will. If you are so free, why can't you go to another thread instead of wasting your time here? You should be able to choose A (stay) or B (go) equally. That is what free will entails in the free will/determinism debate. It's hard to do, isn't it, because your compulsion to stay isn't giving you much of a choice, is it? Use this as an experiment."
I post where I like, when I like, as I like.
Too bad for you (still no gold star).
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:39 pm
by peacegirl
Again, you could have a thousand options but only one real choice. I was only using two choices as an example. You cannot choose equally IF THERE IS A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHOICES. They are not equal.
Logik wrote:Are those the only two options available? Surely not.
I have been exercising the choice of 'observing and saying nothing' all day. Not just this thread - many others too.
I have also been exercising my choice to work. Which is not all that pleasant - but hey. I chose it against 'GREATER SATISFACTION'.
Why? Because I got bills to pay.
No one said things are always pleasant. You are choosing the lesser of two evils. It gave you greater satisfaction to get up and go to work rather than be hit with bills. This in no way negates this immutable law. Try again.
Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled by his
nature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.
The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying.
For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances.
The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:41 pm
by Logik
Re:
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:42 pm
by peacegirl
henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:30 pm
"If you don't agree with me, why are you compelled to come here (IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION). Believe me, you aren't going to convince me that you're a free will. If you are so free, why can't you go to another thread instead of wasting your time here? You should be able to choose A (stay) or B (go) equally. That is what free will entails in the free will/determinism debate. It's hard to do, isn't it, because your compulsion to stay isn't giving you much of a choice, is it? Use this as an experiment."
I post where I like, when I like, as I like.
Too bad for you (still no gold star).
Bingo. No one is saying you can't choose, but you couldn't stay away because the compulsion to stay is greater than the compulsion to leave. I WON! Where's my gold star?
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:49 pm
by peacegirl
No, because we are constantly moving away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position (even if it's scratching an itch), for if we were satisfied to stay where we are, we wouldn't move from here to there. This is the direction that life takes us that we have no control over.
If it is utterly
impossible to choose B in this comparison are they not compelled, by
their very nature, to prefer A; and how can they be free when the
favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their
choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction?
To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able
to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he
doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what
he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative
is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man
was free he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that
gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction
of his life, and make him prefer the impossible.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:49 pm
No, because we are constantly moving away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position (even if it's scratching an itch), for if we were satisfied to stay where we are, we wouldn't move from here to there. This is the direction that life takes us that we have no control over.
So your position is unfalsifiable?
Like - there is absolutely NO example of a choice that would convince is a choice made against one's greater satisfaction?
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:49 pm
No, because we are constantly moving away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position (even if it's scratching an itch), for if we were satisfied to stay where we are, we wouldn't move from here to there. This is the direction that life takes us that we have no control over.
So your position is unfalsifiable?
Actually, it could be falsified. All it would take is to show that we could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which you have tried to do, without success.
Logik wrote:Like - there is absolutely NO example of a choice that would convince is a choice made against one's greater satisfaction?
There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:14 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:49 pm
No, because we are constantly moving away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position (even if it's scratching an itch), for if we were satisfied to stay where we are, we wouldn't move from here to there. This is the direction that life takes us that we have no control over.
So your position is unfalsifiable?
Actually, it could be falsified. All it would take is to show that we could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which you have tried to do, without success.
Logik wrote:Like - there is absolutely NO example of a choice that would convince is a choice made against one's greater satisfaction?
There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?
You are contradicting yourself.
It is falsifiable or is it a law? It can’t be both.
If it is falsifiable - give us a hypothetical example of an exception.
What is your black swan?
Give us an example of a choice that would meet your own criteria for being a choice that moves you in the direction of dissatisfaction.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:20 pm
by Wyman
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:49 pm
No, because we are constantly moving away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position (even if it's scratching an itch), for if we were satisfied to stay where we are, we wouldn't move from here to there. This is the direction that life takes us that we have no control over.
So your position is unfalsifiable?
Actually, it could be falsified. All it would take is to show that we could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which you have tried to do, without success.
Logik wrote:Like - there is absolutely NO example of a choice that would convince is a choice made against one's greater satisfaction?
There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?
The counter example would be the person who deliberately chooses to act against his own desire or good simply to prove that he is free. This is a central theme of much of Dostoevky's work and is stated explicitly in Notes From Underground. Your father's position sounds little like Plato's (or Socrates') theory that no one knowingly acts against his or her interests; but people are often mistaken as to what is good for them; therefore, bad acts are based upon ignorance as to what is good.