23 of 23
23
Free Will Compatibilism and Incompatibilism
Posted: 12 June 2015 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 331 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
BreakUp - 12 June 2015 07:14 AM
peacegirl - 12 June 2015 02:41 AM

That is what I found to be true.  If I blame people, they get defensive and will tune me out.  If I do not blame, people are much more receptive and cooperative.

Why don’t you apply this to your forum experience, rather than doing the opposite of what you claim to believe.  Your actions are the opposite of what you have stated above, and the results are exactly as to be expected from your actions.  For example you “Blame” people for not reading the book when they disagree with you, and you refuse to admit that you don’t have a reasonable explanation for some of the claimed effects in the book.  Your hostility and abuse toward others is a manifestation of you blaming them.

I’m not blaming anybody for not reading the book.  I know that skepticism is a great stumbling block.  Even though this book is revolutionary, I cannot control the timing.

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2015 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 332 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  792
Joined  2015-03-29
peacegirl - 12 June 2015 09:06 AM

I’m not blaming anybody for not reading the book. 

This is absolutely not true, almost from the first time I read one of your posts, you have been accusing people of not reading the book when they disagree, or ask a question that you can’t answer.  Your accusation is blaming, according to the book you claim to understand.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2015 03:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 333 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
BreakUp - 12 June 2015 09:41 AM
peacegirl - 12 June 2015 09:06 AM

I’m not blaming anybody for not reading the book. 

This is absolutely not true, almost from the first time I read one of your posts, you have been accusing people of not reading the book when they disagree, or ask a question that you can’t answer.  Your accusation is blaming, according to the book you claim to understand.

No, I am not blaming anyone.  I am just surprised (which is why I question people) that a center for inquiry is failing to inquire on a deeper level.  Regardless of people’s opinions regarding the authenticity of this book, they cannot know one way or the other if they haven’t taken the time to read it which takes much more than a superficial once-over.  And even if they take the time to study the principles in this book, there is no guarantee that they will understand the profundity of this knowledge, but at least it’s a start.

[ Edited: 14 June 2015 12:24 PM by peacegirl ]
 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2015 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 334 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
Pec of Uliar - 07 April 2015 08:26 AM

If we were to accept the Minkowski 4D spacetime model as more than a model, but actually telling us what the ontology of spacetime really is (not everyone accepts this, of course) then it seems we must accept that successor state are not “caused by” former states.

Pec, if you are still there, I stumbled onto this at the Physicsforum:

There are two primary philosophical interpretations: the Block Universe (BU) and Lorentz Aether Theory (LET). The BU considers the universe to exist as a single fixed 4D geometric structure which is not dynamically evolving over time since time is one of the dimensions of the structure. The LET considers the universe to be a 3D world evolving over time and with a single undetectable “true” rest frame.

Both BU and LET use the Lorentz transform, etc., to make all of their experimental predictions, and therefore they are scientifically indistinguishable, making the same experimental predictions in all cases. Because of this experimental equivalence, there is little if any serious ongoing debate between the two in professional physics circles (although the philosophy literature does have ongoing debate). Professional physicists are generally content with the minimal interpretation and uninterested in philosophical interpretations.

Because there is little debate among modern scientists on this topic, and because such debates cannot be settled by appeal to experiment, and because such debates tend to degenerate into acrimonious and repetitive shouting matches, and because discussions of LET tend to attract crackpots, it is the policy of the PF Mentors who moderate the relativity forum that threads attempting to argue the superiority or veracity of either BU or LET will be closed with reference to this FAQ.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 04:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 335 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20

GdB

Back to beans grin

I wonder if sentiments incompatible with determinism are playing a roll in the way you/we think about this.

The man who chooses the beans suffers as a result of not getting the treatment paid for. What is the justification? Surely it’s that “it’s his own silly fault” so he doesn’t deserve the help.

The trouble is he had exactly the same chance of not choosing to eat the beans as the retarded person. Peacegirl was right about this,

It’s just a matter of degree. The possible world in which the retarded person would have chosen not to eat the beans is further away from the actual world, that’s all. You might argue that the retarded person wouldn’t be the same person in that world but it makes no different. The point is that neither person could have magically lept into the other world.

The ability to choose not to eat the beans was completely useless to the man who possessed the ability. We should treat it as such.

So why not insure those who are capable of choosing not to eat the beans too?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2015 06:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 336 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 25 July 2015 04:23 AM

GdB

Back to beans grin

I wonder if sentiments incompatible with determinism are playing a roll in the way you/we think about this.

The man who chooses the beans suffers as a result of not getting the treatment paid for. What is the justification? Surely it’s that “it’s his own silly fault” so he doesn’t deserve the help.

The justification is that he, as a normal functioning rational person, knew the consequences. Society should be consequent in executing its own made consequences.

StephenLawrence - 25 July 2015 04:23 AM

The trouble is he had exactly the same chance of not choosing to eat the beans as the retarded person.

Of course not. The mentally healthy person can better oversee the consequences of his actions.

StephenLawrence - 25 July 2015 04:23 AM

It’s just a matter of degree. The possible world in which the retarded person would have chosen not to eat the beans is further away from the actual world, that’s all. You might argue that the retarded person wouldn’t be the same person in that world but it makes no different. The point is that neither person could have magically lept into the other world.

Sorry Stephen, we are running in the same circles again and again: if a person is able to see the consequences of his deeds, the natural consequences, the moral consequences, and the punitive consequences, then he is responsible. To be able to see consequences, a certain minimum of determinism is needed, because without regularities one cannot know the consequences, as they might greatly differ from a previous time when you did a similar thing.

You are looking for some metaphysical kind of ‘responsibility’, built-in in nature. Because such a thing does not exist, you think that people are not responsible. But you are looking for responsibility at the wrong place.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
   
23 of 23
23