Re: Will =This=
- From: Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskinner@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:01:44 -0500
On 6 Mar 2007 08:07:38 -0800, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 5, 10:22 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:15:44 -0500, "Daniel Hogg" <dho...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You're also merely imagining your 'free will'.
You want to believe you'd have it.
There's no evidence that you'd have it, though.
There's evidence that you will believe you have
it when in fact you do not.
... it is an article of faith for you...
You're the one with the unfounded faith, not me.
I'm saying that a lot of profound thinkers, such as
Darwin, Einstein, Lincoln, Nietzsche, Russell,
Schopenhauer, Spinoza and Clemens have
pointed out that free will is illusory, often
without any requirement for any of the
three forms of determinism.
Here's a useful reference:
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm
The Way It Works is that the one pounding the table (figuratively) is
the one with faith.
Dan, why do you imagine anyone would be "pounding
the table", even figuratively? I'm calmly, contentedly,
even happily supplying you with references which
substantiate everything I've mentioned here.
Isn't it merely you getting upset when you needn't?
That's an activity best avoided around horses.
You have blind faith that there is no free will.
I'm not taking anything on faith, Dan.
You are desperate to believe you would have
free will, but you have no evidence for it.
Science has evidence against it, too. Philosophers
were, not atypically, ahead of that science. You are
not dealing with the issue when you wander off into
fallacies/falsehoods about me. I would like you to
understand the real message in the quotes which
I have provided to you.
Calm yourself.
If it bothers you when an uppity woman disagrees
with you, get over it. Carry on this discussion, if
you can, as if you were having a nice hearthside
chat with Mark Twain.
Perhaps in your own case, you are congenitally unable to think for
yourself and choose
Ad hominem fallacy, such as the above, is merely
a form of dishonesty.
You can't choose to get over your upset. Perhaps
if I keep pointing it out to you that could change,
but your ability to accept influences should start
with more control of yourself.
, however that is not the case of most folks,
Ad populem fallacy, such as the above, is merely
a form of dishonesty.
I have mentioned eight well-regarded philosophers
who have stated their cases for the illusory nature
of free will.
If you had anything that'd dispute what they've said,
you'd have brought it. Instead, you are betraying
yourself with your evasive deceptiveness.
including those who discard your drivel with the cat litter.
Nobody's forcing you to read anything I post. You
can't control yourself to avoid reading the information
I'm presenting to you, and you can't keep yourself at all
calm. You are overwrought and behaving poorly here.
I do hope you will manage to learn how to do better.
Why yes, I have. I even have a degree in it. Do you?
So why don't you know more about it?
Yeah, I only graduated magna. How about you?
I didn't even know there was a Fallacy major with a minor
in Misogyny, at the University of Defective Drivel.
Why weren't you summa? Why should I bother with you?
The answer is that I'm posting this for others. You'd be
better off staying out of the deep threads for awhile.
Do you know by any chance what is meant by the term
"pessimistic incompatibilism", or didn't they cover that
in "Take Offense Needlessly" 101?
Dropping names of folks
That's also irrelevant fallacy. Deal with the arguments
themselves. They're not mine. They originate with
some notable thinkers.
who know no more than anyone else on this
You believe you'd know more about this than others,
don't you. Why?
subject doesn't boost your argument.
It's not really my argument, Dan. Why are you stuck?
If you'd care to expand your
mind, feel free to read up on existentialism.
I've read Camus in the original French, Dan.
Do you agree with its preference for abolition of the church?
... sufficiently small words ...
Yours are too small.
I submit this occurred about the time the homo sapien line developed a
mind - that incorporeal component that separates humans from animals...
You're heavily invested in that belief, too.
It's just an opinion, just like Bertie's was. I'm not "heavily
invested" in anything save for my own independence.
You're heavily invested in that belief, without evidence for it.
Piltdown man? ...
Consider the context at the time the person mentioned it.
Sweetie, _you_ brought him into the dialog.
Piltsdown Man wasn't known to be a hoax at that time.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual issue
being discussed.
Can't you tell?
Can't you ask yourself why you're so desperate to obfuscate
and evade the real subject here?
If your quotation turns
out to be uncomfortably stupid
It didn't, really, at least not to anyone reading it for comprehension.
you should have ...
What possible reason would there be for me to take your
advice, when you wish to deceive in a state of irrational
hostility when I point out that free will is considered to
be illusory by those who consider the issue carefully?
... prejudices in
place.
It's too bad you're so prejudiced. I prefer openmindedness.
Dearie
Don't you realize that it's dishonest for you to use such
terms in this context?
Your facetiousness and attempts at condescension don't
reflect well on you at all, Dan.
you wouldn't know openmindedness if a rabid possum bit your
equine sized ass.
My, but you're so terribly upset, and it's making you behave
very poorly. It's not as if you have a choice, though.
Well, it is true that other countries simply execute or disappear folks
rather than imprison them.
That's irrelevant and can not justify inappropriate incarcerations.
Incarceration however is somewhat more of a preferred alternative than
state murder, don't you think?
Do you imagine that they'd be the only alternatives?
Do you believe that people who are unhealthy should be
made prisoners rather than healed?
Why?
Or do you prefer the latter in order
to be able to rail mindlessly?
Fallacy.
If only you could choose to remain calm as you read
what I post.
All humans are free not to commit acts of abuse.
Prove it.
No problem - some people don't abuse animals. (That was easy.)
They are compelled to do so because they are aware
that to do so is cruel and they've been inculcated with
an aversion to cruelty, in at least some such cases.
Including those taught to abuse and those victims of abuse.
Prove it.
Some victims who were taught to abuse and some victims of abuse don't
themselves abuse others. (That was really easy!)
Yet you don't show any evidence that they did so
without being influenced to do so by other factors.
...I know of more than a few people, including some who post
and lurk here, who can't ride a horse but think they can.
Then there are those such as yourself who cannot make
independent choices but imagine they could.
This particular issue is entirely subjective since it's an
epistemological problem and it's further complicated by the inability
to separate experiment from experimenter.
You don't have any evidence for free will.
There is evidence that free will is illusory.
Try not to get, much less remain, in such a froth over it.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:15:44 -0500, "Daniel Hogg" <dhogg2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...your rape of the
language. That's my guess, anyway.
You're merely imagining things.
You're also merely imagining your 'free will'.
... it is an article of faith for you...
You're the one with the unfounded faith, not me.
Why yes, I have. I even have a degree in it. Do you?
So why don't you know more about it?
Darwin, Einstein, Lincoln, Nietzsche, Russell, Schopenhauer,
Spinoza and Clemens are all trying to tell you something, and
it'd be in your best interest to figure it out if you can.
Your horses, if any, will benefit, too.
And you know and can prove this how?
I mentioned the experiments which showed
that free will was imaginary.
...often do armchair analysis based on
zilch information...
You also indulge in a lot of fallacy, which is
not good analysis, either.
cannot help but get spun up...
Of course you can't. Others of us aren't so afflicted.
May you be more well.
Determinism isn't required to dispute free will.
If you had anything to dispute that, you'd offer it.
I submit this occurred about the time the homo sapien line developed a
mind - that incorporeal component that separates humans from animals...
You're heavily invested in that belief, too.
Piltdown man? ...
Consider the context at the time the person mentioned it.
... prejudices in
place.
It's too bad you're so prejudiced. I prefer openmindedness.
Humans make choices not dictated by their situations but by their
independent evaluation of matters and selection of a course of action or
inaction.
Why would anyone believe that?
Do you believe that horses would have 'free will'?
Kambic says he does.
Well, it is true that other countries simply execute or disappear folks
rather than imprison them.
That's irrelevant and can not justify inappropriate incarcerations.
...They are responsible ...
You're heavily invested in believing that so you can condemn them.
... entire diatribe misses the point.
At least you're consistent.
All humans are free not to commit acts of abuse.
Prove it.
Including those taught to abuse and those victims of abuse.
Prove it.
...I know of more than a few people, including some who post
and lurk here, who can't ride a horse but think they can.
Then there are those such as yourself who cannot make
independent choices but imagine they could.
On 1 Mar 2007 12:56:40 -0800, tenwheels@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:55 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"...conclude that we are not genuinely free agents or genuinely morally responsible,
whether determinism is true or false. One of their arguments can be summarized as follows.
When one acts, one acts in the way one does because of the way one is. So to be truly
morally responsible for one's actions, one would have to be truly responsible for the way
one is: one would have to be causa sui, or the cause of oneself, at least in certain
crucial mental respects. But nothing can be causa sui - nothing can be the ultimate cause
of itself in any respect..."
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014
In context, this link is merely summarizing the conflicting arguments,
not making a definitive or conclusive statement - as if it could.
So what?
You haven't shown that you'd have free will.
Nobody's shown that a horse would have it, either.
On 28 Feb 2007 08:47:47 -0800, tenwhe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:20 am, Aunt Nasty <ye_olde_muleskin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:09:17 -0600, John Hasler <j...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Aunt Nasty wrote:
Yet Bill has also said "The idea that we "owe" older horses anything is aIt is. Some of us have chosen to impose it on ourselves.
self-imposed burden."
There you go with that free will superstition,
A being which does not believe in free will is a being seeking to
assign responsibility for their own situation to others.
There you go trying to condemn people for no good reason, again.
You appear to have an eccentric sense of the meaning of condemnation.
Why would anyone imagine that?
There isn't any evidence for "free will" at all. Everything people do
they are going to do, regardless, because their circumstances dictate
their responses.
Nonsense.
Why would anyone believe that?
The proposition is entirely unprovable
It's been shown that scientists can stimulate human brains
so that the humans do things they only imagine to have
been voluntary.
and is merely your
axiom
That's false, Dan. It's not merely mine, though if I have to
stand up alone I don't hesitate to do that.
Have you never studied philosophy at all?
which flies in the face of the universal shared reality.
Why would anyone believe that?
Reality is that things of which you are unaware make you
act exactly as you do.
Reality is that you're afraid to be at the mercilessness of nature.
Free will is
available to anyone who thinks and makes selections from available
options.
Actually, you can't even decide whether you will consider options or
not. You will if you've been prepared to do so and are able, you
won't if you aren't.
Are you suggesting you are not personally able to decide to post of
not to post? Sorry, no free rides - everybody has the same price -
responsibility for their choices and the consequences.
You are eager to condemn because you aren't
strong enough to accept reality.
Denying free will is DOA.
Why would anyone imagine that?
Hume described it as a "false sensation". Schopenhauer described
it similarly.
It's been a while since I read Dead White Europeans, but since I was a
philosophy major, I can tell you that characterizing Hume as a hapless
determinist is
It hasn't happened here, except for in your imagination.
Determinism isn't required to dispute free will.
Since earlier you mentioned superstition, you might want to brush up
on Bertrand Russell, one of your ideological pals and a latter day
Humean, with particular notice of passage where he dismisses belief in
causation as akin to superstition.
Don't you know why that's irrelevant?
Let's go with Russell on free will, though:
"It was geology, Darwin, and the doctrine of evolution, that first upset the faith of
British men of science. If man was evolved by insensible gradations from lower forms of
life, a number of things became very difficult to understand. At what moment in evolution
did our ancestors acquire free will? At what stage in the long journey from the amoeba did
they begin to have immortal souls? When did they first become capable of the kinds of
wickedness that would justify a benevolent Creator in sending them into eternal torment?
Most people felt that such punishment would be hard on monkeys, in spite of their
propensity for throwing coconuts at the heads of Europeans. But how about Pithecanthropus
Erectus? Was it really he who ate the apple? Or was it Homo Pekiniensis? Or was it perhaps
the Piltdown man? I went to Piltdown once, but saw no evidence of special depravity in
that village, nor did I see any signs of its having changed appreciably since pre-historic
ages. Perhaps then it was the Neanderthal men who first sinned? This seems the more
likely, as they lived in Germany. But obviously there can be no answer to such questions,
and those theologians who do not wholly reject evolution have had to make profound
readjustments."
He also said:
"The free-will question consequently remains just where it was. Whatever may be thought
about it as a matter of ultimate metaphysics, it is quite clear that nobody believes it in
practice..."
Obviously he disagrees with your 'universal shared reality' comment.
Oh, and he said this, too:
"When a man acts in ways that annoy us we wish to think him wicked, and we refuse to face
the fact that his annoying behaviour is a result of antecedent causes which, if you follow
them long enough, will take you beyond the moment of his birth and therefore to events for
which he cannot be held responsible by any stretch of imagination."
We make our
choices and they belong to no others.
It's not based on any demonstrated fact, but you are
heavily invested in that belief, which is common.
Are you saying you can't help yourself and post despite your wishes to
the contrary? Are you a victim of your newsgroup circumstances?
If only you could read what I'm writing without your prejudices in place.
I'm saying that animals, including humans, do what their situations dictate.
Do you believe that horses would have 'free will'?
which is onlyI don't read anyone who subscribes to free will as condemning anyone
used to rationalize needless condemnations of others.
as a result of their own awareness of their free will. Who does that?
It's done when people are thrown in prison for suffering
from addictions. It's done when people are judged to be
bad actors when they do what their situations require.
People in the US are not imprisoned for addiction
Look beyond Rush Limbaugh for a moment, if you can.
The USA is a prison state with more people incarcerated per capita
than anyone else, and they're incarcerated because weakminded
people want to vilify addictions and greedy people want to
cash in on the whole tragedy of racist slavery.
- no such statute
exists, AFAIK. People are imprisoned for committing crimes such as
burglary, theft, robbery and murder while trying to support their
addictions. They remain responsible and accountable.
You are merely desperate to assign blame.
"...The second reason to care about free will is that it seems
to be required for moral responsibility."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/freewill.htm
Let's draw a relevant parallel:
Some people will say that a horse is "being bad", when that
horse is actually being abused.
So what?
It is a mistake to believe that a horse would act out of
independence from that horse's situation.
Same goes for the human animal.
The human had free will not to abuse the horse
Prove it.
and the horse
bears no moral responsibility for its being abused.
Yet the point, had you been able to choose to take it,
was that the horse isn't morally responsible.
You haven't shown that it'd be different for humans.
The way I was raised, farm animals are precious commodities
to be selected with utmost discretion, given the best possible
care throughout their lives and then harvested or killed when
they're needed for food or no longer able to live in comfort.
I never had any choice as to how to feel about that. It was
demonstrated in detail and made totally understood.
It remains one's choice to follow along with their early
indoctrination.
What if the early indoctrination was to avoid indoctrination?
Check with Sharon - she's into antecounternonindoctrination.
You're the one trying to push the superstition of free will.
I'm looking into why you're so heavily invested in myth.
So you can't choose to answer my question.
emancipated person who has the gray matter to make decisions for
itself is responsible for those decisions and their consequences.
So you can believe you should blame them, based only
on a totally unsubstantiated belief.
A person who is out of their league on a horse but insists on
believing s/he is not, is free to act on that belief and is
responsible for the consequences.
Why would anyone believe that?
Haven't you ever seen a parent try to push a kid into riding?
Life doesn't come with foam cushions on the sharp edges and the point
of ownership is to transition responsibility for chattel to someone
else.
So if people are harmed because they're not informed
by the more knowledgeable, it has to be their own fault
for which they should suffer, to you?
There's a whole continuum from harmless to harmful and we, as a
society have decided some information is required for informed
judgment - e.g. tobacco warnings - whereas in other cases, adults are
required to make judgments based on whatever information they have.
They are responsible.
Why would anyone believe that?
Environmental pollutants which are damaging to neural
function are concentrated in certain poverty-stricken
areas. Their impairments are not their choices.
The real art of horsemanship is for the human to become so
attuned to the wellbeing of the horse that the work benefits
both and all continue to improve as long as possible.
As long as possible implies an end point. And then what?
Death is more than implied as an end point.
Um, you missed the point - that "as long as possible" may be until the
horse no longer meets its owner's needs.
So what? Do you imagine anyone had implied otherwise?
The point there is that you do your best for them as long
as you can, and that includes not throwing them away
or foisting them off, but managing their lives' ends
so as to minimize diminution of their contentment.
and may mean different things to different people in different
circumstances. Please what you mean.
I've said what I mean. If you could choose to be
more open to what I have to say, you'd do so.
So if I'm so incapable of making a choice, why are you bothering to
argue? What possible difference could it make to anyone?
The archives will show that the superstition and malice
originating with it were met with successful dispute.
Some of us realize that we owe future generations more
than a charred wasteland without any history of resistance.
.
- References:
- Re: Respect for Life vs the Lack Thereof
- From: Aunt Nasty
- Re: Respect for Life vs the Lack Thereof
- From: tenwheels
- Re: Respect for Life vs the Lack Thereof
- From: Aunt Nasty
- Re: Respect for Life vs the Lack Thereof
- From: Daniel Hogg
- Re: Respect for Life vs the Lack Thereof
- From: Aunt Nasty
- Re: Respect for Life vs the Lack Thereof
- From: tenwheels
- Re: Respect for Life vs the Lack Thereof
- Prev by Date: Re: Equine Immune System
- Next by Date: Re: Stall Flooring
- Previous by thread: Re: Respect for Life vs the Lack Thereof
- Next by thread: Re: Monkey With It
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
