A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

peacegirl · #1 11-03-2011, 01:11 PM

Hi everyone,

I started this thread so we can separate the discussions. This thread is intended to help people understand Lessans' first discovery, which is the key that unlocks the door to the Golden Age of man. All are welcome to participate, but please try to keep the topic under discussion in mind when posting. Because these principles are not easy to grasp, it is my hope that people will be group minded when responding. Thank you very much for taking my suggestions into consideration.

JoeP · #2 11-03-2011, 01:13 PM

A new thread! Thank you peacegirl.

Deadlokd · #3 11-03-2011, 01:29 PM

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo

specious_reasons · #4 11-03-2011, 01:29 PM

Great, maybe peacegirl would now like to explain how the modal fallacy does not apply to Lessans proof.

Deadlokd · #5 11-03-2011, 01:29 PM

I mean WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO

thedoc · #6 11-03-2011, 02:40 PM

Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.

LadyShea · #7 11-03-2011, 03:07 PM

I have to agree with thedoc. You need to lay out a summary of the finding, without Lessans confusing fake dialog interjections, butthurt at "the establishment" and self congratulating.

Make it read like a true work of scholarship rather than a stream of consciousness experiment. This is the only way you will be seen as someone with something serious to offer. If you can't summarize it then you must not understand it yourself.

peacegirl · #8 11-03-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeP

A new thread! Thank you peacegirl.

You're very welcome.

peacegirl · #9 11-03-2011, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo

Deadlord, who are you to come here and tell me Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Do you think that changes anything?

peacegirl · #10 11-03-2011, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Great, maybe peacegirl would now like to explain how the modal fallacy does not apply to Lessans proof.

I already posted the proof, but if you're not willing to even listen to what it says instead of attacking what it says the minute I speak, we're going to be in trouble.

peacegirl · #11 11-03-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.

No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that. You will never grasp this knowledge if all you want to do is argue even before you even understand what he's talking about. That's exactly what's happening.

peacegirl · #12 11-03-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have to agree with thedoc. You need to lay out a summary of the finding, without Lessans confusing fake dialog interjections, butthurt at "the establishment" and self congratulating.

Make it read like a true work of scholarship rather than a stream of consciousness experiment. This is the only way you will be seen as someone with something serious to offer. If you can't summarize it then you must not understand it yourself.

I already did summarize it. We all move in the direction of GREATER satisfaction, which leaves us only one choice at each moment in time. What are you so in disagreement with to conclude that this is all bullshit?

davidm · #13 11-03-2011, 03:35 PM

Oh, look, a new thread by peacegirl! A Revolution in Thought, Part Two! :lecher:

Is this going to be like Part One, in which we learned that we see in real time, even though we don't? :popcorn:

Oh, well, every dark cloud has a silver lining, as they say!

In this thread we can explore the usual objections to free will, which broadly fit into three categories: Causal or Laplacean determinism, logical determinism (Aristotle's problem of future contingents) and epistemic determinism (the problem of God's foreknowledge) and see why none of them impede free will. :wave:

davidm · #14 11-03-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.

No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that.

Yes, I do appreciate it. :yup:

Lessans' book was a great source of humor, albeit all of it unintended to be humorous.

peacegirl · #15 11-03-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.

No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that.

Yes, I do appreciate it. :yup:

Lessans' book was a great source of humor, albeit all of it unintended to be humorous.

No David, you're just really angry at Lessans. It makes me sad. :sadcheer:

thedoc · #16 11-03-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate.

If your primary, or only, means of explaining the concepts is to quote the book, then you have lost already. The book is unclear and insufficent to the purpose. If you can't restate clearly and explain bit by bit, Lessans ideas will be lost to the world and it will be your fault. The responsability is entirely on you to present the material in a way that readers can understand.

davidm · #17 11-03-2011, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have to agree with thedoc. You need to lay out a summary of the finding, without Lessans confusing fake dialog interjections, butthurt at "the establishment" and self congratulating.

Make it read like a true work of scholarship rather than a stream of consciousness experiment. This is the only way you will be seen as someone with something serious to offer. If you can't summarize it then you must not understand it yourself.

I already did summarize it. We all move in the direction of GREATER satisfaction, which leaves us only one choice at each moment in time. What are you so in disagreement with to conclude that this is all bullshit?

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST. To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.

I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic. Peacegirl's stuff can be ignored because it has already been refuted.

davidm · #18 11-03-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then start by clearly explaining the 'first discovery' and lay out the proof in a logical and understandable order. Quoting the book will not do. Plain English, not Lessans convoluted babble. If you cannot restate it clearly in your own words, that is a clear indication that you do not really understand it.

No doc, this does not fly. I will post portions of the book when I feel it is appropriate. I'm giving it to you gratis and I hope you appreciate that.

Yes, I do appreciate it. :yup:

Lessans' book was a great source of humor, albeit all of it unintended to be humorous.

No David, you're just really angry at Lessans. It makes me sad. :sadcheer:

thedoc · #19 11-03-2011, 03:54 PM

I would expect you to start introducing the material soon, it won't fly to spend pages arguing about the format or past history. Get a grip and start, if you are worried about hostility stalling will not help, again it is entirely on you to present it clearly. We, the readers, have no responsability at all, you are trying to sell these ideas to us, we are not trying to convince you to sell them to us.

SharonDee · #20 11-03-2011, 03:55 PM

I put the original thread on ignore long ago. This one is already having the same problems and complaints the other one did when I left it, so I suspect it will also eventually disappear from my personal radar screen.

Until then, though, I will be following along with interest.

Carry on!

peacegirl · #21 11-03-2011, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharonDee

I put the original thread on ignore long ago. This one is already having the same problems and complaints the other one did when I left it, so I suspect it will also eventually disappear from my personal radar screen.

Until then, though, I will be following along with interest.

Carry on!

I really encourage you to put this thread on ignore too, since you're not available to hear the reasoning behind the proof. So move on SharonDee. I don't want you to waste your time. That would upset me.

SharonDee · #22 11-03-2011, 03:58 PM

If you were concerned about wasting time you wouldn't have started this new thread.

Good grief.

Kael · #23 11-03-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic.

I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?

peacegirl · #24 11-03-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharonDee

If you were concerned about wasting time you wouldn't have started this new thread.

Good grief.

That's exactly why I started this thread.

peacegirl · #25 11-03-2011, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I propose, in this thread, that we have a discussion of free will and determinism, always a fascinating topic.

I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?

Your flippant response indicates to me that you don't want to be here. Go find other books. I can't even begin to discuss this discovery with people who are so disrespectful in every way. Just go Kael.