|
|
04-30-2013, 10:57 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But that is beside the point: I was talking about the fallacies and mistakes, which are apparent with or without the context. The eyes still have afferent nerve endings, light is not made up out of molecules, and we still lack evidence that the eye is not a sense organ or that conscience works as described in the book, whether we glance at the book or study it in depth.
|
You won't let him live it down that he used the wrong word which does not make his observations inaccurate. Whether the eyes have similar afferent nerve endings is not clear as far as I'm concerned. This still does not prove him wrong. The evidence supporting afferent vision is no less inconclusive than what Lessans has offered, so the verdict is not in. Conscience works exactly like he describes, and I can see this for myself. The fact that you can't is probably because you don't want to see it, or you can't see it for whatever reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I think the problem is no-one but you has any reason to have the kind of faith in the book that you have.
|
Quote:
The book is genuine which is why I have faith. I don't have faith, and then call it genuine.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
That cannot be the case, as the book lacks any support, evidence or a compelling reason to accept it's position on conscience.
|
You keep saying this and it's just not true. There are compelling reasons for why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ. As far as determinism, there's no doubt that will is not free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Since just about the entire rest of the book hinges on this being correct, we have no way of determining if it is genuine or not... we can only believe or not believe.
|
No, if you follow his reasoning in Chapter Two, you can see why a person cannot shift his responsibility under the conditions described. It's not a matter of opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You yourself have tacitly admitted as much: you said that conscience "just works that way" and that your father was just right about that. We have to just accept that it is so without evidence, as there is none in the book. If you do not assume your father was right about conscience the book (at least as far as ending evil is concerned) makes no sense as we have no reason to believe the system will work.
It is kind of like holy books. You have to believe in them for them to make any sense to you too.
|
No, you can actually see that if a person's conscience is intact (that he knows right from wrong), he cannot move in the direction of hurting others because it will give him less satisfaction. If his will was free he could choose what is less satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is available, but this is an absolute impossibility.
Quote:
Not true at all in this case. There's nowhere to go unless you tell me what you understand and what you don't. If you are at all interested in this book, go to the website and read the first three chapters carefully. Then we have something to talk about, otherwise we're just going around the same old mountain for the thousandth time.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You deny what I say, and yet the rest of the paragraph does not address it in any way. You seem to have your fathers knack of claiming something and then completely forgetting to support your claim in any way, as if you feel the very fact that you say something is so makes it so.
|
I have supported his claims by describing exactly what occurs in the world of free will (a world of blame and punishment), and a world where we know that will is not free (a world of no blame and punishment), and what is seen is 180 degree turnabout, but we couldn't have reached this turning point without going through the necessary stages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I think we covered the first few chapters quite well already, and we hit an insurmountable issue with the book, but you seem to have forgotten it and keep ignoring it every time I bring it up.
|
Obviously not, because you still don't understand why man's will is not free, never was, and never will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The problem is the fact that the book simply claims that conscience works a certain way, and that blame has an influence on it which it claims it can reliably predict. Based on this, the book claims to have a solution for all evil. It claims that the knowledge that they will be blamed is what allows people to justify bad deeds (unprovoked ones, anyway). Remove it, and people will no longer do bad things because they will no longer be able to justify them to themselves.
|
The knowledge one will be blamed and punished can have an unintended negative influence on a person's actions because he can justify those actions by shifting his reasonsibility. It allows his conscience to ease up since he can rationalize his behavior, and lie to himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The problem is that it simply announces that conscience works that way, and then leaves it at that. When faced with this, your answers have been "He just observed (astutely) that it was so", which is an appeal to authority and not terribly convincing.
|
He explains how conscience works and he's right. He observed, and his observations should count for something, especially when what he says makes sense. That's why he said be your own guinea pig at the end of Chapter Three to see how you would feel under the conditions described. There's not an actual written test so don't go looking for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The entire system of the book hinges on conscience working as described: if it doesn't, it simply does not work. But somehow the writer of the book seems to have forgotten to include any reason to assume it is the case!
|
He did no such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Bias did not cause this to be the case. No measure of malice, stupidity or close-mindedness is to blame for it. It is a considered criticism of the content of the book, based only on the content of the book and nothing else.
|
There is an element of resentment and I know it comes from the claim regarding the eyes. Once you see that his claim regarding determinism and "greater satisfaction" is correct, maybe you'll rethink his abilities and desire to read the book again, because right now you are resisting what he wrote because he didn't have data. You will never understand the profoundness of this work because you aren't really paying attention to his words; you're just searching flaws which will throw you off.
It is true that many men before me, including socialists,
communists, even capitalists also thought they had discovered the
cause of, and solution to, the various problems of human relation, and
their enthusiasm was no doubt just as positive and sincere as my own.
However, there is this difference between us. I have absolute proof
that cannot be denied by any reader; they did not. Mine can be
adequately communicated; theirs was never disentangled from the
illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought and imagination.
Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic belief. In
view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which will
beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah, and since
it also contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am
once again asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from
jumping to any premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the
time being the unverified knowledge gathered from books and teachers
and heed only the truth reflected in my words.
“But what is truth?”
you might ask. “Let us say it is that which cannot be denied by anyone
anywhere.” “But,” you might reply, “that’s just common sense;
everyone knows that.” Well it is just this common sense; that sense
common to us all that I am making the very foundation of this book.
It is for this reason that what I write will be understood not only by
those who can read the English language, but by the entire literate
world. There will be no sleight of hand revelation as is dreamed up in
philosophical circles by epistemologists; only a clear undeniable
explanation about facts of man’s nature never before understood.
Knowledge in this context is to truly know ourselves. If you are
coming along on this journey you will need to put on your thinking
caps and try to understand the mathematical relations soon to be
revealed which permit you to see this miracle.
|
04-30-2013, 11:18 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where did Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'?
|
Throughout the whole first chapter.
|
Where in the first chapter? What is the definition that he provided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
|
I answered that in the other thread.
|
Was your answer Yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
How can you validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary premise?
|
It is not a contingent conclusion, that's why.
|
What isn't a contingent conclusion? (Please state the conclusion you have in mind.)
Do you agree that you cannot validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where did Lessans support his idea that there is a level of perfection at which conscience would operate in the absence of blame?
|
Throughout the book it is revealed that we can only move in one direction throughout our lives, and when the conditions are such that we are no longer hurt by others (and there are many forms of hurt that must be removed before this law can take effect), we will not be able to find satisfaction in hurting others when all justification has been removed.
|
I thought his argument was that we wouldn't be able to find satisfaction in hurting others under these conditions because there is a level of perfection at which conscience would then be operating at, i.e. you appear to have given me a conclusion following from his belief about the potential perfection of conscience rather than the support for it which I am asking for.
So where did Lessans support his idea that there is a level of perfection at which conscience would operate in the absence of blame?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What is wrong with compatibilism, and why does Lessans fail to even consider it in his arguments?
|
It is a way to justify blame and punishment in a world where this is needed. This really isn't a criticism. Lessans is just showing a better way because this knowledge removes the behavior for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, in the direction of greater satisfaction.
|
So then what is wrong with compatibilism, and why does Lessans fail to even consider it in his arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why would facial recognition be less likely in dogs given efferent vision?
|
Because facial recognition involves language. Humans have this capacity and are therefore able to distinguish subtle differences in features that allow them to identify (through comparison) not just who an individual is, but who he is not, where dogs are incapable of this.
|
Firstly, and most importantly, what support do you have for this claim that facial recognition involves language?
Secondly, if it's primarily a matter of language, then what does the efferent or afferent nature of vision have to do with facial recognition?
Where efferent vision is EV, afferent vision is AV, language is L, no language is ~L, and facial recognition is FR, you seem to be saying: EV + L = FR; and EV + ~L = ~FR.
But why say that instead of simply L = FR and ~L = ~FR?
What support do you have for thinking that EV + L = FR is more likely than AV + L = FR; or that EV + ~L = ~FR is more likely than AV + ~L = ~FR? I.e. why is language capacity more likely to affect facial recognition given efferent vision than afferent vision?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-01-2013, 12:14 AM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
You won't let him live it down that he used the wrong word which does not make his observations inaccurate. Whether the eyes have similar afferent nerve endings is not clear as far as I'm concerned. This still does not prove him wrong. The evidence supporting afferent vision is no less inconclusive than what Lessans has offered, so the verdict is not in. Conscience works exactly like he describes, and I can see this for myself. The fact that you can't is probably because you don't want to see it, or you can't see it for whatever reason.
|
The molecules is a mistake, and of no great importance: it is easily corrected. However, it is relevant when we try to ascertain his knowledge: it seems to have had its limits. In itself this is a small matter: we all have our limits. But when claims of near infallible wisdom are made, it becomes something of interest. It is clear that contrary to what you have claimed, he was quite capable of leaving mistakes in his magnum opus.
As to afferent nerve endings being in the eyes, there is no lack of clarity there I am afraid. We can simply look at them under a microscope to verify that, and have done so. But again - this really is not that big a problem, unless we want to consider your father infallible.
I am not aware of any evidence for efferent vision that your father ever offered, let alone conclusive evidence. What are you referring to?
As for conscience working the way he described, you are simply claiming to know he is right about that, and asking me to accept that. You are also, once again, simply claiming that anyone who does not share your point of view is biased. If this was so, surely you would be able to bring to bear an actual rebuttal. So far, the simple claim that I am biased has been your only response. You have had ample time to come up with something else - anything else. But I think you and I both know at this stage that this is a simple article of faith for you.
Quote:
You keep saying this and it's just not true. There are compelling reasons for why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ. As far as determinism, there's no doubt that will is not free.
|
I was not talking about either. You seem very anxious to avoid this issue in any way you can. Just to be clear: the issue is that there is no reason to assume conscience works as described in the book. None is offered in the book. And you have offered none, except "I feel it is so, and if you do not share this opinion it is because you are biased".
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Since just about the entire rest of the book hinges on this being correct, we have no way of determining if it is genuine or not... we can only believe or not believe.
|
No, if you follow his reasoning in Chapter Two, you can see why a person cannot shift his responsibility under the conditions described. It's not a matter of opinion.
|
I am afraid not. All he talks about is THAT it is so in his opinion. This is why you are right now unable to offer any reason to assume it is correct, except the fact that you feel it is so.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You yourself have tacitly admitted as much: you said that conscience "just works that way" and that your father was just right about that. We have to just accept that it is so without evidence, as there is none in the book. If you do not assume your father was right about conscience the book (at least as far as ending evil is concerned) makes no sense as we have no reason to believe the system will work.
It is kind of like holy books. You have to believe in them for them to make any sense to you too.
|
No, you can actually see that if a person's conscience is intact (that he knows right from wrong), he cannot move in the direction of hurting others because it will give him less satisfaction. If his will was free he could choose what is less satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is available, but this is an absolute impossibility.
|
That is an assumption, and one for which we have neither evidence or reason to suspect it is true. If I am wrong about this, then please provide same. I what way can we build a case for this being true? What do we have to work with?
I have not been able to find anything. If you have anything, please share it and we can discuss it. So far there is nothing except you saying that you feel it is so. I am afraid we will need to do a little better than that.
Quote:
I have supported his claims by describing exactly what occurs in the world of free will (a world of blame and punishment), and a world where we know that will is not free (a world of no blame and punishment), and what is seen is 180 degree turnabout, but we couldn't have reached this turning point without going through the necessary stages.
|
Describing what you believe is not the same as supporting that belief. I know you believe THAT all these things are so. However, I can see no reason to believe that, except for your desire to believe them.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I think we covered the first few chapters quite well already, and we hit an insurmountable issue with the book, but you seem to have forgotten it and keep ignoring it every time I bring it up.
|
Obviously not, because you still don't understand why man's will is not free, never was, and never will be.
|
That is not the issue at all - again you seem to be desperate to avoid the real issue, which clearly is the fact that we have no reason to assume conscience works are described in the book.
If will is free or not makes no difference at all unless we can establish if we have any reason to believe it does.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The problem is the fact that the book simply claims that conscience works a certain way, and that blame has an influence on it which it claims it can reliably predict. Based on this, the book claims to have a solution for all evil. It claims that the knowledge that they will be blamed is what allows people to justify bad deeds (unprovoked ones, anyway). Remove it, and people will no longer do bad things because they will no longer be able to justify them to themselves.
|
The knowledge one will be blamed and punished can have an unintended negative influence on a person's actions because he can justify those actions by shifting his reasonsibility. It allows his conscience to ease up since he can rationalize his behavior, and lie to himself.
|
Doubtless you meant to say "responsibility". You just repeated what you believe. I already knew what it is you believe. The point is that we have no reason to assume your belief is correct.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The problem is that it simply announces that conscience works that way, and then leaves it at that. When faced with this, your answers have been "He just observed (astutely) that it was so", which is an appeal to authority and not terribly convincing.
|
He explains how conscience works and he's right. He observed, and his observations should count for something, especially when what he says makes sense. That's why he said be your own guinea pig at the end of Chapter Three to see how you would feel under the conditions described. There's not an actual written test so don't go looking for it.
|
Again, you merely repeat that you believe him to be correct. We have established that, again and again. But still you do not provide any other reason than the fact that you feel he is correct.
If you want to convince people, you need to come up with a reason why other people should think he is correct.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The entire system of the book hinges on conscience working as described: if it doesn't, it simply does not work. But somehow the writer of the book seems to have forgotten to include any reason to assume it is the case!
|
He did no such thing.
|
Excellent! Then please provide same. I was unable to find it - why don't you simply point it out?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Bias did not cause this to be the case. No measure of malice, stupidity or close-mindedness is to blame for it. It is a considered criticism of the content of the book, based only on the content of the book and nothing else.
|
There is an element of resentment and I know it comes from the claim regarding the eyes. Once you see that his claim regarding determinism and "greater satisfaction" is correct, maybe you'll rethink his abilities and desire to read the book again, because right now you are resisting what he wrote because he didn't have data. You will never understand the profoundness of this work because you aren't really paying attention to his words; you're just searching flaws which will throw you off.
|
Claims of bias again. It is really getting tiresome. As I endlessly point out: if my reasoning is biased, then there must be a flaw, an irrationality. If there is such a thing, then I can be refuted in a rational way.
You continuously fail to do so.
You cannot keep using claims of bias as an excuse. You need to actually bring a compelling case for your point of view. You cannot just claim bias and then fail to argue your point in a rational way. If you do that, it is just name-calling, an excuse to hang on to a point of view you cannot support in a rational way.
*copypaste excised*
Yes, I am aware of that paragraph. It is basically a claim that anyone whose opinion differs from the writer must be wrong, probably because of bias. It really is not wise to leave statements like that in the book. if what is said in the book is so self-evident, so "undeniable" and "mathematical", then why on earth would there be any need to have such statements in there?
And if they are there to fend of bias, do you think they would make people more or less biased?
Really, for a genius in the field of human behavior he seems to have had this enormous blind spot where the actual writing in the book is concerned.
|
05-01-2013, 01:51 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am
once again asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from
jumping to any premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the
time being the unverified knowledge gathered from books and teachers
and heed only the truth reflected in my words.
|
What he ment to say is "forget everything you ever learned", but by qualifying it as "Unverified Knowledge" he leaves almoust everything we already know, and that knowledge contradicts everything Lessans writes in the book, which makes all his words, false.
|
05-01-2013, 10:49 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
How odd. In stead of responding you seem to have mosied over to another thread. I guess you had no response?
|
05-02-2013, 12:02 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where did Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'?
|
Throughout the whole first chapter.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where in the first chapter? What is the definition that he provided?
|
He explained "greater satisfaction" throughout the first chapter and he gave examples. If you want to replace satisfaction with comfort, that's fine. It's moving in a direction that is more pleasing than what we are doing at this moment. We can't move off of the spot "here" to a more "dissatisfying" spot called "there", even though our choices are sometimes the lesser of two evils, not the greater of two goods. It is a law that we move in a direction that [we believe] is more satisfying even if moving to that spot called "there" gives us limited options whereby any choice we make is not that satisfying. Therefore the term satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied. It just means we are choosing the best possible alternative from the options that are available to us at any given moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
|
I answered that in the other thread.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Was your answer Yes?
|
I already answered this. Why are you repeating yourself? Whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that we cannot predict which choice will be in this direction, and we also can't point to which choice a person will make, therefore this in and of itself doesn't prove anything. All this observation establishes is that we can only go in ONE direction because we are compelled to choose that which is the most preferable [in our estimation], not the least preferable.
to be cont...
|
05-02-2013, 12:44 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He explained "greater satisfaction" throughout the first chapter and he gave examples...
|
Examples are not a definition. A definition is not something that can be spread throughout a chapter. A definition is explicit and located in one specific place. So did Lessans define greater satisfaction or not? If you think he did, then please quote the definition. If he didn't, then just say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I already answered this. Why are you repeating yourself? Whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that we cannot predict which choice will be in this direction, and we also can't point to which choice a person will make, therefore this in and of itself doesn't prove anything. All this observation establishes is that we can only go in ONE direction because we are compelled to choose that which is the most preferable [in our estimation], not the least preferable.
|
If his satisfaction principle is a necessary truth true in all possible worlds, then it is a tautology and cannot possible involve any kind of compulsion. And if it involves compulsion then it cannot be a tautology, and must instead fail to hold in those possible worlds containing those conceivable scenarios which the compulsion rules out. So his principle is either a tautology with no compulsion, or involves compulsion but is ill-defined and unsupported.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-02-2013, 01:03 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He explained "greater satisfaction" throughout the first chapter and he gave examples...
|
Examples are not a definition. A definition is not something that can be spread throughout a chapter. A definition is explicit and located in one specific place. So did Lessans define greater satisfaction or not? If you think he did, then please quote the definition. If he didn't, then just say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I already answered this. Why are you repeating yourself? Whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that we cannot predict which choice will be in this direction, and we also can't point to which choice a person will make, therefore this in and of itself doesn't prove anything. All this observation establishes is that we can only go in ONE direction because we are compelled to choose that which is the most preferable [in our estimation], not the least preferable.
|
If his satisfaction principle is a necessary truth true in all possible worlds, then it is a tautology and cannot possible involve any kind of compulsion. And if it involves compulsion then it cannot be a tautology, and must instead fail to hold in those possible worlds containing those conceivable scenarios which the compulsion rules out. So his principle is either a tautology with no compulsion, or involves compulsion but is ill-defined and unsupported.
|
Amazing to me how lost you are Spacemonkey. I guess it has to do with all that knowledge crammed in your head. I don't mean this to sound critical, but the truth is you are confused. There is compulsion to our choices; the compulsion compatibilism excuses is just a stronger compulsion than the typical choices we make on an everyday basis, which are not as extreme, but as long as there are meaningful differences, we are compelled, by our very nature, to choose the most preferable of those differences, or there would be no need to contemplate. These choices are not equal which freedom of the will states very explicitly; we can choose one thing over another freely. This is the great fallacy. The greater satisfaction principle works universally; that's why it's a law of man's nature. There are no exceptions. Your logic has gone so completely awry, I don't know where to begin.
|
05-02-2013, 01:15 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Amazing to me how lost you are Spacemonkey. I guess it has to do with all that knowledge crammed in your head. I don't mean this to sound critical, but the truth is you are confused. There is compulsion to our choices; the compulsion compatibilism excuses is just a stronger compulsion than the typical choices we make on an everyday basis, which are not as extreme, but as long as there are meaningful differences, we are compelled (there is a definite compulsion) to choose the most preferable of those differences, or there would be no need to contemplate. These choices are not equal which freedom of the will states very explicitly; we can choose one thing over another freely. This is the great fallacy. The greater satisfaction principle works universally; that's why it's a law of man's nature. There are no exceptions. Your logic has gone so completely awry, I don't know where to begin.
|
It seems that I get more 'lost' the more I post refutations that you can't address. And if you don't know where to begin, then you obviously don't know that there is anything wrong with my logic.
You still haven't even grasped the difference between a universal truth and a necessary truth. Being a universal law and law of nature would not make it a tautology, but would require there to be specifiable scenarios where the principle would be false. A necessary truth on the other hand is true not only in all actual situations but also in all possibly conceivable situations. This would make it tautological and mean that there can be no compulsion involved.
So you need to either specify the possible conditions under which the principle would be falsified, or stop contradicting yourself by claiming that there is compulsion involved.
And where did Lessans define greater satisfaction?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-02-2013, 01:17 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
From the other thread:
This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-
a) Whatever object you select, it will be made of atoms.
b) Whatever circle you draw, it will not have corners.
Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-02-2013, 01:36 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
These choices are not equal which freedom of the will states very explicitly; we can choose one thing over another freely.
|
Freedom of the will states nothing. Some definitions may include this caveat, but it is not a universally accepted definition. You cannot dictate what other people understand free will to mean, so if your arguments rest on an agreed to meaning of the terms, you will need to get that agreement up front.
|
05-02-2013, 05:52 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
How odd. In stead of responding you seem to have mosied over to another thread. I guess you had no response?
|
Your whole post is just the same thing over and over. He has described his observations, and he has also shown what happens in a free will environment (a world of judgment, blame and punishment), and why threats of blame and punishment have a paradoxical effect (which is an accurate observation) because it gives the accused an opportunity to shift his responsibility and make others culpable, rationalize why it wasn't his fault, and to even lie to himself. Then he goes on to describe a no blame environment where a person cannot shift his responsibility, make rationalizations, or lie to himself because HE IS NOT BEING GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. He is stuck with the knowledge that he hurt someone with no way to excuse what he did. He cannot pass the buck. Conscience (the way it functions and the purpose of having one) will not permit hurting someone without some kind of justification. It's not easy to always see the justification behind an action because retribution is not always directed at the right person. Often there is collateral damage. Hurt people, or people who believe they've been wronged, lash out and often innocent individuals pay the price. If you trace back you can often find the conscious or unconscious justfication that allowed someone to do what he did. Anyway, this discussion is getting nowhere. People have already made up their mind that he has a valueless, meaningless, trivial, tautological book. How can anyone expect me to continue on in this kind of atmosphere?
|
05-02-2013, 06:10 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Conscience (the way it functions and the purpose of having one) will not permit hurting someone without some kind of justification.
|
What is your support for this assertion? And sorry, but without support, it is an assertion. If you don't like being told you are making assertions, stop making them.
What led you to the conclusion that conscience functions in a specific way that includes the ability to permit or not permit actions? What led you to the conclusion that your idea of how conscience functions is universal? The word purpose implies intent and reason. Purpose is bestowed by a mind, it is not inherent to anything...how can an emergent function of a living brain be said to have a purpose?
Last edited by LadyShea; 05-02-2013 at 10:52 PM.
|
05-02-2013, 06:16 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Anyway, this discussion is getting nowhere. People have already made up their mind that he has a valueless, meaningless, trivial, tautological book. How can anyone expect me to continue on in this kind of atmosphere?
|
We expect you will continue on because that has been what you've done for years.
|
05-02-2013, 06:45 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
[quote=peacegirl;1127052]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
How odd. In stead of responding you seem to have mosied over to another thread. I guess you had no response?
|
Quote:
Your whole post is just the same thing over and over. He has described his observations, and he has also shown what happens in a free will environment (a world of judgment, blame and punishment),
|
That is because it was never adressed. Still isn;t now.
You say "he described his observations" but that just means "He said it was so. You say "He has shown what happens", but that also just means "He said it was so".
I know what he claimed. I just want to know where the logical, undeniable, mathematical and scientific reason to assume his claim is correct is. It was promised in the book, but he seems to have forgotten to include it.
Quote:
and why threats of blame and punishment have a paradoxical effect (which is an accurate observation) because it gives the accused an opportunity to shift his responsibility and make others culpable, rationalize why it wasn't his fault, and to even lie to himself. Then he goes on to describe a no blame environment where a person cannot shift his responsibility, make rationalizations, or lie to himself because HE IS NOT BEING GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.
|
Indeed... he claimed all this is true. I know that. I have read the book you know.
Quote:
He is stuck with the knowledge that he hurt someone with no way to excuse what he did. He cannot pass the buck. Conscience (the way it functions and the purpose of having one) will not permit hurting someone without some kind of justification. It's not easy to always see the justification behind an action because retribution is not always directed at the right person. Often there is collateral damage. Hurt people, or people who believe they've been wronged, lash out and often innocent individuals pay the price. If you trace back you can often find the conscious or unconscious justfication that allowed someone to do what he did.
|
And yet again you simply repeat the same claim, over and over. I know that is what he claimed. I just want to know where the promised logical, undeniable and mathematical reason to assume it is correct is.
You are just blathering because you know there is none, and you are unwilling to admit this.
Do you think your father would appreciate such a dishonest approach?
Quote:
Anyway, this discussion is getting nowhere. People have already made up their mind that he has a valueless, meaningless, trivial, tautological book. How can anyone expect me to continue on in this kind of atmosphere?
|
...Aaaand we are back to claiming bias.
Bias did not cause the gap in the book. It claims right in the beginning that it will take the reader by the hand, and step by mathematical, undeniable step it will show that it is impossible not to reach the same conclusions. This however does not actually happen: no reason is given to assume the book is correct about conscience. There is not even a case made in favor of it.
If I am wrong - present the reason to believe all those verbose claims are correct. If you cannot, have the simple honesty to admit it. If your father was half the man you think he was, he would have simply admitted it: he would have know that to be dishonest would be the worst thing he could possibly do, and he would have realized that this is simply an opportunity to improve.
Your pathetically transparent attempt at avoiding this issue makes both you and your father look like idiots, like crackpots who are more interested in hanging on to their beliefs than in actually examining anything. Talk about bias, about dogmatism and closed-mindedness. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. If your father was even half of what you made him out to be, he would turn in his grave right now.
|
05-02-2013, 09:59 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where did Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'?
|
Throughout the whole first chapter.
|
Where in the first chapter? What is the definition that he provided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
|
I answered that in the other thread.
|
Was your answer Yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
How can you validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary premise?
|
It is not a contingent conclusion, that's why.
|
What isn't a contingent conclusion? (Please state the conclusion you have in mind.)
Do you agree that you cannot validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where did Lessans support his idea that there is a level of perfection at which conscience would operate in the absence of blame?
|
Throughout the book it is revealed that we can only move in one direction throughout our lives, and when the conditions are such that we are no longer hurt by others (and there are many forms of hurt that must be removed before this law can take effect), we will not be able to find satisfaction in hurting others when all justification has been removed.
|
I thought his argument was that we wouldn't be able to find satisfaction in hurting others under these conditions because there is a level of perfection at which conscience would then be operating at, i.e. you appear to have given me a conclusion following from his belief about the potential perfection of conscience rather than the support for it which I am asking for.
So where did Lessans support his idea that there is a level of perfection at which conscience would operate in the absence of blame?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What is wrong with compatibilism, and why does Lessans fail to even consider it in his arguments?
|
It is a way to justify blame and punishment in a world where this is needed. This really isn't a criticism. Lessans is just showing a better way because this knowledge removes the behavior for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, in the direction of greater satisfaction.
|
So then what is wrong with compatibilism, and why does Lessans fail to even consider it in his arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why would facial recognition be less likely in dogs given efferent vision?
|
Because facial recognition involves language. Humans have this capacity and are therefore able to distinguish subtle differences in features that allow them to identify (through comparison) not just who an individual is, but who he is not, where dogs are incapable of this.
|
Firstly, and most importantly, what support do you have for this claim that facial recognition involves language?
Secondly, if it's primarily a matter of language, then what does the efferent or afferent nature of vision have to do with facial recognition?
Where efferent vision is EV, afferent vision is AV, language is L, no language is ~L, and facial recognition is FR, you seem to be saying: EV + L = FR; and EV + ~L = ~FR.
But why say that instead of simply L = FR and ~L = ~FR?
What support do you have for thinking that EV + L = FR is more likely than AV + L = FR; or that EV + ~L = ~FR is more likely than AV + ~L = ~FR? I.e. why is language capacity more likely to affect facial recognition given efferent vision than afferent vision?
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-02-2013, 11:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Amazing to me how lost you are Spacemonkey. I guess it has to do with all that knowledge crammed in your head. I don't mean this to sound critical, but the truth is you are confused. There is compulsion to our choices; the compulsion compatibilism excuses is just a stronger compulsion than the typical choices we make on an everyday basis, which are not as extreme, but as long as there are meaningful differences, we are compelled (there is a definite compulsion) to choose the most preferable of those differences, or there would be no need to contemplate. These choices are not equal which freedom of the will states very explicitly; we can choose one thing over another freely. This is the great fallacy. The greater satisfaction principle works universally; that's why it's a law of man's nature. There are no exceptions. Your logic has gone so completely awry, I don't know where to begin.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It seems that I get more 'lost' the more I post refutations that you can't address. And if you don't know where to begin, then you obviously don't know that there is anything wrong with my logic.
|
I do know where to begin. Every single refutation that you're using to discredit his very valid observations is wrong. Every single one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You still haven't even grasped the difference between a universal truth and a necessary truth. Being a universal law and law of nature would not make it a tautology, but would require there to be specifiable scenarios where the principle would be false. A necessary truth on the other hand is true not only in all actual situations but also in all possibly conceivable situations. This would make it tautological and mean that there can be no compulsion involved.
|
So as far as you're concerned, either choice he's damned. And that's just false. If something is a universal law, that law works across the board and cannot be false in specific scenarios. Who made this stuff up? And why would a necessary truth mean there is no compulsion involved? Total nonsense. I think you're working hard to make these undeniable principles look like they aren't undeniable, but it's not going to work. Your formal logic certainly doesn't disprove these principles wrong or make them meaningless, but if that's what you think it does then we're done communicating because in either situation (a necessary truth or a universal law) you would win. Fortunately, there is nothing wrong with these principles; there's IS something wrong with your logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So you need to either specify the possible conditions under which the principle would be falsified, or stop contradicting yourself by claiming that there is compulsion involved.
|
I don't understand when you say that this principle, if it was a necessary truth, would be a tautology and mean there is no compulsion involved (necessary truth). There is compulsion involved, and there are no specific scenarios where it could be falsified (universal law)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And where did Lessans define greater satisfaction?
|
Chapter One: pp. 45-58. There is no one line sentence that explains what greater satisfaction is. You have to read these pages in order to grasp what he means. But I don't think you ever will because you are judging what he's saying in terms of your definitions, and it won't work. That's why I said your mind is too cramped with the logic that you think disproves him, and it really doesn't.
Untitled Document (if you're interested)
|
05-02-2013, 11:14 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
If something is a universal law, it would seem to me that the principle cannot be false in specific scenarios. Who made this stuff up?
I don't understand when you say that this principle, if it was a necessary truth, would be a tautology and mean there is no compulsion involved (necessary truth). There is compulsion involved, and there are no specific scenarios where it could be falsified (universal law)
|
We've been over this, around your birthday (and mine as it happens). Did you completely forget that whole discussion?
Specifically re-read this post: Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
This article may help as well http://science.jrank.org/pages/9302/...fiability.html
|
05-02-2013, 11:23 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I do know where to begin. Every single refutation that you're using to discredit his very valid observations is wrong. Every single one.
|
Mere assertions like this are not where you should begin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So as far as you're concerned, either choice he's damned. And that's just false. If something is a universal law, that law works across the board and cannot be false in specific scenarios.
|
Wrong. Gravity is a universal law, holding in all actual circumstances, but we can still specify the conceivably possible scenarios in which it would fail to hold. If two massive bodies were observed to repel instead of attract each other then gravity would fail to hold. Laws of nature have to have such falsification conditions, otherwise they are not laws of nature but empty tautologies. Universal laws of nature hold in all actual, but not in all conceivably possible, scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And why would a necessary truth mean there is no compulsion involved?
|
Because a compulsion requires that one thing is made to be chosen while other things are forcefully excluded. We can't be compelled to choose 'the most satisfying option' unless there are some conceivable options which this compulsion rules out. But it doesn't rule out anything, because you've said that no matter what we conceive as being chosen, that choice will count as the direction of greater satisfaction. You might as well say we are 'compelled' to be very-happy-very-sad-or-somewhere-inbetween. There cannot be compulsion unless something is ruled out, and necessary truths are tautologies which don't rule anything out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Fortunately, there is nothing wrong with these principles; there's IS something wrong with your logic.
|
Another assertion. You've just finished telling me that you don't yet understand my reasoning. So how can you know that anything is wrong with my logic, when you don't yet understand it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't understand when you say that this principle, if it was a necessary truth, would be a tautology and mean there is no compulsion involved (necessary truth). There is compulsion involved, and there are no specific scenarios where it could be falsified (universal law)
|
I've posted the following question multiple time now, in both threads. Please answer it:
This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-
a) Whatever object you select, it will be made of atoms.
b) Whatever circle you draw, it will not have corners.
Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And where did Lessans define greater satisfaction?
|
Chapter One: pp. 45-58. There is no one line sentence that explains what greater satisfaction is. You have to read these pages in order to grasp what he means. But I don't think you ever will because you are judging what he's saying in terms of your definitions, and it won't work. That's why I said your mind is too cramped with the logic that you think disproves him, and it really doesn't.
|
So he didn't define the term. You can't have a 13-page definition. What you are saying is that his meaning is implicit in the way he used the term throughout the chapter. But what I am asking is whether or not he explicitly defined the term by actually stating what he means by it. And he did not do that. Did he?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-02-2013, 11:28 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where did Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'?
|
Throughout the whole first chapter.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where in the first chapter? What is the definition that he provided?
|
He couldn't narrow it down to one measley sentence. Just because he didn't define it in one sentence doesnt mean greater satisfaction isn't defined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
|
I answered that in the other thread.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Was your answer Yes?
|
I guess it is. Whatever choice is made is in the direction of greater satisfaction, so it's always true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
How can you validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary premise?
|
It is not a contingent conclusion, that's why.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What isn't a contingent conclusion? (Please state the conclusion you have in mind.)
|
This is what I gathered:
A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. Propositions that are contingent may be so because they contain logical connectives which, along with the truth value of any of its atomic parts, determine the truth value of the proposition. This is to say that the truth value of the proposition is contingent upon the truth values of the sentences which comprise it. Contingent propositions depend on the facts, whereas analytic propositions are true without regard to any facts about which they speak.
Contingency (philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Do you agree that you cannot validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise?
|
I am not inferring a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where did Lessans support his idea that there is a level of perfection at which conscience would operate in the absence of blame?
|
Quote:
Throughout the book it is revealed that we can only move in one direction throughout our lives, and when the conditions are such that we are no longer hurt by others (and there are many forms of hurt that must be removed before this law can take effect), we will not be able to find satisfaction in hurting others when all justification has been removed.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I thought his argument was that we wouldn't be able to find satisfaction in hurting others under these conditions because there is a level of perfection at which conscience would then be operating at, i.e. you appear to have given me a conclusion following from his belief about the potential perfection of conscience rather than the support for it which I am asking for.
|
No, you keep saying that he presupposes that there is a level of perfection, but that's not the case. It is shown, through his demonstration, that conscience works in a very predictable way and when the conditions change (for the better), conscience will be able to express itself at full throttle (which cannot happen in a world of blame and punishment) by not permitting behaviors that hurt others without justification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So where did Lessans support his idea that there is a level of perfection at which conscience would operate in the absence of blame?
|
Chapter Two: pp. 59-91. He explains this throughout this chapter. This IS the most important chapter because it explains the two-sided equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What is wrong with compatibilism, and why does Lessans fail to even consider it in his arguments?
|
Quote:
It is a way to justify blame and punishment in a world where this is needed. This really isn't a criticism. Lessans is just showing a better way because this knowledge removes the behavior for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, in the direction of greater satisfaction.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So then what is wrong with compatibilism, and why does Lessans fail to even consider it in his arguments?
|
Because we don't have free will, that's why. There is nothing to consider. There is nothing wrong with trying to reconcile these two opposite principles in order to justify blame and punishment which is necessary in a free will environment, or else there would be less order than there is now. But there is a better way, and if you're not willing to listen because you're so positive you're right, then there's nowhere for me to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why would facial recognition be less likely in dogs given efferent vision?
|
Quote:
Because facial recognition involves language. Humans have this capacity and are therefore able to distinguish subtle differences in features that allow them to identify (through comparison) not just who an individual is, but who he is not, where dogs are incapable of this.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Firstly, and most importantly, what support do you have for this claim that facial recognition involves language?
|
His observations regarding the eyes and the projecting function of the brain. We learn to see differences in faces due to language. He explains this in detail in this chapter.
The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts
as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses, and a
camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words. To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Secondly, if it's primarily a matter of language, then what does the efferent or afferent nature of vision have to do with facial recognition?
|
It has everything to do with it, because of how the brain is able to project values onto substance that don't exist, and we wouldn't be able to do this if the eyes were afferent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where efferent vision is EV, afferent vision is AV, language is L, no language is ~L, and facial recognition is FR, you seem to be saying: EV + L = FR; and EV + ~L = ~FR.
But why say that instead of simply L = FR and ~L = ~FR?
What support do you have for thinking that EV + L = FR is more likely than AV + L = FR; or that EV + ~L = ~FR is more likely than AV + ~L = ~FR? I.e. why is language capacity more likely to affect facial recognition given efferent vision than afferent vision?
|
I just answered you. EV + L = FR. AV + L = ~ FR (because if the eyes were afferent, the brain wouldn't be able to project values onto substance. I hope you find my answer adequate because his observations are valid, but I'm sure you will find something to disagree with.
Last edited by peacegirl; 05-02-2013 at 11:48 PM.
|
05-02-2013, 11:36 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because we don't have free will, that's why.
|
Assertion
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It is shown, through his demonstration, that conscience works in a very predictable way
|
Where do you figure he "showed" this? IIRC all he did was say it is so...ie: made an assertion
Feel free to painstakingly copy and paste. I know clicking mouse buttons is hard, but it is for a good cause, right?
|
05-02-2013, 11:49 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
because if the eyes were afferent, the brain wouldn't be able to project values onto substance
|
Why not? Without specific, valid reasons listed, this is an assertion. Do you understand what an assertion is yet?
|
05-02-2013, 11:51 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where in the first chapter? What is the definition that he provided?
|
He couldn't narrow it down to one measley sentence. Just because he didn't define it in one sentence doesnt mean greater satisfaction isn't defined.
|
A chapter isn't a definition. He didn't provide any explicit definition of the term at all, did he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Was your answer Yes?
|
I guess it is. Whatever choice is made is in the direction of greater satisfaction, so it's always true.
|
Then there's no compulsion because nothing has been ruled out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What isn't a contingent conclusion? (Please state the conclusion you have in mind.)
|
This is what I gathered:
A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. Propositions that are contingent may be so because they contain logical connectives which, along with the truth value of any of its atomic parts, determine the truth value of the proposition. This is to say that the truth value of the proposition is contingent upon the truth values of the sentences which comprise it. Contingent propositions depend on the facts, whereas analytic propositions are true without regard to any facts about which they speak.
Contingency (philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
|
What the hell? I wasn't asking you to look up and define what a contingent proposition is. I was asking you to tell me which specific conclusion of Lessans you were denying to be a contingent one when you said "It is not a contingent conclusion, that's why."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Do you agree that you cannot validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise?
|
I am not inferring a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise.
|
You've admitted you are starting with a tautological premise, and you just failed to tell me what conclusion you think is not contingent. But in any case, you haven't actually answered the question here, which was a general one: Do you agree that you cannot validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise? [Y/N]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, you keep saying that he presupposes that there is a level of perfection, but that's not the case. It is shown, through his demonstration, that conscience works in a very predictable way and when the conditions change (for the better), conscience will be able to express itself at full throttle (which cannot happen in a world of blame and punishment) by not permitting behaviors that hurt others without justification.
|
You've just done it again. You are assuming there is some full throttle state of conscience that only blame and punishment are preventing it from reaching. That is the assumption you are being asked to support. Lessans never once shows this or provides support for it. He merely states that it is so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So where did Lessans support his idea that there is a level of perfection at which conscience would operate in the absence of blame?
|
Chapter Two: pp. 59-91. He explains this throughout this chapter. This IS the most important chapter because it explains the two-sided equation.
|
His explanations presuppose the point you are being asked to support. That's why even after years of having been asked, you still can't actually quote anything he says which supports this assumption about the innate potential perfection of conscience. All you can do is point to the chapter and assert that the support is in there somewhere. But it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because we don't have free will, that's why. There is nothing to consider. There is nothing wrong with trying to reconcile these two opposite principles, in order to justify blame and punishment which is necessary at this point in our development. But there is a better way, and if you're not willing to listen because you're so positive you're right, then there's nowhere for me to go.
|
So there's nothing at all wrong with compatibilism, and the the kind of free will we don't have isn't the kind compatabilism is concerned with. So why does Lessans fail to even consider it in his arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Firstly, and most importantly, what support do you have for this claim that facial recognition involves language?
|
His observations regarding the eyes and the projecting function of the brain. We learn to see differences in faces due to language. He explains this in detail in this chapter.
|
That's where he claims this, but he doesn't support those claims in any way. He merely asserts that things work the way that he says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Secondly, if it's primarily a matter of language, then what does the efferent or afferent nature of vision have to do with facial recognition?
|
It has everything to do with it, because of how the brain is able to project values onto substance that don't exist, and we wouldn't be able to do this if the eyes were afferent.
|
That's completely false. The projection of values is a well understood psychological process that has nothing to do with the mechanics of vision. Lessans has yet again merely assumed that his own account of something is the only possible one, due to his own complete ignorance of existing knowledge on the subject. And this oversight completely undermines his grounds for thinking that his false and unsupported claims about canine facial recognition would be evidence for efferent vision even if they were correct.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Last edited by Spacemonkey; 05-03-2013 at 12:03 AM.
|
05-03-2013, 03:59 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I do know where to begin. Every single refutation that you're using to discredit his very valid observations is wrong. Every single one.
|
Mere assertions like this are not where you should begin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So as far as you're concerned, either choice he's damned. And that's just false. If something is a universal law, that law works across the board and cannot be false in specific scenarios.
|
Wrong. Gravity is a universal law, holding in all actual circumstances, but we can still specify the conceivably possible scenarios in which it would fail to hold. If two massive bodies were observed to repel instead of attract each other then gravity would fail to hold. Laws of nature have to have such falsification conditions, otherwise they are not laws of nature but empty tautologies. Universal laws of nature hold in all actual, but not in all conceivably possible, scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And why would a necessary truth mean there is no compulsion involved?
|
Because a compulsion requires that one thing is made to be chosen while other things are forcefully excluded. We can't be compelled to choose 'the most satisfying option' unless there are some conceivable options which this compulsion rules out. But it doesn't rule out anything, because you've said that no matter what we conceive as being chosen, that choice will count as the direction of greater satisfaction. You might as well say we are 'compelled' to be very-happy-very-sad-or-somewhere-inbetween. There cannot be compulsion unless something is ruled out, and necessary truths are tautologies which don't rule anything out.
|
No, this is false logic. There is no conceivable options where this compulsion rules out. You can't reason in this manner because there is no such thing if it's a necessary truth. This is not an empty tautology, although you're working quite hard to make it appear that way. There is always compulsion involved when two meaningful choices are being contemplated. The only thing this law demonstrates is that we can only go in one direction, and that direction IS the only direction one could have gone. Just because we don't know which option one will choose does not negate the fact that there is compulsion involved, however weak that compulsion appears to be. There is no difference between an obsession and a weak compulsion except for degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Fortunately, there is nothing wrong with these principles; there's IS something wrong with your logic.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Another assertion. You've just finished telling me that you don't yet understand my reasoning. So how can you know that anything is wrong with my logic, when you don't yet understand it?
|
I understand your logic, and there's a lot wrong with it. Why can't you admit that you could be wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't understand when you say that this principle, if it was a necessary truth, would be a tautology and mean there is no compulsion involved (necessary truth). There is compulsion involved, and there are no specific scenarios where it could be falsified (universal law)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I've posted the following question multiple time now, in both threads. Please answer it:
This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-
a) Whatever object you select, it will be made of atoms.
b) Whatever circle you draw, it will not have corners.
Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?
|
B
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And where did Lessans define greater satisfaction?
|
Quote:
Chapter One: pp. 45-58. There is no one line sentence that explains what greater satisfaction is. You have to read these pages in order to grasp what he means. But I don't think you ever will because you are judging what he's saying in terms of your definitions, and it won't work. That's why I said your mind is too cramped with the logic that you think disproves him, and it really doesn't.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So he didn't define the term. You can't have a 13-page definition. What you are saying is that his meaning is implicit in the way he used the term throughout the chapter. But what I am asking is whether or not he explicitly defined the term by actually stating what he means by it. And he did not do that. Did he?
|
He didn't have to. He just added the word "greater". If you don't know what the word satisfaction means, you shouldn't be reading this book.
|
05-03-2013, 04:05 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
because if the eyes were afferent, the brain wouldn't be able to project values onto substance
|
Why not? Without specific, valid reasons listed, this is an assertion. Do you understand what an assertion is yet?
|
LadyShea, you think this entire book is an assertion, so you don't have to keep saying this over and over again. I believe he supports his claims 100%even though the support comes from observation, not empirical testing. Please stop repeating this constantly. I know what you think.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 PM.
|
|
|
|