A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

A chapter isn't a definition. He didn't provide any explicit definition of the term at all, did he?

I already answered this in the other thread.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then there's no compulsion because nothing has been ruled out.

Not true Spacemonkey. There is a definite compulsion, and there's no denying it no matter what you do to try to discount it.

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)

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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."

I thought when you said contingent you meant accidental. Wrong definition. It is contingent based on the facts, but this law is not predicting the conclusion. That doesn't mean it's an empty tautology because there is still compulsion involved. If you can't get past this, we can't move on.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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]

No, I never said you could. We cannot predict that Obama is going to be president, although we can say there will be a president elected.

Nooooooooo, there are no assumptions Spacemonkey. He has supported it and the fact that you won't take the time to study these chapters shows me that you are either afraid of what you might find, or you are too proud. I don't know what it is, but I know one thing; it's not good.

No no no, there are no presuppositions here. He has supported his claims more than enough times, and in more detail than anyone could ask for.

When you say wrong, it doesn't make sense. This isn't about right or wrong. It was necessary that we find a way to justify blame and punishment, but if there's a better way, we need to consider the value of it before throwing it out.

Again, his observations are spot on. They count for something. People can tell me until the cows come home that his observations weren't supported and they were mere assertions, but they were demonstrated in a way that shows their validity. If you can't see that, or even entertain the possibility that his observations were right, then you will dismiss this knowledge as if it's meaningless. And that is very sad.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

He was not ignorant, you are for saying that. There were no oversights, as much as you wish there were. His claims are not undermined in the least. The very fact that we are able to be conditioned visually, and we cannot be conditioned with any the other senses, indicates, once again, that the eyes work differently than hearing, sight, smell, or touch.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Well that doesn't seem quite fair, you, Peacegirl, keep stating that the book is not an assertion, so I think it's only right that LadyShea, correctly states, that it is only an unsupported assertion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The very fact that we are able to be conditioned visually, and we cannot be conditioned with any the other senses, indicates, once again, that the eyes work differently than hearing, sight, smell, or touch.

Actually people can be conditioned through any of the other senses, that much has been known for many years. You, Peacegirl, are just ignoring the relavent data.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I will continue to call your assertions what they are until you start supporting them. You have made the above assertion numerous times and have failed to support it even once...I don't think Lessans said that, I think it's your assertion only, but I will look.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

If no conceivable options are ruled out, then there can't be any compulsion. How can there be compulsion towards any choice if nothing is ruled out and all possible choices remain consistent with the principle? It's like saying that US voters were compelled to vote for the US President just because whoever they happened to vote for would thereby become the US President. This tautology that they had to vote for 'the President' doesn't show that they had to vote for Obama. And you can't say that Obama was the only possible choice just because they had to vote for the President, when 'the President' would have been whoever they happened to vote for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your logic, and there's a lot wrong with it. Why can't you admit that you could be wrong?

Of course I could be wrong. Why can't you admit that your father could have been wrong? No-one is infallible, but the difference is that I can identify and describe your father's mistakes while all you can do is whine and assert that there must be as yet unidentified flaws in my reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

B

Right, then you agree that his principle is a tautology which rules out nothing. That means it cannot be a universal law of nature, because laws of nature are falsifiable and non-tautological. It also means there can be no compulsion entailed by his principle, for an actual compulsion has to prevent and rule out certain choices. And it means he cannot validly infer any contingent conclusions from it, such as that only one choice is ever causally possible in any given deliberation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So you agree that he completely failed to explicitly define the most important term in his argument. And now everyone but you who reads it considers him guilty of conflation on the meaning of this term.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true Spacemonkey. There is a definite compulsion, and there's no denying it no matter what you do to try to discount it.

Your claim that there is definite compulsion is incompatible with your admission that his principle is tautological.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought when you said contingent you meant accidental. Wrong definition. It is contingent based on the facts, but this law is not predicting the conclusion. That doesn't mean it's an empty tautology because there is still compulsion involved. If you can't get past this, we can't move on.

I know you misread my post. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me what conclusion you were talking about when you said that his conclusion was not contingent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I never said you could. We cannot predict that Obama is going to be president, although we can say there will be a president elected.

What? I'm not asking you anything about prediction. Again: Do you agree that you cannot validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise? [Y/N]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooooooo, there are no assumptions Spacemonkey. He has supported it and the fact that you won't take the time to study these chapters shows me that you are either afraid of what you might find, or you are too proud. I don't know what it is, but I know one thing; it's not good.

No no no, there are no presuppositions here. He has supported his claims more than enough times, and in more detail than anyone could ask for.

You keep just asserting that he supported it without ever actually providing any support for it. Calling it an observation doesn't make it supported. The only thing that can make it supported is actual support for it provided within his book. And Lessans forgot to include any. All you can do is point to the chapter and assert that the support is in there somewhere. But it isn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you say wrong, it doesn't make sense. This isn't about right or wrong. It was necessary that we find a way to justify blame and punishment, but if there's a better way, we need to consider the value of it before throwing it out.

Lessans' own argument against free will presupposes the falsity of compatibilism in the very way that he defines his terms. So unless compatibilism is actually wrong (as opposed to merely less than perfectly ideal) then his reasoning fails.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, his observations are spot on. They count for something. People can tell me until the cows come home that his observations weren't supported and they were mere assertions, but they were demonstrated in a way that shows their validity. If you can't see that, or even entertain the possibility that his observations were right, then you will dismiss this knowledge as if it's meaningless. And that is very sad.

Sorry, but him simply claiming that language is needed for facial recognition, and asserting how he thought the process worked doesn't count for anything at all. Without any actual support for the accuracy of his claimed account, there is no reason for anyone to agree that his 'observations' here are spot on. His claim that the alleged absence of facial recognition in dogs is evidence for unsupported theory of efferent vision turns out to rest upon another completely unsupported theory about language and projection - a theory which itself incorporates his unsupported account of vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was not ignorant, you are for saying that. There were no oversights, as much as you wish there were. His claims are not undermined in the least. The very fact that we are able to be conditioned visually, and we cannot be conditioned with any the other senses, indicates, once again, that the eyes work differently than hearing, sight, smell, or touch.

He obviously was ignorant if he thought that we could only project values given efferent vision. That's simply not true, as value projection is a well understood phenomenon which works just fine with afferent vision. Obviously Lessans must have been ignorant of this. And you are again inventing 'facts' by claiming that we cannot be conditioned with other senses. You have no more evidence for this than you do for any other of his unsupported claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually people can be conditioned through any of the other senses, that much has been known for many years. You, Peacegirl, are just ignoring the relavent data.

As usual, you haven't been listening. I've been through this numerous times and the kind of conditioning you are talking about is not real conditioning. It's association. A child can copy what his peers are telling him taste terrible, in anticipation, and reject what he hasn't even tasted yet, but this is not true conditioning. I'm talking about a dislike for a food that, because someone else doesn't like it, actually changes your taste buds and conditions you not to like it. It doesn't work that way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true Spacemonkey. There is a definite compulsion, and there's no denying it no matter what you do to try to discount it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your claim that there is definite compulsion is incompatible with your admission that his principle is tautological.

It is not incompatible. There is a definite compulsion to choose whichever choice is made. Each person is different, and we cannot know in advance if the choice will be Obama or another President (as an example), but that doesn't change the fact that compulsion is involved even though you claim it's tautalogical because either choice is the right choice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought when you said contingent you meant accidental. Wrong definition. It is contingent based on the facts, but this law is not predicting the conclusion. That doesn't mean it's an empty tautology because there is still compulsion involved. If you can't get past this, we can't move on.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I know you misread my post. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me what conclusion you were talking about when you said that his conclusion was not contingent.

The choice someone makes is contingent on his life circumstances, which only he knows. He is under a compulsion to choose that which is the most preferable. It's not an equal choice, and yet the necessary truth of this law is not predicting or stating what that choice will be. But that doesn't make it meaningless. All that this knowledge is meant to convey is that the choice that is made is the only choice that could have been made, after the fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I never said you could. We cannot predict that Obama is going to be president, although we can say there will be a president elected.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? I'm not asking you anything about prediction. Again: Do you agree that you cannot validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary or tautological premise? [Y/N]

No. We're not inferring any conclusion from a necessary premise. We cannot infer that Obama is going to be elected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooooooo, there are no assumptions Spacemonkey. He has supported it and the fact that you won't take the time to study these chapters shows me that you are either afraid of what you might find, or you are too proud. I don't know what it is, but I know one thing; it's not good.

No no no, there are no presuppositions here. He has supported his claims more than enough times, and in more detail than anyone could ask for.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You keep just asserting that he supported it without ever actually providing any support for it. Calling it an observation doesn't make it supported. The only thing that can make it supported is actual support for it provided within his book. And Lessans forgot to include any. All you can do is point to the chapter and assert that the support is in there somewhere. But it isn't.

It is provided. We can describe what the moon looks like from observation. He is not inferring anything. He is describing what he sees, which is not as obvious as looking at the moon, but is just as accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you say wrong, it doesn't make sense. This isn't about right or wrong. It was necessary that we find a way to justify blame and punishment, but if there's a better way, we need to consider the value of it before throwing it out.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans' own argument against free will presupposes the falsity of compatibilism in the very way that he defines his terms. So unless compatibilism is actually wrong (as opposed to merely less than perfectly ideal) then his reasoning fails.

The definition comes after the observation. He didn't create a definition with a goal in mind. Compabilists had a goal; they tried to make two opposing principles to fit neatly together, but if you look deeper, it does not fit. They are trying to make it appear that one kind of compulsion is forced, and another kind is not forced. That's 100% false. Compulsion is compulsion regardless of its strength. There is so much confusion with this word it is no wonder everyone is mixed up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, his observations are spot on. They count for something. People can tell me until the cows come home that his observations weren't supported and they were mere assertions, but they were demonstrated in a way that shows their validity. If you can't see that, or even entertain the possibility that his observations were right, then you will dismiss this knowledge as if it's meaningless. And that is very sad.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sorry, but him simply claiming that language is needed for facial recognition, and asserting how he thought the process worked doesn't count for anything at all. Without any actual support for the accuracy of his claimed account, there is no reason for anyone to agree that his 'observations' here are spot on. His claim that the alleged absence of facial recognition in dogs is evidence for unsupported theory of efferent vision turns out to rest upon another completely unsupported theory about language and projection - a theory which itself incorporates his unsupported account of vision.

Just remember that every bit of empirical evidence to prove that dogs can recognize their master from a picture is not conclusive whatsoever. So don't tell me that scientists have support for this belief. It is completely unsupported and their statistical significance is nil. Not only that, his explanation is strongly supported because it takes language for human beings to identify differences in substance. A child will not be able to distinguish a fox from a dog until he learns the differences by means of words. My grandchild use to call big dogs lions because he didn't yet understand the characteristics that separate a lion from a dog, until he developed a picture of that difference which involved language. This is so clearly explained in the chapter that I have no doubt that the only people who are fighting me on this are the people who don't want him to be right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was not ignorant, you are for saying that. There were no oversights, as much as you wish there were. His claims are not undermined in the least. The very fact that we are able to be conditioned visually, and we cannot be conditioned with any the other senses, indicates, once again, that the eyes work differently than hearing, sight, smell, or touch.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He obviously was ignorant if he thought that we could only project values given efferent vision. That's simply not true, as value projection is a well understood phenomenon which works just fine with afferent vision. Obviously Lessans must have been ignorant of this. And you are again inventing 'facts' by claiming that we cannot be conditioned with other senses. You have no more evidence for this than you do for any other of his unsupported claims.

You don't even understand the first thing about what he means when he says "projecting a value onto substance", so don't even go there. We cannot be conditioned in the way we are conditioned with the eyes. I don't know where everyone's been but I explained the difference. Association is not true conditioning. I am not inventing facts. Admit that you may be wrong on all counts, and I will respect your humility. Otherwise, I believe you have an agenda and that is to be right at all costs.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm talking about a dislike for a food that, because someone else doesn't like it, actually changes your taste buds and conditions you not to like it

Actually changes your taste buds? Why is changing the receptor cells a requirement of conditioning?

Does that mean you think visual conditioning actually changes the retina of the eye, since that would be the direct comparison?

Conditioning takes place in the brain, surely, not the rods and cones of the eye?

[LadyShea]

It is provided. We can describe what the moon looks like from observation. He is not inferring anything. He is describing what he sees, which is not as obvious as looking at the moon, but is just as accurate.

Try another analogy, as looking at the moon and describing it's visually apparent traits is an empirical observation that anyone can observe for themselves. If your analogy were apt, then all Lessans could have possibly described was actual actions and behaviors he saw people doing without drawing any conclusions about those actions/behaviors...and that's not at all what he did.

Observation: The man walks with a limp

If you say anything else about the limp, such as "he suffered an injury or illness" you are making an inference.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are trying to make it appear that one kind of compulsion is forced, and another kind is not forced. That's 100% false. Compulsion is compulsion regardless of its strength.

Wait, weren't you just arguing that compelled does not mean forced at all?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not incompatible. There is a definite compulsion to choose whichever choice is made. Each person is different, and we cannot know in advance if the choice will be Obama or another President (as an example), but that doesn't change the fact that compulsion is involved even though you claim it's tautalogical because either choice is the right choice.

This has nothing to do with prediction. Your claim that there is definite compulsion involved flatly contradicts your admission that his principle is tautological. Tautologies are true in all conceivable scenarios and thus rule out nothing. Compulsions rule out certain possibilities in favor of others, and therefore must rule out something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The choice someone makes is contingent on his life circumstances, which only he knows. He is under a compulsion to choose that which is the most preferable. It's not an equal choice, and yet the necessary truth of this law is not predicting or stating what that choice will be. But that doesn't make it meaningless. All that this knowledge is meant to convey is that the choice that is made is the only choice that could have been made, after the fact.

What? I didn't ask you anything about a contingent choice. I am asking you for the conclusion of Lessans reasoning which you were referring to when you said it was not a contingent one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No. We're not inferring any conclusion from a necessary premise. We cannot infer that Obama is going to be elected.

You're all over the place here, Peacegirl. I'm not asking whether you can infer anything about Obama. Lessans obviously is inferring a conclusion from a necessary premise, because his satisfaction principle is the basis of all of his subsequent reasoning, and you've just agreed that this premise is necessary and tautological.

Do you believe that it is possible to validly infer a contingent conclusion from a necessary premise?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is provided. We can describe what the moon looks like from observation. He is not inferring anything. He is describing what he sees, which is not as obvious as looking at the moon, but is just as accurate.

You are still confusing making an observation with supporting what one says. Observation or not, he doesn't provide any support at all anywhere in his book for the alleged innate potential perfection of conscience which his argument relies upon. Firstly, it isn't possible to directly observe something like that, as it isn't something that can be perceived via the senses (like looking at the moon), and would have to be inferred in some manner. And secondly, being an observation doesn't make it supported. Support would be a reason, in the form of evidence or argument printed in the words of his book, for believing that conscience has some such innate potential for perfection. You have ZERO support for this. You have only your unshakeable faith that anything he asserted without supporting was something he must have been in a position to reliably 'observe' in some manner.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The definition comes after the observation. He didn't create a definition with a goal in mind. Compabilists had a goal; they tried to make two opposing principles to fit neatly together, but if you look deeper, it does not fit. They are trying to make it appear that one kind of compulsion is forced, and another kind is not forced. That's 100% false. Compulsion is compulsion regardless of its strength. There is so much confusion with this word it is no wonder everyone is mixed up.

Nothing you've said here about compatibilism is even remotely accurate. Nor does any of this address the point you were replying to. Lessans failed to even consider the relevance of compatibilism for his argument, and showed no signs of even being aware of what is the dominant position on the issue he was discussing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just remember that every bit of empirical evidence to prove that dogs can recognize their master from a picture is not conclusive whatsoever. So don't tell me that scientists have support for this belief. It is completely unsupported and their statistical significance is nil. Not only that, his explanation is strongly supported because it takes language for human beings to identify differences in substance. A child will not be able to distinguish a fox from a dog until he learns the differences by means of words. My grandchild use to call big dogs lions because he didn't yet understand the characteristics that separate a lion from a dog, until he developed a picture of that difference which involved language. This is so clearly explained in the chapter that I have no doubt that the only people who are fighting me on this are the people who don't want him to be right.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide that all of the evidence supporting canine facial recognition counts for nothing at all just because you don't like it. But let's reverse engineer your father's sound reasoning based on astute observations and see what we've now got.

Humans allegedly can't distinguish between dogs and foxes without language, and cannot be conditioned to foods in a way that involves physically changing the taste buds. Therefore language affects vision in such a way as to make the projection of values possible, but this allegedly cannot be explained with afferent vision. Therefore the alleged (yet contrary to all actual experimental evidence) lack of facial recognition in dogs can be best explained by efferent vision plus their lack of language. Therefore humans have eyes which can see in real time thanks to photons which appear instantaneously having come from the Sun at which they were never located.

If this makes any kind of sense to you, then you are quite literally insane.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even understand the first thing about what he means when he says "projecting a value onto substance", so don't even go there. We cannot be conditioned in the way we are conditioned with the eyes. I don't know where everyone's been but I explained the difference. Association is not true conditioning. I am not inventing facts. Admit that you may be wrong on all counts, and I will respect your humility. Otherwise, I believe you have an agenda and that is to be right at all costs.

Regardless of whatever Lessans may have meant about projection as he described it, he was obviously completely ignorant of the existing actual knowledge on the subject if he thought value projection was impossible given afferent vision and could only be explained in the way that he claimed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If no conceivable options are ruled out, then there can't be any compulsion.

But they are ruled out. I swear you understanding nothing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can there be compulsion towards any choice if nothing is ruled out and all possible choices remain consistent with the principle?

It's consistent with principle because whatever choice is made is the only choice that could be made (necessary law = any choice made, by definition, is in the direction of greater satisfaction). Once the choice is made, it rules out any other conceivable option, not before. This poses no inconsistency with necessary truth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's like saying that US voters were compelled to vote for the US President just because whoever they happened to vote for would thereby become the US President. This tautology that they had to vote for 'the President' doesn't show that they had to vote for Obama. And you can't say that Obama was the only possible choice just because they had to vote for the President, when 'the President' would have been whoever they happened to vote for.

Necessary truth is not saying they had to vote for Obama. All it is saying is that whever one chooses for President (not necessarily Obama before the fact) is the more preferable choice when comparing meaningful differences (to vote for Obama or Romney). Is is true that the President is whoever they happened to vote for, but this is a compulsion because they are driven to choose that which is the most favorable in their eyes, not that which is the least favorable. The options, therefore, are not equal in value in any situation where there are differences in those options that matter to an individual.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your logic, and there's a lot wrong with it. Why can't you admit that you could be wrong?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course I could be wrong. Why can't you admit that your father could have been wrong? No-one is infallible, but the difference is that I can identify and describe your father's mistakes while all you can do is whine and assert that there must be as yet unidentified flaws in my reasoning.

You are not identifying his mistakes. What hubris you have Spacemonkey. You think your logic has disproved his mathematics (and you know by now what I mean by mathematics in this contest; his undeniable observations which don't require logic). I am trying to point out your flaws in reasoning, but you have to be open to them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

B

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Right, then you agree that his principle is a tautology which rules out nothing. That means it cannot be a universal law of nature, because laws of nature are falsifiable and non-tautological. It also means there can be no compulsion entailed by his principle, for an actual compulsion has to prevent and rule out certain choices. And it means he cannot validly infer any contingent conclusions from it, such as that only one choice is ever causally possible in any given deliberation.

Who made this stuff up that a universal law (which has no exceptions) has to have exceptions? And there is compulsion entailed by this law (call it what you want) because it DOES rule out certain choices, but the law doesn't demand what choice that is. That can only be seen after the choice is made, whichever choice it turns out to be. This is contingent on each individual's background, experiences, thought processes, heredity, present circumstances, and cannot be decided in advance which this law is not doing. All it is doing is stating that whatever choice is made had to be made because there was a compulsion involved, but it cannot tell you what choice that will be in advance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you agree that he completely failed to explicitly define the most important term in his argument. And now everyone but you who reads it considers him guilty of conflation on the meaning of this term.

No, he didn't fail. No one else but you and others who want to find reasons to dismiss his discovery will find a problem with this. Yes, he assumed that the people reading this book knows what satisfaction means. Conflating the word "greater" does not change the meaning except to show that there is a gradation involved when it comes to what someone finds satisfying.

[But]

Hey Vivisectus, send an electronic forum message to my "askphilosopher.com" and I may even answer! Have you learned anything in the meantime, I mean in the intermediate state?

[But]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

do.

Please do find god in hell. Go there, don't come back until your mission is over. Over.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Actually changes your taste buds? Why is changing the receptor cells a requirement of conditioning?

Does that mean you think visual conditioning actually changes the retina of the eye, since that would be the direct comparison?

Conditioning takes place in the brain, surely, not the rods and cones of the eye?

Everything takes place in the brain, but the point that is being made is that in a sense organ, nothing that someone says about a food actually changes whether one experiences a taste or a distaste for that food. It is true that someone can be repulsed by a food due to a negative association, but everything being equal, someone could say 100 times that he doesn't like a particular food and that would not change someone's taste buds, whereas with the eyes, it's quite different. A child could be told that someone is ugly (a personal descriptor according to you), and he will be conditioned to seeing this person (with these type features) as ugly, and you couldn't convince him otherwise. The same goes for the word beautiful. We are so conditioned by words that it appears that this beauty or this ugliness is an external reality, but it is not, and this all due to how the eyes and brain function.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As usual, you haven't been listening. I've been through this numerous times and the kind of conditioning you are talking about is not real conditioning. It's association. A child can copy what his peers are telling him taste terrible, in anticipation, and reject what he hasn't even tasted yet, but this is not true conditioning. I'm talking about a dislike for a food that, because someone else doesn't like it, actually changes your taste buds and conditions you not to like it.

Are you saying that conditioning a person to like or dislike different foods involves a physical change in the tastebuds in the mouth? Would you also say that conditioning a person to like or dislike different kinds of music would involve a physical change in the ears? And are there similar changes in the other senses as a result of conditioning?

[Vivisectus]

[quote=Vivisectus;1127065]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Indeed... he claimed all this is true. I know that. I have read the book you know.

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?

...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.

Once again:

No reason to believe that conscience works that way is presented, either in the book or outside of it, except for your "I feel strongly that it works that way". Or the pretense that saying something is so means you have demonstrated it.

The issue is not addressed, but simply ignored. Later on you will simply start from square one and pretend you did address it. How come it is necessary to lie in order to belief this book to be correct? Is that what your father would have wanted? Dishonesty and hypocrisy?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Try another analogy, as looking at the moon and describing it's visually apparent traits is an empirical observation that anyone can observe for themselves. If your analogy were apt, then all Lessans could have possibly described was actual actions and behaviors he saw people doing without drawing any conclusions about those actions/behaviors...and that's not at all what he did.

Observation: The man walks with a limp

That's what he did, but once he established that man's will is not free by observing behavior, he was able to reason from that point on. And when he did, he made accurate inferences. There is nothing false with anything he was trying to show because the premises that the inferences were based were spot on. If you can get this, you will open your mind to his knowledge, even if you are skeptical. But if you judge him before the verdict is in, I can't talk or discuss anything because you have already placed the cart before the horse. Do you know how hard this for me LadyShea? No, you don't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you say anything else about the limp, such as "he suffered an injury or illness" you are making an inference.

Lessans described the limp; he never inferred what the limp was coming from. This has everything to do with accurate observation. That is what this is about, which is why I don't get all the backlash. Never you mind.

[Angakuk]

Rolling Stones: "Satisfaction!" -...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Rolling Stones: "Satisfaction!" - YouTube

Angakuk, this is definitely a revealing video, but what is not revealed is more important. I love the song, and I love the whole video, but there is a deeper meaning that has not been expressed. I don't believe Mick Jagger knew about the deeper meaning of his words, or he would have expressed this to his audience. There was no way he could know that this song would would be so important in a debate that he never ever contemplated? Thanks for sharing this video Angakuk. Hands up to you!!! I know your heart is in the right place, my friend.

[LadyShea]

He is not inferring anything. He is describing what he sees, which is not as obvious as looking at the moon, but is just as accurate.

And when he did, he made accurate inferences.

[LadyShea]

but once he established that man's will is not free by observing behavior

What behaviors did he observe from which he inferred man's will is not free?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they are ruled out. I swear you understanding nothing.

If any options are ruled out, then the satisfaction principle isn't the necessary tautology you said it was, because it would then fail to hold in the conceivably possible scenarios where such options are selected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's consistent with principle because whatever choice is made is the only choice that could be made (necessary law = any choice made, by definition, is in the direction of greater satisfaction). Once the choice is made, it rules out any other conceivable option, not before. This poses no inconsistency with necessary truth.

No inconsistency? Your first sentence here is a flat contradiction. If any conceivable choice would be in the direction of satisfaction just by being made, then there cannot be only one choice that could be made in the direction of greater satisfaction. You are simultaneously saying both that only one choice and also all conceivable choices are consistent with the truth of his principle.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Necessary truth is not saying they had to vote for Obama. All it is saying is that whever one chooses for President (not necessarily Obama before the fact) is the more preferable choice when comparing meaningful differences (to vote for Obama or Romney). Is is true that the President is whoever they happened to vote for, but this is a compulsion because they are driven to choose that which is the most favorable in their eyes, not that which is the least favorable. The options, therefore, are not equal in value in any situation where there are differences in those options that matter to an individual.

You are equivocating, just as your father did, between the empty tautological notion of greater satisfaction you can get, and the substantial empirical notion of greater satisfaction and compulsion which you need. If you consider the full range of conceivable choices that could be made and decide that every one would be in the direction of greater satisfaction purely by being made, as a matter of logical or conceptual necessity, then you have simply defined greater satisfaction as whatever choice one happens to make. It then literally doesn't mean anything to say we are compelled to always move in this direction, because you are just saying that we will choose what we choose.

What you must be doing in order to imagine that compulsion is involved, is imagining that in each of the full range of conceivable choices there will be a different compulsion towards that particular choice as more satisfying, making any other choice causally impossible. But then you have introduced some logically contingent empirical and psychological notion of greater satisfaction differing from the tautological one, and which does not hold the same across all conceivable choices. And this second notion of satisfaction is the one you have failed to define or provide any evidence for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not identifying his mistakes. What hubris you have Spacemonkey. You think your logic has disproved his mathematics (and you know by now what I mean by mathematics in this contest; his undeniable observations which don't require logic). I am trying to point out your flaws in reasoning, but you have to be open to them.

It is not hubris to claim to be smarter than Lessans, for Lessans was not very smart. Hubris would be claiming, with no evidence for any of his claims, that his observations were infallible, and refusing to acknowledge that he could have been wrong. You call him a mathematician when he didn't even understand how to correctly use the word 'mathematics'. Anyway, whether you agree with my refutations or not, my point was that when I criticize his reasoning I can tell you exactly how and where I consider it to be flawed. You don't do that. In post after post all you do is assert that my reasoning is flawed/out the door/completely lost without being able to explain your reasons for thinking this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who made this stuff up that a universal law (which has no exceptions) has to have exceptions?

Universal scientific laws of nature are empirical and falsifiable, meaning they may be true in all actual circumstances, but we can still specify the conceivably possible circumstances in which they would be false. So universal laws of nature have possible but not actual exceptions. You have repeatedly said that his satisfaction principle has neither actual nor possible exceptions. It is therefore a tautology and cannot possibly be a universal law of nature. It would be a law of logic rather than a law of nature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there is compulsion entailed by this law (call it what you want) because it DOES rule out certain choices, but the law doesn't demand what choice that is. That can only be seen after the choice is made, whichever choice it turns out to be. This is contingent on each individual's background, experiences, thought processes, heredity, present circumstances, and cannot be decided in advance which this law is not doing. All it is doing is stating that whatever choice is made had to be made because there was a compulsion involved, but it cannot tell you what choice that will be in advance.

If the truth of the satisfaction principle doesn't determine one particular choice to the exclusion of others, then it isn't the truth of the satisfaction principle which renders contra-causal free will impossible. It must instead be some more specific compulsion employing a non-tautological and as yet unexplained and undefined notion of preference or satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he didn't fail. No one else but you and others who want to find reasons to dismiss his discovery will find a problem with this. Yes, he assumed that the people reading this book knows what satisfaction means. Conflating the word "greater" does not change the meaning except to show that there is a gradation involved when it comes to what someone finds satisfying.

Whether you view it as a failure or not, he didn't explicitly define the most important term in his argument. And as a result, he has left himself wide open to the charge of equivocation - something that would not have been possible had he properly defined his terms.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again:

No reason to believe that conscience works that way is presented, either in the book or outside of it, except for your "I feel strongly that it works that way". Or the pretense that saying something is so means you have demonstrated it.

The issue is not addressed, but simply ignored. Later on you will simply start from square one and pretend you did address it. How come it is necessary to lie in order to belief this book to be correct? Is that what your father would have wanted? Dishonesty and hypocrisy?

You know what, this isn't working. I don't need your approval. You have never, in all this time, read this book fairly, and you continue to reject his accurate observations as if they are meaningless. I can't get through to you, and I never will, until this discovery is confirmed. Then you'll look at it with a fresh set of eyes. So please stop posting to me, because there is no benefit.