Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1301  
Old 11-19-2011, 09:19 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Incidentally, Lessans clearly stated that the brave new world would have begun over a decade ago at the latest. Which, oddly enough, is when you started trying to peddle this actively as far as I can tell.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (11-21-2011)
  #1302  
Old 11-19-2011, 09:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Don't you see that you are the one doing what you are accusing me of doing? You are trying desperately to make his knowledge wrong because it doesn't fit into your epistemological category. I think you feel very threatened by determinism and you are not being as objective as you think you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm not doing what you are doing, because I am not relying upon faith.
I'm not relying on faith either, so stop saying that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You are free to choose any epistemological category you like, so long as you can show how it qualifies as knowledge rather than faith. If you are going to reject all currently known epistemological categories, then you will need to justify whatever new ones you choose to invent.
I don't have to invent a new category. I am only required to show you his observations and reasoning. Obviously, empirical proof (the proof that these principles work in real life) is the only proof that really matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And as already explained I am not threatened by his claims, as I do not believe in libertarian free will, and his version of determinism is trivial and entirely non-threatening. Please address the objections instead of trying to guess at and criticize my motivations.
Then why are you so defensive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
His explanation is very simple. Man does not have free will because he must choose the alternative that is the most preferable, not the alternative that is the least preferable, each and every moment of time. This means that what we find most preferable changes from moment to moment based on previous experience. This also means that Lessans' definition of determinism does not mean our choices are fixed, nor does it mean that we are robots that are programmed to respond a certain way. Lessans is reconciling these two opposing ideologies because they both are correct. In other words, his definition does not remove the agent who is still able to make choices. But, according to proponents of free will, the ability to make choice IS the meaning of free will. They believe this is the very definition of what freedom of the will is. But, according to Lessans, being able to choose does not make our will free. I still don't think you understand the distinction between Lessans' definition vs. the conventional definition, which is why you're up in arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
There are multiple meanings of free will. And as you admit here, his version of 'determinism' remains quite compatible with how people other than Lessans view free will. The 'free will' his principle refutes is a strawman, and fails to connect with our justifications for blame and punishment as his later argument requires.
I'm not sure what you mean by "and fails to connect with our justifications for blame and punishment." Please explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No-one has ever claimed that these practices require the ability to choose that which we believe is worse for ourselves.
Yes it does. The very definition of free will implies that choosing what is worse for ourselves is just as possible as choosing what is better because there is no compulsion whatsoever. But there is a strong compulsion to choose that alternative which is most preferable. Please read this again:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 46-47

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise.

In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will?

But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed.

But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So his corollary about blame and punishment simply doesn't follow.
You'll have to elaborate so I can understand where you don't follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
He offers a fallacious argument by redefinition of terms. His redefined version of 'determinism' (that one will always choose the direction of greatest expected satisfaction) remains compatible with both hard determinism and causal indeterminism.
It is not compatible with hard determinism because hard determinism implies the something other than yourself caused you to do what you did. It is crucial that you understand why Lessans' definition is more accurate.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 55-56

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from
previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and
during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do
because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was
caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause’, like choice
and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than
man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two
plus two, it is that already.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The resulting absence of his redefined version of 'free will' (i.e. the lack of any ability to choose that that which we believe is worse for ourselves) remains compatible with both libertarian and compatibilist free will.
How is that possible? The very fact that you cannot choose that which you believe is worse for yourself in comparison to the other choices that are available renders all other choices, at that moment, an impossibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Hence his redefinitions result in conclusions completely irrelevant to his subsequent reasoning. The truth of Lessans-determinism and the falsity of Lessans-freewill are not what matters when it comes to our practices of blame and punishment, which instead connect to the original meanings which he mistakenly ignores by redefining all of his terms.
It is very much related to our practices of blame and punishment because of the fact that Lessans' determinism and the falsity of free will are what make this discovery possible. If free will was a fact, then these principles would fail because we could choose to hurt others in spite of the changed environmental conditions, but this is impossible which is why this is an immutable law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No doubt you'll wish to disagree with all I've just said. So here's what you need to do in your reply:

(i) Establish that his conception of free will is not a strawman by showing where someone other than Lessans has claimed that free will requires one to be able to choose that which they believe will be worse for themselves.
That is the very definition of free will Spacemonkey; that we can choose what is worse or better for ourselves EQUALLY. Free will states that there is no compulsion or necessity; but there is a strong compulsion to choose that which we believe is the best possible choice, even if that choice doesn't appear that way to others. [Note: Our choice may not be the best in hindsight but that choice was based on the knowledge that we had at the time].

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 51

Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good
or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will
of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of
compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every
moment of time?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
(ii) Explain how his corollary of no blame follows from the alleged impossibility of this conception of free will by showing how we only apply blame and punishment when we believe that people have the ability to choose what they think will be worse for themselves.
The belief that man didn't have to do what he did is the foundation of our justice system. Lessans writes:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 29-30

In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of
development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to
control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the
reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense
of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of
everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However,
in order to reach this stage of development so God could reveal
Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it
was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he
believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously.

It became a
dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all
civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief
in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not
only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate
crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his
problems without blame and punishment which required the
justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience.


Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did
because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to
choose between good and evil.
In other words, if you were called upon
to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you
would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative
than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled
by laws over which he had no control.

Man was given no choice but
to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the
principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my
discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point
because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the
solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it
possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing
and the wholesale slaughter of millions?

Does this mean that we are
supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less
responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature?
Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough he
will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other
nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor
from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of
punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart
of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a
problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since
time immemorial.

Last edited by peacegirl; 11-19-2011 at 09:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 11-19-2011, 10:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Incidentally, Lessans clearly stated that the brave new world would have begun over a decade ago at the latest. Which, oddly enough, is when you started trying to peddle this actively as far as I can tell.
He never made this prediction, but he did predict the following: This just shows me how little you read.

Please note that when the author mentions the 20th century he is
referring to the time period when this discovery was first made. This
book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His
prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was
based on the assumption that this discovery would be found
scientifically sound after a thorough investigation. Unfortunately,
this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the leading
scientists of his time who could have validated his findings.

Though
it has been over 50 years since these findings were uncovered, there
has been no such investigation and, as of yet, this revolutionary
knowledge has not been brought to light. Due to the time lapse since
the book’s last printing the editor has added some recent examples to
show how the extension of this knowledge applies to our current world
situation, but please be assured that the core of this discovery has not
been altered in any way and is written in the author’s own words. For
purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used
throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 11-19-2011, 10:03 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

peacegirl, if Lessans is right Lessans is irrelevant. And if he is wrong is doesn't matter. So he just doesn't matter. And what you are doing doesn't matter either. All you do is provide yet another freak show on the internet. And a very repetitive one at that.
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 11-19-2011, 10:07 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

he didn't write that - you did.

And he did predict it. In fact we discssed this fact.
Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 11-19-2011, 10:21 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not relying on faith either, so stop saying that.
Of course you are. You're doing exactly that every time you fall back on "astute observations!" without being able to expain why they should be accepted as astute or accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't have to invent a new category. I am only required to show you his observations and reasoning.
Great. Then please show us what existing epistemological categories his satisfaction principle and conscience premise each fall under. Explain how each are known to be true using existing categories and without relying upon faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "and fails to connect with our justifications for blame and punishment." Please explain.
It means the justification of our practices of blame and punishment have nothing at all to do with free will and determinism as he arbitrarily redefines them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes it does. The very definition of free will implies that choosing what is worse for ourselves is just as possible as choosing what is better because there is no compulsion whatsoever. But there is a strong compulsion to choose that which is most preferable.
Which definition of free will implies that? His personal redefinition might do so, but as you just explained in your last post this is not the conventional definition. The conventional definition ("the ability to make choice IS the meaning of free will") remains compatible with his principle, and his version of 'determinism' remains compatible with indeterminist free will ("Lessans' definition of determinism does not mean our choices are fixed"). And it is the conventional definition, rather than Lessans', which is relevant to our ascriptions of blame.

Speaking of feeling of 'compulsion' here is also inconsistent with your treatment of the satisfaction principle. People make choices all the time without there being any sense of compulsion to choose any one option as being that of greater satisfaction. Whatever one chooses is by definition what one has determined to be most preferable, but there need not be any sense of compulsion in any one given direction. And if there were, then that would be an empirical fact requiring actual psychological investigation before his satisfaction principle could be known to be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is not compatible with hard determinism because hard determinism implies the something other than yourself caused you to do what you did. It is crucial that you understand why Lessans' definition is more accurate.
Definitions cannot be more or less accurate, but only more or less common. His satisfaction principle remains compatible with both hard determinism and causal indeterminism. It is compatible with anything and everything - that is why it is trivial. Hard determinism doesn't mean people are compelled to do things against their will. It means that their will is causally determined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How is that possible? The very fact that you cannot choose that which you believe is worse for yourself in comparison to the other choices that are available renders all other choices, at that moment, an impossibility.
It remains compatible with libertarian free will because (in your own words) "Lessans' definition of determinism does not mean our choices are fixed". It remains compatible with compatibilist free will because (again, in your own words) "his definition does not remove the agent who is still able to make choices".

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
(i) Establish that his conception of free will is not a strawman by showing where someone other than Lessans has claimed that free will requires one to be able to choose that which they believe will be worse for themselves.
That is the very definition of free will Spacemonkey; that we can choose what is worse or better for ourselves EQUALLY. Free will states that there is no compulsion to choose that which is most preferable in his particular circumstances.
No, that's his definition of free will. It is a strawman because it is not anyone else's definition of free will, nor is it relevant to blame and punishment. As I said, you need to show where someone other than Lessans has claimed that free will requires one to be able to choose that which they believe will be worse for themselves. You haven't done that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
(ii) Explain how his corollary of no blame follows from the alleged impossibility of this conception of free will by showing how we only apply blame and punishment when we believe that people have the ability to choose what they think will be worse for themselves.
The belief that man didn't have to do what he did is the foundation of our justice system.
That a man didn't have to do what he did remains compatible with not being able to choose what he thinks will be worse for himself. I asked you to explain how you think his corollary of no blame follows from the absence of his particular conception of free will. You haven't done that.

And stop quoting at me. I've already read all you've quoted from his book. It doesn't help, and only reinforces the fact that you don't understand any of this well enough to address points yourself.

Last edited by Spacemonkey; 11-19-2011 at 10:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 11-20-2011, 12:11 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
he didn't write that - you did.

And he did predict it. In fact we discssed this fact.
Please show me where I discussed this "fact". He predicted that this discovery would come to light in the 20th century, but he assumed that this knowledge would have been thoroughly investigated.
Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 11-20-2011, 12:13 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
he didn't write that - you did.

And he did predict it. In fact we discssed this fact.
Please show me where I discussed this "fact". He predicted that this discovery would come to light in the 20th century, but he assumed that this knowledge would have been thoroughly investigated.
Well it must have happened. Lessans said it would.
Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 11-20-2011, 01:17 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not relying on faith either, so stop saying that.
Of course you are. You're doing exactly that every time you fall back on "astute observations!" without being able to expain why they should be accepted as astute or accurate.
Quote:
I have explained his observations in detail. I'm sorry if you don't see the proof, but it has nothing to do with faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't have to invent a new category. I am only required to show you his observations and reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Great. Then please show us what existing epistemological categories his satisfaction principle and conscience premise each fall under. Explain how each are known to be true using existing categories and without relying upon faith.
I am not interested in any category, existing or otherwise. If you want to try and classify his knowledge into a epistemological category, go right ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "and fails to connect with our justifications for blame and punishment." Please explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It means the justification of our practices of blame and punishment have nothing at all to do with free will and determinism as he arbitrarily redefines them.
How could anyone justify punishing someone for a crime if he knew for a fact that the person who committed the crime didn't have a choice?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes it does. The very definition of free will implies that choosing what is worse for ourselves is just as possible as choosing what is better because there is no compulsion whatsoever. But there is a strong compulsion to choose that which is most preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Which definition of free will implies that?
That was the dictionary definition Spacemonkey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
His personal redefinition might do so, but as you just explained in your last post this is not the conventional definition. The conventional definition ("the ability to make choice IS the meaning of free will") remains compatible with his principle, and his version of 'determinism' remains compatible with indeterminist free will ("Lessans' definition of determinism does not mean our choices are fixed").
His definition of determinism is not compatible with "free will" because being able to make a choice in the conventional sense, although it appears free, is not free at all. There is no indeterminist free will. You are getting all confused because of your faulty logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And it is the conventional definition, rather than Lessans', which is relevant to our ascriptions of blame.
You're trying to hang on to libertarian free will for dear life, but if there is no free will then we have to extend this knowledge to see why punishment, although it was a necessary part of our development, is not the ultimate deterrent against evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Speaking of feeling of 'compulsion' here is also inconsistent with your treatment of the satisfaction principle. People make choices all the time without there being any sense of compulsion to choose any one option as being that of greater satisfaction. Whatever one chooses is by definition what one has determined to be most preferable, but there need not be any sense of compulsion in any one given direction. And if there were, then that would be an empirical fact requiring actual psychological investigation before his satisfaction principle could be known to be true.
There doesn't have to be any more investigation to prove the satisfaction principle true. He's proven it. It will be known to be true when this new world becomes a reality. That will be the ultimate proof, or the proof of the pudding. ;) The fact that will is not free doesn't mean that everytime we make a choice we feel the compulsion. Usually people say they felt compelled to do something when they had an unusually strong desire to do that thing, but we are always under a compulsion whether we feel it consciously or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is not compatible with hard determinism because hard determinism implies the something other than yourself caused you to do what you did. It is crucial that you understand why Lessans' definition is more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Definitions cannot be more or less accurate, but only more or less common.
If something is defined in two different ways, they both can't be right unless the word has two different meanings altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
His satisfaction principle remains compatible with both hard determinism and causal indeterminism. It is compatible with anything and everything - that is why it is trivial. Hard determinism doesn't mean people are compelled to do things against their will. It means that their will is causally determined.
His satisfaction principle is not compatible with hard determinism and causal indeterminism because the two can't exist together. The compatibalists were trying to make the two fit without there being a contradiction, but it's impossible because will cannot be free and not free at the same time, just like the earth cannot be round and flat at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How is that possible? The very fact that you cannot choose that which you believe is worse for yourself in comparison to the other choices that are available renders all other choices, at that moment, an impossibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It remains compatible with libertarian free will because (in your own words) "Lessans' definition of determinism does not mean our choices are fixed". It remains compatible with compatibilist free will because (again, in your own words) "his definition does not remove the agent who is still able to make choices".
Our choices are not fixed meaning that up until the time a choice is made, we can change our minds. There is nothing that says I, as the agent who makes decisions, have to eat a banana for breakfast because it was determined beforehand. But once I make the choice to eat the banana, it could not have been otherwise because any other choice, at that moment, would have been in the direction of least satisfaction, which cannot be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
(i) Establish that his conception of free will is not a strawman by showing where someone other than Lessans has claimed that free will requires one to be able to choose that which they believe will be worse for themselves.
That is the very definition of free will Spacemonkey; that we can choose what is worse or better for ourselves EQUALLY. Free will states that there is no compulsion to choose that which is most preferable in his particular circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, that's his definition of free will. It is a strawman because it is not anyone else's definition of free will, nor is it relevant to blame and punishment. As I said, you need to show where someone other than Lessans has claimed that free will requires one to be able to choose that which they believe will be worse for themselves. You haven't done that.
Free will is freedom to choose one of many options equally. That is the definition. I don't have to refer to someone other than Lessans to confirm that Lessans was right. If you can only choose that which is most preferable, it is obvious that you can only go in one direction. I'm giving you a challenge. If your will is free to choose one thing or another equally (without compulsion), then it should be very easy for you to stop coming to this thread to prove to me how free you really are. In fact, everyone should be able to stop coming to this thread since we should be able to choose that which is least satisfying when a more satisfying option is available under the banner of free will. I'm sure people could leave to prove a point [in the direction of greater satisfaction], but they would have a hard time staying away, especially if they were interested in Lessans' discovery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
(ii) Explain how his corollary of no blame follows from the alleged impossibility of this conception of free will by showing how we only apply blame and punishment when we believe that people have the ability to choose what they think will be worse for themselves.
The belief that man didn't have to do what he did is the foundation of our justice system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
That a man didn't have to do what he did remains compatible with not being able to choose what he thinks will be worse for himself. I asked you to explain how you think his corollary of no blame follows from the absence of his particular conception of free will. You haven't done that.
That a man didn't have to do what he did is not compatible with not being able to choose what he thinks will be worse for himself because it's contradictory. If he could have done other than what he did, then his will would have been free, but if he couldn't choose what was worse for himself, then that means he had to choose what he believed was best for himself. And if he could only choose what he believed was best for himself (even though others might not agree) this would be absolute proof that he could only go in one direction. Sorry, but you're all mixed up Spacemonkey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And stop quoting at me. I've already read all you've quoted from his book. It doesn't help, and only reinforces the fact that you don't understand any of this well enough to address points yourself.
You're just angry because you don't like that Lessans was right. I'll quote whenever I feel like it, if not for you then for other people who are sincerely interested in not proving me wrong just so they can be right. And if any of this bothers you, prove to me that you are not compelled to come to this thread. This is your chance to prove to the audience that you are not under a compulsion to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. :yup:

Last edited by peacegirl; 11-20-2011 at 01:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 11-20-2011, 02:11 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not interested in any category, existing or otherwise. If you want to try and classify his knowledge into a epistemological category, go right ahead.
Okay, his claims fall into the category of unsupported assertions, and yours fall into the category of irrational faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How could anyone justify punishing someone for a crime if he knew for a fact that the person who committed the crime didn't have a choice?
They do have a choice. Your words: "his definition does not remove the agent who is still able to make choices".

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That was the dictionary definition Spacemonkey.
There are many different philosophical conceptions of free will one might define. And only Lessans' definition requires that one be equally able to choose what one thinks will be worse for oneself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
His definition of determinism is not compatible with "free will" because being able to make a choice in the conventional sense, although it appears free, is not free at all. There is no indeterminist free will. You are getting all confused because of your faulty logic.
Where is my logic faulty? You said yourself that his 'determinism' is compatible with causal indeterminism and with the conventional definition of free will. That it rules out his own bizarre personal redefinition of free will is quite irrelevant to everyone but him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're trying to hang on to libertarian free will for dear life, but if there is no free will then we have to extend this knowledge to see why punishment, although it was a necessary part of our development, is not the ultimate deterrent against evil.
You have the memory of a goldfish. I don't believe in libertarian free will. So no, I am not trying to hang on to it for dear life. His extensions fail just as badly as his premises which you have yet to establish as true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There doesn't have to be any more investigation to prove the satisfaction principle true. He's proven it. It will be known to be true when this new world becomes a reality. That will be the ultimate proof, or the proof of the pudding. ;) The fact that will is not free doesn't mean that everytime we make a choice we feel the compulsion. Usually people say they felt compelled to do something when they had an unusually strong desire to do that thing, but we are always under a compulsion whether we feel it consciously or not.
If his satisfaction principle is once again true and proven, then can you now tell me how he is defining 'satisfaction', and how you know his principle to be true?

And you have rendered 'compulsion' meaningless and unfalsifiable. If it isn't always felt, then you have no grounds upon which to insist that there is always a strong compulsion to choose what is most preferable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If something is defined in two different ways, they both can't be right unless the word has two different meanings altogether.
Again, definitions are not right or wrong, but only common or uncommon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
His satisfaction principle is not compatible with hard determinism and causal indeterminism because the two can't exist together. The compatibalists were trying to make the two fit without there being a contradiction, but it's impossible because will cannot be free and not free at the same time, just like the earth cannot be round and flat at the same time.
Obviously I was saying that his satisfaction principle is compatible with either hard determinism or causal indeterminism, but not with both together at the same time. And no, compatibilists do not try to claim that hard determinism and causal indeterminism are both true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Our choices are not fixed meaning that up until the time a choice is made, we can change our minds. There is nothing that says I, as the agent who makes decisions, have to eat a banana for breakfast because it was determined beforehand. But once I make the choice to eat the banana, it could not have been otherwise because any other choice, at that moment, would have been in the direction of least satisfaction, which cannot be done.
And that's why his 'determinism' remains compatible with the causal indeterminism of libertarian free will, just like I said. Our choices are not fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Free will is freedom to choose one of many options equally. That is the definition. I don't have to refer to someone other than Lessans to confirm that Lessans was right. If you can only choose that which is most preferable, it is obvious that you can only go in one direction. I'm giving you a challenge. If your will is free to choose one thing or another equally (without compulsion), then it should be very easy for you to stop coming to this thread...
So now you're back to begging me to leave your thread? How sad. Libertarian free will does not require that all choices be equally choosable, and certainly doesn't require us to be able to choose what we consider to be the worst available option. It does require that at least two options be genuinely choosable, but what you are missing here is that there is no way of independently specifying which will be most preferable. Assume his principle correct, and assume libertarian indeterministic free will. Of two choices, A and B, in one possible world Bob might indeterministically select A as his direction of greater satisfaction. In another possible world he might instead select B as being in his direction of greater satisfaction. His free will might lie not in whether or not to choose the direction of greater satisfaction, but of indeterministically determining which option lies in that direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That a man didn't have to do what he did is not compatible with not being able to choose what he thinks will be worse for himself because this means he couldn't choose otherwise. And if he couldn't choose otherwise, then he didn't have a choice to do other than what he did. In other words, if he couldn't choose choose what is worse for himself is proof that he could only go in one direction. You're all mixed up Spacemonkey.
That a man didn't have to do what he did requires that he could have done something else, but it doesn't require that he be able to do it while still thinking of the other first action as better. So he could have done otherwise without choosing what he thinks will be worse for himself simply by thinking that another action would be better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're just angry because you don't like that Lessans was right.
And you're just frustrated because you don't like that Lessans is so easily proven wrong. See how easy and pointless that is?

I'm not going to waste any more time on these long posts. The key point I intend to press you on is your justification of his unsupported premise concerning conscience.
Reply With Quote
  #1311  
Old 11-20-2011, 05:03 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...these principles are valid and sound because they work.
How do you know they work? What is your evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that we can create a world of peace is the best proof of all, isn't it?
That we can create a world of peace is not a fact until it happens. It hasn't happened so it is not yet a fact. It is a suppostion.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #1312  
Old 11-20-2011, 05:24 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...these principles are valid and sound because they work.
How do you know they work? What is your evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that we can create a world of peace is the best proof of all, isn't it?
That we can create a world of peace is not a fact until it happens. It hasn't happened so it is not yet a fact. It is a suppostion.
Well there are plain old facts and then there are peacegirl facts. The two are not the same. This is exactly what you would expect from a crazy person.

Last edited by naturalist.atheist; 11-20-2011 at 06:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 11-20-2011, 01:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not interested in any category, existing or otherwise. If you want to try and classify his knowledge into a epistemological category, go right ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Okay, his claims fall into the category of unsupported assertions, and yours fall into the category of irrational faith.
And your reasoning is more rational than Lessans? Interesting. :chin:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How could anyone justify punishing someone for a crime if he knew for a fact that the person who committed the crime didn't have a choice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
They do have a choice. Your words: "his definition does not remove the agent who is still able to make choices".
If you choose to ignore what I post, then you're at a disadvantage. Get off your high horse already. By the way, I see you came back which obviously shows me that you are under a compulsion to choose A (being a part of this thread) than B (not being a part of this thread), for if the choices were equal, you could just as easily choose B, but you can't because your will is not free to choose what is worse for yourself when a better choice is available.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 50-51

Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage
and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two
exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by
having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing
small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is
absolutely necessary to know which is preferable.

The difference
which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the
compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes
one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because
it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since
B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A.
Is it humanly
possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your
decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any
way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could
you prefer the other alternative?”

“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t
given me any choice.”

“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you
should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In
other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of
alternatives, one is compelled completely beyond control to prefer A.
It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it
could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as
an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are
not free to choose A for your preference is a natural compulsion of the
direction of life over which you have absolutely no control.”
The definition of free will states that good or evil can be chosen
without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is
a tremendous amount of compulsion.

The word ‘choice’ itself
indicates there are preferable differences otherwise there would be no
choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are
confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading for it assumes
that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion
because the direction of life, always moving towards greater
satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he
considers better for himself and when two or more alternatives are
presented he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not that one
which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being
better for the particular set of circumstances involved
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That was the dictionary definition Spacemonkey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
There are many different philosophical conceptions of free will one might define. And only Lessans' definition requires that one be equally able to choose what one thinks will be worse for oneself.
Actually, the only thing Lessans' definition requires is that one be equally able to move in the direction of what gives "less satisfaction" (or what's worse for oneself) when there is a choice available that offers "greater satisfaction".

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
His definition of determinism is not compatible with "free will" because being able to make a choice in the conventional sense, although it appears free, is not free at all. There is no indeterminist free will. You are getting all confused because of your faulty logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where is my logic faulty? You said yourself that his 'determinism' is compatible with causal indeterminism
Right there you are twisting my words. We are caused to do what we do once a choice is made. There is no causal indeterminism or libertarian free will. I was distinguishing hard determinism with Lessans' more accurate definition because hard determinism implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
and with the conventional definition of free will. That it rules out his own bizarre personal redefinition of free will is quite irrelevant to everyone but him.
Please scroll back and read the post regarding "choice". I don't think you read it even once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're trying to hang on to libertarian free will for dear life, but if there is no free will then we have to extend this knowledge to see why punishment, although it was a necessary part of our development, is not the ultimate deterrent against evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You have the memory of a goldfish. I don't believe in libertarian free will. So no, I am not trying to hang on to it for dear life. His extensions fail just as badly as his premises which you have yet to establish as true.
You are invested in proving him wrong. I think you're scared of reading the excerpts I posted not because of the reasons you give. You are afraid that you will have to accept that he is right if you actually understand the proof, but you don't have to do that as long as your ground rules require me to answer in my own words. How absurd!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There doesn't have to be any more investigation to prove the satisfaction principle true. He's proven it. It will be known to be true when this new world becomes a reality. That will be the ultimate proof, or the proof of the pudding. ;) The fact that will is not free doesn't mean that everytime we make a choice we feel the compulsion. Usually people say they felt compelled to do something when they had an unusually strong desire to do that thing, but we are always under a compulsion whether we feel it consciously or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If his satisfaction principle is once again true and proven, then can you now tell me how he is defining 'satisfaction', and how you know his principle to be true?
Oh my gosh, I refuse to work any harder than you do Spacemonkey. If you fail to read his proof, then all bets are off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And you have rendered 'compulsion' meaningless and unfalsifiable. If it isn't always felt, then you have no grounds upon which to insist that there is always a strong compulsion to choose what is most preferable.
I never said that there is always a strong compulsion, but that doesn't mean you aren't moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. I don't feel a strong compulsion to come online and talk to you, but I get greater satisfaction from doing this than doing something else. Please read the following again. I don't know what you read and what you didn't, which is making me have to go back and repeat, and this isn't fair to everyone else who has already read these excerpts.

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If something is defined in two different ways, they both can't be right unless the word has two different meanings altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, definitions are not right or wrong, but only common or uncommon.
If someone comes up with a definition that one plus one is eleven, that is an uncommon definition, and it's also wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
His satisfaction principle is not compatible with hard determinism and causal indeterminism because the two can't exist together. The compatibalists were trying to make the two fit without there being a contradiction, but it's impossible because will cannot be free and not free at the same time, just like the earth cannot be round and flat at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Obviously I was saying that his satisfaction principle is compatible with either hard determinism or causal indeterminism, but not with both together at the same time. And no, compatibilists do not try to claim that hard determinism and causal indeterminism are both true.
It is not compatible with hard determinism and I already gave my explanation as to why it's not. I don't even understand your term "causal indeterminism" other than we can't predict what a person is going to choose in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is true, but this has nothing to do with libertarian free will, because our choices, once chosen, could not have been otherwise. After all this discussion, if you still don't see the difference between libertarian free will and Lessans' proof that we are compelled to choose that which gives us greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, this is a lost cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Our choices are not fixed meaning that up until the time a choice is made, we can change our minds. There is nothing that says I, as the agent who makes decisions, have to eat a banana for breakfast because it was determined beforehand. But once I make the choice to eat the banana, it could not have been otherwise because any other choice, at that moment, would have been in the direction of least satisfaction, which cannot be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And that's why his 'determinism' remains compatible with the causal indeterminism of libertarian free will, just like I said. Our choices are not fixed.
They're not fixed according to the definition of "hard" determinism because we're not robots that are pre-programmed, but our choices are never free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Free will is freedom to choose one of many options equally. That is the definition. I don't have to refer to someone other than Lessans to confirm that Lessans was right. If you can only choose that which is most preferable, it is obvious that you can only go in one direction. I'm giving you a challenge. If your will is free to choose one thing or another equally (without compulsion), then it should be very easy for you to stop coming to this thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So now you're back to begging me to leave your thread? How sad. Libertarian free will does not require that all choices be equally choosable, and certainly doesn't require us to be able to choose what we consider to be the worst available option.
That is a non-answer. Not only does it not require it; it never happens. This is exactly why your will is not free. You just proved Lessans right. :yup:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It does require that at least two options be genuinely choosable, but what you are missing here is that there is no way of independently specifying which will be most preferable.
Not empirically, but through observation, yes. Only you can know what is most preferable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Assume his principle correct, and assume libertarian indeterministic free will. Of two choices, A and B, in one possible world Bob might indeterministically select A as his direction of greater satisfaction. In another possible world he might instead select B as being in his direction of greater satisfaction. His free will might lie not in whether or not to choose the direction of greater satisfaction, but of indeterministically determining which option lies in that direction.
I think you are confusing quantum mechanics with this discovery. We're not talking about possible worlds. We're talking about this world. Theoretically if our circumstances were different in a parallel world, our choices would be different. But if our circumstances were the same, our choices would be exactly the same. There could be no parallel world where one's choices could be different. That's why there is no freedom of the will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That a man didn't have to do what he did is not compatible with not being able to choose what he thinks will be worse for himself because this means he couldn't choose otherwise. And if he couldn't choose otherwise, then he didn't have a choice to do other than what he did. In other words, if he couldn't choose choose what is worse for himself is proof that he could only go in one direction. You're all mixed up Spacemonkey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
That a man didn't have to do what he did requires that he could have done something else, but it doesn't require that he be able to do it while still thinking of the other first action as better.
That a man didn't have to do what he did required that he could have done something else is false under any circumstance. Thinking that another option is better requires that he choose that which he believes is better, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So he could have done otherwise without choosing what he thinks will be worse for himself simply by thinking that another action would be better.
This decision making process is not always conscious. He just weighs possible options and chooses what he thinks is the best option. Sometimes he isn't weighing options at all. He is constantly making mundane choices throughout the day which don't require contemplation. He is just moving from one spot to another.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. He could not have done otherwise. Right there you're logic is incorrect. If he chose something without thinking his choices through, he could mistakenly make a wrong choice. He will learn not to make the same mistake in the future [in the direction of greater satisfaction]. This doesn't change anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're just angry because you don't like that Lessans was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And you're just frustrated because you don't like that Lessans is so easily proven wrong. See how easy and pointless that is?
Please don't make me guffaw this early in the morning. I'll wake up the neighbors. :laugh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm not going to waste any more time on these long posts. The key point I intend to press you on is your justification of his unsupported premise concerning conscience.
So let's move on to his next premise. Thank you for your consideration not to make the posts so long, even if you have to break them into 3 or 4 posts. It's easier for me to answer that way.
Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 11-20-2011, 01:50 PM
Gonzo's Avatar
Gonzo Gonzo is offline
It's however you interpret the question...
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: On A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMMCDLVIII
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Wow. Over a 1000 posts on Part 2 already? :stunned:
__________________
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

:thanked:
Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 11-20-2011, 02:05 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
If someone comes up with a definition that one plus one is eleven, that is an uncommon definition, and it's also wrong.
Definitions of words and other language rules are descriptive of the ways native speakers use that language and therefore can change over time and words can hold contradictory meanings and they can all be correct.

Such as bad and sick. Both are used to denote negative and positive states in American English. Regional dialects feature constructions not found in the more "common" usage. There are many differences between the same language as spoken in different countries. Some words in one language are not translatable to other languages at all, and many translations are kinda close to each other in meaning at best, but not exact.

Math equations are not comparable to a living language in that manner, as math describes the relations and laws found in the universe. That's why math is often called the Universal language...it's the same for everyone all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 11-20-2011, 03:57 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...these principles are valid and sound because they work.
How do you know they work? What is your evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that we can create a world of peace is the best proof of all, isn't it?
That we can create a world of peace is not a fact until it happens. It hasn't happened so it is not yet a fact. It is a suppostion.
We can determine, through mathematical calculations, the exact time a car will reach its destination by knowing its speed and how far it has to travel (taking into consideration any delays that may occur). We can determine, through mathematical calculations, the liftoff thrust it takes to get a space shuttle into orbit. We can determine, through mathematical calculations, that there will one day be peace on earth.

Last edited by peacegirl; 11-20-2011 at 07:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 11-20-2011, 04:01 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gonzo View Post
Wow. Over a 1000 posts on Part 2 already? :stunned:
Gonzo, stop counting the hits, and start recognizing the truth of what I'm trying to share. American Idol had more hits than any T.V. show, but it was here and gone. This knowledge is not a popularity contest. This knowledge is here to stay because it is true, but it depends on your understanding to pass it along. That's why it is so important that you get why this discovery is undeniable so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Gonzo (11-20-2011)
  #1318  
Old 11-20-2011, 04:09 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

What makes you believe human psychological states are mathematically predicatable?
Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 11-20-2011, 04:38 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
What makes you believe human psychological states are mathematically predicatable?

Perhaps, because Lessans said so.
Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 11-20-2011, 04:40 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
What people think they see is notoriously innacurate. There are several examples from my own experience. I worked in an office and a group of us would walk to a local resturant for lunch, one day on the way back a large dog came running across a lawn toward us, I stopped and stood still and the owner called the dog back. When we got back to the office another person who was behind me related the encounter and said I had jumped about 3 feet in the air when the dog ran toward me. My feet never left the ground but I think the other person was startled and projected his reaction onto others.

A simple test for anyone who drives on the highway, and you can PM me your answers to avoid embarresment, "What Color is a Yield Sign" This may be getting a bit out of date with younger drivers but it illustrates that people don't always see what is in front of them.

Another time I was at an auction with my parents and we were getting something to eat and the person serving the food said something off color. My father later described my reactiion as that my eyes got as big as saucers, but I really had not even heard what was said and didn't react to that at all.

It is possible that some people just exagerate to make a good story and possibly Lessans was doing this as well. So answer my question and prove that you can actually see what you are looking at.

Is there no-one who will dare to attempt to answer this simple question, and possibly look silly.

(Is that better Vivisectus, I make no claim to be a good speller, and sometimes I'm just too lazy to look it up.)
Bunp.
No guts, no glory.
Reply With Quote
  #1321  
Old 11-20-2011, 04:50 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
If someone comes up with a definition that one plus one is eleven, that is an uncommon definition, and it's also wrong.
Definitions of words and other language rules are descriptive of the ways native speakers use that language and therefore can change over time and words can hold contradictory meanings and they can all be correct.
That is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Such as bad and sick. Both are used to denote negative and positive states in American English. Regional dialects feature constructions not found in the more "common" usage. There are many differences between the same language as spoken in different countries. Some words in one language are not translatable to other languages at all, and many translations are kinda close to each other in meaning at best, but not exact.
Very true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Math equations are not comparable to a living language in that manner, as math describes the relations and laws found in the universe. That's why math is often called the Universal language...it's the same for everyone all the time.
Exactly. That's why one plus one can never be eleven. :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #1322  
Old 11-20-2011, 04:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
What makes you believe human psychological states are mathematically predicatable?
This law doesn't predict psychological states. One can be happy or sad or in between and there is no way we can predict someone's mood, but we can predict that they would never want to hurt another when this universal law becomes a permanent condition of the environment. It is absolutely undeniable that under these changed conditions the desire to strike a first blow could never take place.

I'm trying to get you to see how this law (which could not have been discovered unless we went through the necessary developmental stages) causes a paradigm shift never before seen in the history of mankind. This is not a joke but it will not be taken seriously if the very philosophers who are needed to confirm this knowledge thumb their noses in absolute defiance before they even understand the undeniable relations involved. I hope you can see why I am so disappointed. This group is supposed to be the cream of the crop. :(

Last edited by peacegirl; 11-20-2011 at 09:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1323  
Old 11-20-2011, 07:19 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He doesn't have to prove that conscience works a certain way. He is describing how conscience works according to what he sees occurring. If I am a witness to an event --- and my description of what took place is accurate --- there is nothing to prove. There is a difference between proving and describing. If I saw someone go into someone's house and take out a flat screen t.v., I don't have to prove to the police what I saw for them to take my account seriously; I have to describe what I saw.
Of course he has to show that conscience does in fact work the way he claims. If it doesn't, then his whole argument and 'discovery' collapses. There are three problems with your response here:

i) If his claims were based on specific concrete observations of particular events then those remain unknown to us, as he neglected to share them with you or anyone else.

ii) That his description of what he observed was accurate is not a given here, and is precisely what you are being challenged to support. I couldn't defend my claim to have seen an extraterrestrial UFO simply by stating that I'm merely describing what I saw, and that my claim that it was in fact of extraterrestrial origin is therefore beyond rational criticism.

iii) His claim is not a particular one about what happened in any one given instance, but is rather a general claim about how conscience does and must work in all cases for all people. Thus no description (no matter how accurate) can establish it as absolutely certain. My accurate observation that a dropped ball falls towards the carpet under my feet does not establish the general rule that all objects gravitate towards carpet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That is not true Spacemonkey. He is not just stating something without seeing the evidence. If you keep denying that his observations mean anything, you will never understand this knowledge because you are expecting a different kind of proof; the kind that only meets your definition. A description of how something works can be proof if that description is accurate.
What I am asking you is precisely how he could know, and how you can know, that his 'description' was accurate. My point wasn't that he said something without seeing the evidence, but that he said it without providing the evidence. How can you know that he was right without knowing what actual observed evidence he was basing his claims on? Why can't you admit that this is just an article of faith for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
His observations are proof enough, but the final proof is that they work. You can't argue with success Spacemonkey, can you? Obviously, empirical evidence will be the final judge. I'm expending so much energy trying to prove to you that these principles are accurate, that I don't if we are ever going to get beyond the vestibule. :(
His 'observations' so far remain wholly unsupported and do not constitute any kind of 'proof'. No-one is arguing with success, as you don't have any. You do not have any kind of proof that his claims 'work'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that this is not obvious to anyone doesn't surprise me and cannot be used against him.
That his one and only faith-bound devoted disciple thinks he was smarter than everybody else can't be used as evidence supporting him, and shouldn't be used as an excuse for not properly addressing objections to his views.

My questions remain unanswered. His critical premise was this:

7) Conscience is innate and would be perfectly infallible were it not for the negative influence of our current practices of blame and punishment.

What I want to know is how he knew this to be true, and more importantly how you can know that he was right about this without having to rely upon faith. You have no answer to this because he didn't give you any evidence in support of it, and you have simply accepted this observation/assertion on faith.
2nd Bump.
Reply With Quote
  #1324  
Old 11-20-2011, 07:30 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...these principles are valid and sound because they work.
How do you know they work? What is your evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that we can create a world of peace is the best proof of all, isn't it?
That we can create a world of peace is not a fact until it happens. It hasn't happened so it is not yet a fact. It is a suppostion.
We can predict, through mathematics, that a car will approximately reach its destination if everything if nothing unexpected occurs. We can predict, through mathematics, that we will reach our destination in outer space. How else could man have landed on the moon? This ability to determine what will occur is based on mathematical laws. By the same token, by understanding the mathematical laws that govern our universe, the greater will be our chances of using that knowledge for our betterment.
So show the mathematics that predicts world peace. IOW, list the equations, plug in the numbers and show that the answer is peace.

BTW, what is the number of peace?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (11-21-2011)
  #1325  
Old 11-20-2011, 07:52 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

And your reasoning is more rational than Lessans? Interesting. :chin:
Of course it is. Everybody's reasoning is more rational than Lessans' "reasoning." In fact, there really is something amazing and unique about Lessans. It appears that he never got anything right, ever. He is probably the first man in history to be wrong about every single thing that he said.


When you think about it, that's quite an accomplishment in its own right. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then, but not Seymour!
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.67812 seconds with 14 queries