A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 28

LadyShea · #**676** 11-10-2011, 02:49 PM

What are you talking about peacegirl? People are discussing the premises...discussion does not automatically make Lessans wrong. Calm down.

Anyway rigorist, you can read the first two chapters and probably more here

ETA: Arguendo means "for the sake of argument", he's assuming the premise is valid and sound "for the sake of argument" and then going into clarification of terms. Again, this is what a serious scholarly discussion looks like.

rigorist · #**677** 11-10-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rigorist, I'm not going to go off into tangents. That would eliminate Lessans' proof, and it would mean nothing at all. Would you want me negate the truth just because it doesn't fit into your argument?

Well, that's sort of a problem right there. If Lessans's proof doesn't hold up to objections, questions, or "tangents", it's not a very useful proof.

All I've seen so far is the claim that humans move move in the direction of greater satisfaction. At this point, I'm poking at this claim to see what it means.

peacegirl · #**678** 11-10-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I offered rigorist a method of finding the book online. You are going off on tangents.

That's all well and good, and I thank you for passing the book on, but I doubt if this is going to help him understand these concepts any better without further explanation.

thedoc · #**679** 11-10-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

Anyway, why don't we just assume arguendo that humans move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

What is "move"?

What is "direction"?

What is "greater satisfaction"?

One of the answers to all three, according to Lessans, is simply to continue to live, if you read the section about suicide.

peacegirl · #**680** 11-10-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rigorist, I'm not going to go off into tangents. That would eliminate Lessans' proof, and it would mean nothing at all. Would you want me negate the truth just because it doesn't fit into your argument?

Well, that's sort of a problem right there. If Lessans's proof doesn't hold up to objections, questions, or "tangents", it's not a very useful proof.

All I've seen so far is the claim that humans move move in the direction of greater satisfaction. At this point, I'm poking at this claim to see what it means.

Very cool Rigorist. I just hope you have a mind of your own because everyone and his brother has a different opinion. This knowledge has nothing to do with opinions.

LadyShea · #**681** 11-10-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I offered rigorist a method of finding the book online. You are going off on tangents.

That's all well and good, and I thank you for passing the book on, but this has nothing to do with the discussion on this thread. I have no idea why you are changing subjects.

The first two chapters have nothing to do with the discussion when one of the participants wants to discuss those chapters?

Are you losing your mind?

thedoc · #**682** 11-10-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to go off into tangents, That would eliminate Lessans' proof.

She refuses to consider anything that contradicts the book, and will dismiss it out of hand.

LadyShea · #**683** 11-10-2011, 03:01 PM

Compare these sentences peacegirl

I observed Bob's limp
I observed Bob's greater satisfaction

How can one observe another person's subjective internal experience of greater satisfaction? It's not possible.

thedoc · #**684** 11-10-2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see what you have done? You have misconstrued EVERYTHING THAT LESSANS WROTE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A VENDETTEA AGAINST HIM WHEN HE SAYS WE SEE IN THE PRESENT. YOU WON'T ADMIT IT, BUT I HOPE PEOPLE HERE WILL UNDERSTAND THE SOURCE OF YOUR ANGER.

Peacegirl is seeing everything as an attack on her and Lessans, and is reacting, even to acts of kindness and helpfulness, with hostility and anger. Is it possible for her condition to get worse?

thedoc · #**685** 11-10-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you losing your mind?

Too late.

rigorist · #**686** 11-10-2011, 03:05 PM

OK, downloaded a bunch of pages from Shea' link. Looks like its most of the book.

LadyShea · #**687** 11-10-2011, 03:15 PM

Back to rigorist's actual point. There is no functional difference between these two statements

Humans move in the direction of greater satisfaction
Humans attempt to fulfill their desires and needs

This is not revolutionary, because what else would humans do?

davidm · #**688** 11-10-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

If it doesn't have nomadic war machine cruising through smooth space, it doesn't have the level of crazy that Deleuze achieves.

Well, it doesn't have that stuff, granted. But it's got the old in and out on the dinner table (if children are not present); translucent sex robes; instant sex after meeting followed by lifetime mating with divorce mathematically impossible; the mathematical certainty that couples will no longer share a bed; everyone running around scantily clad; mother making a scientific study of how to prepare the best damned spaghetti and meatballs for monday night dinner because Seymour likes spaghetti and meatballs; the radically diminished presence of homesexuals, and income equality for all. Well, that's for starters. So that is pretty nice in the megazany department.

Do you see what you have done? You have misconstrued EVERYTHING THAT LESSANS WROTE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A VENDETTEA AGAINST HIM WHEN HE SAYS WE SEE IN THE PRESENT. YOU WON'T ADMIT IT, BUT I HOPE PEOPLE HERE WILL UNDERSTAND THE SOURCE OF YOUR ANGER.

Hey, peacegirl, we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, which has been experimentally confirmed for hundreds of years. How does this square with Lessans' delusions that we see in real time? Inquiring minds want to know! :popcorn:

davidm · #**689** 11-10-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would eliminate Lessans' proof ...

davidm · #**690** 11-10-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I offered rigorist a method of finding the book online. You are going off on tangents.

That's all well and good, and I thank you for passing the book on, but this has nothing to do with the discussion on this thread. I have no idea why you are changing subjects.

You mean the way you changed the subject from the other thread, where you couldn't answer spacemonkey's questions about light or anyone's questions about the moons of Jupiter, to this thread, where you hope to evade all those questions you could not answer? :chin:

davidm · #**691** 11-10-2011, 03:27 PM

This thread did have some interesting early discussions on quantum mechanics, free will and determinism and other topics until peacegirl loused it up again. It would be nice to get back to those other topics, if others are interested.

davidm · #**692** 11-10-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

OK, downloaded a bunch of pages from Shea' link. Looks like its most of the book.

I suggest skipping to the juicy parts, like sexual behavior in The Golden Age and how Lessans sued President Carter for failing to grant him an audience in the Oval Office to show how to mathematically gain world peace. :yup:

LadyShea · #**693** 11-10-2011, 03:37 PM

david, start a thread about those topics, so we can have a discussion without peacegirl

LadyShea · #**694** 11-10-2011, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rigorist, I'm not going to go off into tangents. That would eliminate Lessans' proof, and it would mean nothing at all. Would you want me negate the truth just because it doesn't fit into your argument?

Well, that's sort of a problem right there. If Lessans's proof doesn't hold up to objections, questions, or "tangents", it's not a very useful proof.

All I've seen so far is the claim that humans move move in the direction of greater satisfaction. At this point, I'm poking at this claim to see what it means.

Very cool Rigorist. I just hope you have a mind of your own because everyone and his brother has a different opinion, and this will ruin the proof of determinism and the Golden Age of man that is inevitable as a consequence.

If his proof can be demonstrated as valid and sound then opinions cannot ruin it.

So far you have not demonstrated it as valid and sound, only asserted that it is so.

peacegirl · #**695** 11-10-2011, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rigorist, I'm not going to go off into tangents. That would eliminate Lessans' proof, and it would mean nothing at all. Would you want me negate the truth just because it doesn't fit into your argument?

Well, that's sort of a problem right there. If Lessans's proof doesn't hold up to objections, questions, or "tangents", it's not a very useful proof.

All I've seen so far is the claim that humans move move in the direction of greater satisfaction. At this point, I'm poking at this claim to see what it means.

I don't mind you poking around to see what it all means. I actually invite your questions, but what I don't like is people telling me that this is an assertion, which it isn't.

peacegirl · #**696** 11-10-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

If it doesn't have nomadic war machine cruising through smooth space, it doesn't have the level of crazy that Deleuze achieves.

Well, it doesn't have that stuff, granted. But it's got the old in and out on the dinner table (if children are not present); translucent sex robes; instant sex after meeting followed by lifetime mating with divorce mathematically impossible; the mathematical certainty that couples will no longer share a bed; everyone running around scantily clad; mother making a scientific study of how to prepare the best damned spaghetti and meatballs for monday night dinner because Seymour likes spaghetti and meatballs; the radically diminished presence of homesexuals, and income equality for all. Well, that's for starters. So that is pretty nice in the megazany department.

Rigorist, please don't listen to this guy. He is sooo angry because he doesn't like that I am challenging his belief that we don't just live in the present, but also the past and the future.

peacegirl · #**697** 11-10-2011, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rigorist, I'm not going to go off into tangents. That would eliminate Lessans' proof, and it would mean nothing at all. Would you want me negate the truth just because it doesn't fit into your argument?

Well, that's sort of a problem right there. If Lessans's proof doesn't hold up to objections, questions, or "tangents", it's not a very useful proof.

All I've seen so far is the claim that humans move move in the direction of greater satisfaction. At this point, I'm poking at this claim to see what it means.

Very cool Rigorist. I just hope you have a mind of your own because everyone and his brother has a different opinion, and this will ruin the proof of determinism and the Golden Age of man that is inevitable as a consequence.

If his proof can be demonstrated as valid and sound then opinions cannot ruin it.

So far you have not demonstrated it as valid and sound, only asserted that it is so.

I gave you his observations and you let it slip right by because, to you, it sounded like an assertion. You'll just have to accept that the first premise (we move in the direction of "greater" satisfaction") is valid and sound, otherwise you won't be interested in the rest of his proof which is fine with me. I cannot keep trying to prove to you that it's much more than a mere assertion. If you are so positive you understand what he wrote, then please answer the two questions I gave? I asked this question of David and he can't answer it.

How is Lessans definition of determinism different from hard determinism?

Why is this statement, "I did it of my own free will" not a contradiction?

LadyShea · #**698** 11-10-2011, 06:32 PM

Compare these sentences peacegirl

I observed Bob's limp
I observed Bob's greater satisfaction

How can one observe another person's subjective internal experience of greater satisfaction? It's not possible.

LadyShea · #**699** 11-10-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

If it doesn't have nomadic war machine cruising through smooth space, it doesn't have the level of crazy that Deleuze achieves.

Well, it doesn't have that stuff, granted. But it's got the old in and out on the dinner table (if children are not present); translucent sex robes; instant sex after meeting followed by lifetime mating with divorce mathematically impossible; the mathematical certainty that couples will no longer share a bed; everyone running around scantily clad; mother making a scientific study of how to prepare the best damned spaghetti and meatballs for monday night dinner because Seymour likes spaghetti and meatballs; the radically diminished presence of homesexuals, and income equality for all. Well, that's for starters. So that is pretty nice in the megazany department.

Rigorist, please don't listen to this guy. He is sooo angry because he doesn't like that I am challenging his belief that we don't just live in the present, but also the past and the future.

That is a bullshit strawman, and dishonest weasel peacegirl. davidm never stated or even implied that he believes "we live in the past and the future"

LadyShea · #**700** 11-10-2011, 06:35 PM

Quote:

You'll just have to accept that the first premise (we move in the direction of "greater" satisfaction") is valid and sound

Why on Earth should I accept it as valid and sound when it hasn't been shown to be either, in my opinion?

I don't care about your questions because until this foundational premise is shown to be valid and sound, the rest falls down.