A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 38

LadyShea · #**926** 11-13-2011, 02:59 PM

So stop talking to me.

peacegirl · #**927** 11-13-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I am contacting other people who may have the kudos to allow me to speak

Another one for the collector

You are vicious LadyShea in your demure sweet way. Ughhhhhhhhhhh

LadyShea · #**928** 11-13-2011, 03:01 PM

Vicious? I am vicious? You really are the epitome of hubris.

Thx for the new user title.

naturalist.atheist · #**929** 11-13-2011, 03:02 PM

Is anyone keeping count of the number of times peacegirl has left?

peacegirl · #**930** 11-13-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That said, I am sorry I have upset everyone's worldview which has caused people to become very defensive. That's the only thing that can explain why people have been so volatile.

Yes, that is the only way you can explain it, in order to keep your self delusions alive.

Everyone else explains it this way: people become "volatile" when they encounter deliberate liars, twisters of fact, charlatans, hucksters, and the wilfully ignornat. It does provoke one when you come traipsing in here and fertilize nearly 600 pages with Lessans' crap, while outright refusing to read The Lone Ranger's 35-page essay on how light and sight actually work.

You are so invested in your worldview, any competition is to be squashed. I can't compete for that reason because you have a one track mind. I am not here to argue with you David. I am here to be strong in my convictions. I don't care what you think because your convictions only mean that you are invested in your way of thinking. It proves nothing conclusively. Therefore, it means nothing as far as reality is concerned.

peacegirl · #**931** 11-13-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Vicious? I am vicious? You really are the epitome of hubris.

Thx for the new user title.

You are vicious in your protection of your worldview, which is ironically in agreement with everyone else's worldview in this thread. There is no diverson or you are squashed. No wonder no one speaks. You are the Gestapo of freethought-forum.

rigorist · #**932** 11-13-2011, 03:07 PM

Looks like Godwin came to visit. And, as usual, didn't bring any damn pie.

Fucking Godwin.

LadyShea · #**933** 11-13-2011, 03:13 PM

Quote:

You are the Gestapo of freethought-forum

Oh man competing user titles. Should I go for the sweetly vicious or the Jackboots?

naturalist.atheist · #**934** 11-13-2011, 03:19 PM

Why not both?

LadyShea · #**935** 11-13-2011, 03:28 PM

peacegirl, like all the fundies and woos before you, and surely those to come after, you can't even entertain the possibility that you may adhere to nonsense, and you can't support your ideas rationally or empirically, so must retreat to your safe delusion that everyone else is closed minded and threatened by you and your ideas.

You are one of a multitude for all your talk of revolutionary ideas.

As for threats to my worldview, naturalism allows for all things that can be repeatedly and universally observed and demonstrated to be a part of reality. It's hard to threaten something so very flexible and accommodating.

naturalist.atheist · #**936** 11-13-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At the risk of being laughed at by David, I just want to say that this thread has only resolved my determination to prove Lessans right. That said, I am sorry I have upset everyone's worldview which has caused people to become very defensive. That's the only thing that can explain why people have been so volatile. I do not retract anything Lessans has said. I retract something that was said IF IT WAS INADVERTENTLY MISINTERPRETED. There is a big difference.

Don't fret peacegirl. You are receiving the reaction that any mental patient allowed to post on the internet would get. It's not directed at you, its directed at your mental illness.

Quote:

I may read different threads because it's hard to make a clean break. I feel for anyone who is feeling a loss at the close of this thread. I do not want to discuss Lessans' discovery anymore (I'm sorry for the inevitable detox for those who have been faithful readers), but please rest assured that you will not have to hear any more of his proof as sound as it is. I realize that people here believe all he had was a mere assertion which is causing all the hoopla. Regardless, I don't want to continue this discussion because the venue won't allow me to. Just know I may come here from time to time to read or respond to other posts in an effort to get my mind off of this discovery and to allow me to go on living as usual. In the meantime I am contacting other people who may have the kudos to allow me to speak before telling me he was wrong and using their "intelligence" to make that determination.

I'm sure there are many here who will feel a loss at the close of this thread (not that threads ever really close here). But I don't think you will find their reasons flattering.

I must say that I am surprised that we will not be hearing "any more of his proof as sound as it is" because I was not aware that you have offered any proof. All you have done is quote Lessans, and the only thing his quotes prove is what a crackpot he was. You've been told numerous times that you will have to provide evidence we can confirm either ourselves or from disinterested third parties in order for it to even be considered as proof. But I doubt this will ever register with you because it would mean that you would have to accept what others present as proof that Lessans was wrong, and you just can't do that. Proof you see is a double edged sword. Actual proof has the ability to not only support your claim but to discredit it.

Now peacegirl, lets be honest here. No one is stopping you from posting here till they have to pry your cold dead hands off the keyboard. You leave of your own accord. If you are not getting the reception you fantasize then perhaps you should look for an imaginary forum to make your case. I am sure you will get a much better reception there. But based on your past performances, nobody here takes this swansong seriously. If on the off chance you are leaving, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

LadyShea · #**937** 11-13-2011, 04:56 PM

Back to some of the other discussions. I still am not convinced the free will vs. determinism debate is all that meaningful from the viewpoint of metaphysical naturalism. davidm (I think) mentioned that, functionally, if we are able to contemplate alternative outcomes and take circumstances into consideration when making choices, that is pretty much free will...even if the underlying processes of that contemplation are determined by ones unique neural functioning, as I believe to be the case and is evidenced by neuroscience measuring subconscious decision making slightly prior to the conscious knowledge of the decision.

From a philosophical standpoint, why is it a meaningful discussion to have if we aren't discussing it in a theological context? The mental illness, compulsions, etc. can all be talked about within a framework of neuroscience and the actions/choices aspects can be better discussed as ethics.

thedoc · #**938** 11-13-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the meantime I am contacting other people who may have the kudos to allow me to speak before telling me he was wrong and using their "intelligence" to make that determination.

You definately need to contact people who will not use their 'intelligence'.

You could start with 'Dumb and Dumber'.

thedoc · #**939** 11-13-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Is anyone keeping count of the number of times peacegirl has left?

How many pages have there been?

naturalist.atheist · #**940** 11-13-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Back to some of the other discussions. I still am not convinced the free will vs. determinism debate is all that meaningful from the viewpoint of metaphysical naturalism.

Do you mean to say that "free will" is not a scientific concept?

LadyShea · #**941** 11-13-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Do you mean to say that "free will" is not a scientific concept?

Maybe, maybe not. Really I guess it depends on the definition being used. I think it's got a lot of historical and theological baggage, though, and could be scrapped for something else.

I mean, what is the term meant to actually describe? The ability to weigh circumstances and predict consequences and filter information through your own values to see if there is a match isn't most accurately called "free will" is it?

peacegirl · #**942** 11-13-2011, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

Looks like Godwin came to visit. And, as usual, didn't bring any damn pie.

Fucking Godwin.

I happened to scroll back and read your rebuttal. You argued over every one of his points. None of them were correct, so who cares about the damn pie.

naturalist.atheist · #**943** 11-13-2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Do you mean to say that "free will" is not a scientific concept?

Maybe, maybe not. Really I guess it depends on the definition being used. I think it's got a lot of historical and theological baggage, though, and could be scrapped for something else.

Historically the term "free will" appears to mean 'free from the will of god' in that we are free to "believe" in god or not. In that sense there is "free will".

Quote:

I mean, what is the term meant to actually describe? The ability to weigh circumstances and predict consequences and filter information through your own values to see if there is a match isn't most accurately called "free will" is it?

What you describe here looks to me like it might better be called "will".

naturalist.atheist · #**944** 11-13-2011, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

Looks like Godwin came to visit. And, as usual, didn't bring any damn pie.

Fucking Godwin.

I happened to scroll back and read your rebuttal. You argued over every one of his points. None of them were correct, so who cares about the damn pie.

And still no pie.

peacegirl · #**945** 11-13-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Back to some of the other discussions. I still am not convinced the free will vs. determinism debate is all that meaningful from the viewpoint of metaphysical naturalism. davidm (I think) mentioned that, functionally, if we are able to contemplate alternative outcomes and take circumstances into consideration when making choices, that is pretty much free will...even if the underlying processes of that contemplation are determined by ones unique neural functioning, as I believe to be the case and is evidenced by neuroscience measuring subconscious decision making slightly prior to the conscious knowledge of the decision.

From a philosophical standpoint, why is it a meaningful discussion to have if we aren't discussing it in a theological context?

Because this is not theology. This is a scientific discovery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The mental illness, compulsions, etc. can all be talked about within a framework of neuroscience and the actions/choices aspects can be better discussed as ethics.

Ladyshea, who is talking about anything metaphysical? This all has to do with the brain, which is material. The fact that David says we can contemplate when making choices which means we have free will shows me he understood nothing that Lessans wrote. That's why I asked him how did Lessans' definition of determinism differ from hard determinism. He never answered. Nor was he able to answer why there is no contradiction when saying "I did something of my own free will." I guess he didn't want to proven wrong.

rigorist · #**946** 11-13-2011, 06:32 PM

When come back bring pie.

peacegirl · #**947** 11-13-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the meantime I am contacting other people who may have the kudos to allow me to speak before telling me he was wrong and using their "intelligence" to make that determination.

You definately need to contact people who will not use their 'intelligence'.

You could start with 'Dumb and Dumber'.

Why do I have to do that when you are Dumbest? :eek:

peacegirl · #**948** 11-13-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

When come back bring pie.

You don't deserve a pie until you correct your mistakes. :sadcheer:

naturalist.atheist · #**949** 11-13-2011, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Back to some of the other discussions. I still am not convinced the free will vs. determinism debate is all that meaningful from the viewpoint of metaphysical naturalism. davidm (I think) mentioned that, functionally, if we are able to contemplate alternative outcomes and take circumstances into consideration when making choices, that is pretty much free will...even if the underlying processes of that contemplation are determined by ones unique neural functioning, as I believe to be the case and is evidenced by neuroscience measuring subconscious decision making slightly prior to the conscious knowledge of the decision.

From a philosophical standpoint, why is it a meaningful discussion to have if we aren't discussing it in a theological context?

Because this is not theology. This is a scientific discovery.

Except there is no science in it and you ask us to accept it on faith.

peacegirl · #**950** 11-13-2011, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Do you mean to say that "free will" is not a scientific concept?

Maybe, maybe not. Really I guess it depends on the definition being used. I think it's got a lot of historical and theological baggage, though, and could be scrapped for something else.

I mean, what is the term meant to actually describe? The ability to weigh circumstances and predict consequences and filter information through your own values to see if there is a match isn't most accurately called "free will" is it?

I have NA on ignore and didn't realize you were responding to him. I want to add that this discovery does not remove the agent, which means that the will is still intact. It's just not a free will. We are able to weigh circumstances, predict consequences, and filter information through our own values in a deterministic context. That's the whole point of his first chapter. You either didn't read the excerpts I posted, or you didn't take the time to really understand what was written. I didn't think we would have a problem because you already believe man's will is not free. Actually, you don't have to understand his reasoning as to why man's will is not free to move forward with the book. I do hope you read it one day.