A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Probably not, but I don't think that was the point. I am pretty sure that TLR's point was to counter peacegirl's claim that free will was one of those things that scientific minds accept as self-evident.

Exactly so.

[rigorist]

Whatever happened to his porn stash? You still have it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stuff on determinism for you to address

Originally Posted by dictionary

Cause:
the reason or motive for some human action
a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect

Okay.

Originally Posted by Lessans

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, not absolutely necessary at all, except in theology...which is the only field where the term free will is defended and probably originated.

As I have stated, I personally don't think "free will" even has any use or meaning outside of a theological context

This discussion of "free will" has everything to do with the future of humankind. You did not answer the sentence at all. In fact, I have no idea where you got from "the words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallcious relation" to "No, not absolutely necessary." This observation is not theoological, it is mathematical.

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nonsense. The complex interplay between emotions, thought processes, desires, and needs cause (motivate) people to do the things they do.

Who in the world said that it wasn't an interplay between these things? I don't even understand your argument.

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

So this compulsion cannot also be correctly called the cause (reason or motivation)? This seems to contradict his point that people are not caused to do what they do.

The cause is not coming from the past. If we were caused to do what we do, this would remove all responsibility. Do you at least get that? If you do, we can delve into this further, if not, we cannot move on.

Originally Posted by Lessans

Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from previous experience.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Adding knowledge gained from experiences of course informs the motivational factors, the reasons, that people do things. This learning is also part of the antecedent state of affairs that can be correctly termed as causal.

No, that's what he is trying to tell us. Cause implies no agent. It also means that four is not the cause of two plus two. That is the example he gave for very good reason; IT'S NOT TRUE. FOUR AS THE END POINT OF TWO PLUS TWO IS THAT ALREADY. TO SAY THAT FOUR IS CAUSED BY TWO PLUS TWO IS FALSE. TRY TO GET WHAT I'M SAYING SO WE CAN GO FORWARD, OR ELSE WE'RE IN DEEP TROUBLE.

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort

Oh really? Show me where.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No incompatibility here.

Actually, it does.

LadyShea, I respect your questions very much. I know you are trying to grasp these principles. I hope you stick with me because we are getting close to an "aha" moment. Don't give up.

Originally Posted by Lessans

According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have mathematical control.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The previous events, circumstances, environment, genetics etc. (antecedent states of affairs) are the cause (reason for, motivation for, producer of) the desire to NOT do something, just as they are the cause of desires to do something.

No, they present conditions that create a desire to choose one thing over another, but when you use the word "cause" it implies that something other than you is responsible for YOUR decisions. That is a false conclusion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So again, I don't see how Lessans ideas are incompatible with various other forms of determinism

If you keep questioning, I believe you will in time. I hope so.

It is implied that there is no will, or agency, if all our decisions are made for us by previous events.

If determinism states that something caused us to do what we did, that would mean something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are multiple definitions of and schools of thought on determinism, and you are focusing on only one and concluding that all are incompatible with Lessans.

That's fallacious and unsound reasoning, and irrational argumentation.

Why would it be unsound if Lessans' reasoning is the most sound of all.

People are able to change "the state of affairs" as new experiences and information come in. That's why the standard definition is not adequate because it implies there is no going off the fixed course that has been set for us since we were born. But this again does not does mean we have "free" choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is this, or is this not a standard definition?

Yes, and that's the problem. Lessans' actually reconciles "free will" with "determinism" which no one has done at present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This definition allows for going off the fixed course because the state of affairs are in a constant state of flux.

That's exactly right, and what Lessans is saying, but just because we can go off course does not mean our will is free since every option, in the here and now, must move in the direction of what gives us "greater satisfaction." It's impossible to choose anything other than this. In other words, it's a one way street. If you grasp this, you will allow me to move on. If not, the game is over. It's that critical.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by rigorist

Is it true that Lessans fapped to some creepy porn?

Originally Posted by rigorist

Whatever happened to his porn stash? You still have it?

Atta boy! Keep up the fight. Maybe you will be the first person she ever puts on real ignore, as opposed to her usual pretend ignore. Don't, however, hold your breath.

[LadyShea]

Can you not read? If you parse Lessans sentence correctly, he is saying it was absolutely necessary to develop the concept of free will to give meaning to the words cause and compel.

it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their (the words cause and compel) opposite

I explained that no, it was not absolutely necessary and that I think the concept of free will was developed by theologians and has no meaning or use outside of the discussion of man's relationship to God. In my experience, nobody else but religious apologists gives a shit about free will.

Again, can you read? Lessans said "Nothing causes" I refuted that by saying that "Something causes" and defined "something" as "The complex interplay between emotions, thought processes, desires, and needs"

What is difficult to understand about that?

I am saying that the present "state of affairs" is an effect of past states of affairs, and that easily fits in the definition of cause I posted and to which you responded "okay"

There is no removal of responsibility inherent in the definition of cause or in the standard definition of determinism that you agreed to.

You are arguing a strawman definition and position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cause implies no agent.

No, it doesn't. That's my whole point. You believe it implies that because Lessans said it did, but there is no such implication inherent in the definition or common understanding of "cause".

No, it does not. What makes you think the implication is there other than "Lessans said so"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, they present conditions that create a desire to choose one thing over another, but when you use the word "cause" it implies that something other than you is responsible for YOUR decisions. That is a false conclusion.

Your conclusion is false because no such implication exists, except in your mind.

My conclusion is sound.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are multiple definitions of and schools of thought on determinism, and you are focusing on only one and concluding that all are incompatible with Lessans.

That's fallacious and unsound reasoning, and irrational argumentation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would it be unsound if Lessans' reasoning is the most sound of all.

1. Lessans reasoning was not sound. It makes a faulty assumption that "the word "cause" it implies that something other than you is responsible for YOUR decisions".

2. Limiting your comparison to only one form of determinism (or one view), amongst many, specifically a view that nobody you are debating or discussing with holds, is a form of strawman argument. You are debating with people that aren't here...that's fallacious and irrational argumentation on your part.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is this, or is this not a standard definition?

Determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, and that's the problem. Lessans' actually reconciles "free will" with "determinism" which no one has done at present.

There is no problem. The above definition encompasses many forms of determinism and does not remove responsibility or agency...why you think it does is still in question.

Who are you arguing with? I have not said once that our will is free, nor have I been arguing for the position that our will is free.

I am showing where the standard definition and various forms of determinism are not incompatible with Lessans ideas at all, nor do his ideas lend any additional information or understanding to the topic. Nothing revolutionary here at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am fascinated by the sheer transparent arrogance of this grown man trying to play professor. The way he tries to make the book sound important, and just makes himself sound like a muppet. The way he blames any disagreement squarely on the reader, never even entertaining the notion that he may have missed something. It is all made enjoyable by the fact that at the same time he was such an enormous bumbler, blissfully unaware of how dumb he was making himself look. Like inspector Clouseau, only without the luck.

All that defended by someone who is about as intelligent as the author, the only person in the entire world who really believes he was anything else than a self-important crackpot.

Whats not to like?

This is exactly the kind of post I will having nothing to do with from this point forward.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As has already been pointed out, Quacks often believe wholeheartedly they are disseminating truth or beneficial products. Frauds misrepresent products or services.

Some frauds use quackery, and some quacks use fraudulent marketing, but they are not synonyms.

The difference between "frauds" and "quacks" in the new world passes through the eye of a needle, because no one will be either frauds or quacks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you mislabeled YOURSELF. You asked me that question, I didn't as it of you.

You're right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maturin hasn't actually misquoted Lessans. You may not like his interpretations, but that doesn't make what he says false.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then where did that extra sentence come from since it was not in the book?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think it is in the book and you are lying because you know I can't check that chapter.

Adding his own words is just as bad as misquoting. Paaaleeeeaaasee give me a break.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, peacegirl quoted the introduction in Lessans' book, which includes a long, incorrectly formatted quote from Milton. It's either Lessans or peacegirl who is butthurting, regardless of the source of the text.

Where was it incorrectly formatted? I'll take any help I can get. I was the one that put this quote in because I felt it added to the discussion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference between "frauds" and "quacks" in the new world passes through the eye of a needle, because both types will become extinct.

How will quacks become extinct?

A quack is someone who offers medical advice or health services/products they purport to be beneficial, though the efficacy or beneficence has not been confirmed by mainstream medicine or science.

You, yourself, side with quacks on the vaccination issue.

Many, maybe even most, quacks believe they are offering sound advice and doing no harm at all, both of which are allowable in Lessans Golden Age, correct?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Adding his own words is just as bad as misquoting. Paaaleeeeaaasee give me a break. I have no reason to lie.

At the time he originally posted it in June you didn't say that words had been added to the quote or that the quoted passage was incorrect in any way.

[Lettice]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, please don't post if you're going to be another doc or natural.atheist. I'll just put you on ignore. If you have a pertinent question, fine, but I'm not going to defend how he was able to come to these conclusions based on his keen observations. To break his train of thought to explain to me what these observations were would have been inappropriate. As a young child, I trusted him which allowed me to actually listen with an open mind, which you are not doing. The bottom line is that he was very insightful and was able to describe exactly how conscience works because of his voracious reading. He saw a common thread that is universal. I call that a pattern. The task of not only recognizing the significance of these observations but to get them down on paper was enormous. And you are demanding more of this man? I think you should not display your ignorance so blatantly.

Wow! Thanks for that hurt about my ignorance. Another sleepless night ahead crying into my pillow.

I am more than happy to have an open mind about his keen observations - my only request is that I would like to know where he saw this common thread that is universal. I would like to re-trace his steps to see if I would draw the same conclusions. What exactly is wrong with that?

I appreciate that I may not be as astute as Lessans but would like to see how he came to his discovery myself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Lettice

Wow! Thanks for that hurt about my ignorance. Another sleepless night ahead crying into my pillow.

I really think you should not feel so bad about Peacegirl's hurtful comment about your ignorance, after all everyone is ignorant about something. Now putting you in the same category as myself and Natural Athiest is really hurtful, and I do not understand why Davidm and Stephen Maturin were left out, that will be hurtful to them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference between "frauds" and "quacks" in the new world passes through the eye of a needle, because both types will become extinct.

That's a lot of people to kill off, have you appointed an executioner yet?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Atta boy! Keep up the fight. Maybe you will be the first person she ever puts on real ignore, as opposed to her usual pretend ignore. Don't, however, hold your breath.

Are you sirius She can't even get quote tags right and ignore is a bit more complicated than that, Hell, I can even do quote tags, how hard can it be? I don't use ignore, so that should tell you something, - like it's time for my nap.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure, then they become supported assertions and/or valid claims.

Right, but instead of embracing the possibility that something could be true (and gaining something from the teaching while waiting on the proof), you reject it outright, which creates a very linear world in my view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously Miss Open Mind, how much did you study Scientology before concluding it was a cult? Have you investigated Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, faith healing, astrology, spirit channeling, astral travel, Christianity, and the type of magic Wiccans and others believe to be possible? What is your critical analysis of all of them? What led you to conclude they are or are not true?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because they are not proven at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you know that? What critical analysis did you do? What criteria do you use to analyze claims?

The premises do not match up to reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And a lot of them have a very dark side meaning they are destructive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Truth is not sometimes dark and destructive?

Not the truth I'm referring to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was right. Certain things appear self-evident to "scientific" minds

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Give a specific example of something "scientific" minds accept as self-evident.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Hmm, I have hung around skeptics and science minded people and actual scientists for over a decade, and have family in this group as well like my dad, and not a single one has ever told me they hold to "free will". They are all some form of determinist, especially under the rather widely encompassing definition of "antecedent state of affairs" definition.

Has anyone in this group at argued for libertarian free will?

Well at least we have some common denominator to work with. But there are many who believe that free will is true because, in their mind, direct perception shows it to be self-evident. I don't know if you read the quote by Richard Milton since you think he's a fraud, but it certainly applies:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction: pp. 10-11

I believe that something very similar is true of parts of western
science today. It actually contains some wildly improbable theories —
as improbable as elephants holding up the Earth. Yet these theories
appear to represent a reasonable view because they offer a natural
sounding mechanism explanation that seems consonant with common
sense and our essentially limited experience and understanding of the
world.

Whole areas of the western scientific model come in this
category: theories that seem as solid as rock and, indeed, are the
foundations of much of western thinking, yet in reality are at best
unsubstantiated and at worst no more than superstitions: there are
many examples of Earth beliefs that have been exported the world
over. But why should any rational person — let alone a trained
scientist — accept such beliefs? One especially strange aspect of
belief in western culture is that we habitually use the word belief to
mean two entirely different things depending on whether we are
speaking of belief in an everyday sense (I believe in parliamentary
democracy) or in the scientific sense (I believe in the atomic theory of
matter).

It is normal in our culture to take the second statement as
meaning that the empirical evidence and theoretical background of
atomic theory are such that any rational person who analyzes the facts
must be compelled to accept the theory. We also think that this
process of ‘scientific’ acceptance is different in kind from the ordinary
acceptance of everyday things: a person might be right or wrong to
believe in the value and the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy
because it is a matter of opinion, but he or she cannot be wrong to
believe in atomic theory because it is a matter of fact. Yet the
psychological process of acceptance is actually the same in each case:
it rests simply on the fact that the conclusion seems to be irresistible,
even to the well-informed mind.

This appearance of being irresistible
can in itself be a self-evident justification for belief — just as it is
‘obvious’ that two and two must make four, and just as it was obvious
to Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat. The problem that this
psychological process can present, as we saw earlier, arises because our
perception — and hence what appears obvious — is to some extent
determined by our beliefs.

It means that all observers, scientists as
well as savages, employ a kind of mental inertial guidance navigation
system which takes over our routine mental processing; an intellectual
autopilot whose perpetual heading is star of our convictions, and
which filters our perceptions to ensure that they conform to those
convictions. It is as though our perceptions reach our minds through
a screen — a matrix that is dynamically adaptive to our world view
and that can selectively modify the contents of our field of vision in
the service of that world view.”

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there are many who believe that free will is true because, in their mind, direct perception shows it to be self-evident. I don't know if you read the quote by Richard Milton since you think he's a fraud, but it certainly applies:

But those "many" are not here at and there's no reason to think that the "many" you are referring to includes any large percentage of "science minded people" as you claimed.

Milton makes claims like this, too yet fails to provide any specific examples.

Originally Posted by Milton

Whole areas of the western scientific model come in this
category: theories that seem as solid as rock and, indeed, are the
foundations of much of western thinking, yet in reality are at best
unsubstantiated and at worst no more than superstitions:

What theories is he referring to?

Originally Posted by Milton

there are many examples of Earth beliefs that have been exported the world
over.

WTF is an "Earth belief"?

Originally Posted by Milton

But why should any rational person — let alone a trained
scientist — accept such beliefs?

Such beliefs as what?

This is why I call him a fraud...what the hell is he criticizing exactly?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Lettice

Wow! Thanks for that hurt about my ignorance. Another sleepless night ahead crying into my pillow.

I am more than happy to have an open mind about his keen observations - my only request is that I would like to know where he saw this common thread that is universal. I would like to re-trace his steps to see if I would draw the same conclusions. What exactly is wrong with that?

I appreciate that I may not be as astute as Lessans but would like to see how he came to his discovery myself.

If you asked me in the tone you're asking me now, I would have gladly answered you, but your last sentence in that post was quite sarcastic. If you've been here awhile, you should know that I cannot trace his every step. You'll have to work with the knowledge that I have, and go from there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But those "many" are not here at and there's no reason to think that the "many" you are referring to includes any large percentage of "science minded people".

I was responding to Richard Milton's quote because I believe he was right.

"The problem that this
psychological process can present, as we saw earlier, arises because our
perception — and hence what appears obvious — is to some extent
determined by our beliefs. It means that all observers, scientists as
well as savages, employ a kind of mental inertial guidance navigation
system which takes over our routine mental processing; an intellectual
autopilot whose perpetual heading is star of our convictions, and
which filters our perceptions to ensure that they conform to those
convictions. It is as though our perceptions reach our minds through
a screen — a matrix that is dynamically adaptive to our world view
and that can selectively modify the contents of our field of vision in
the service of that world view.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there are many who believe that free will is true because, in their mind, direct perception shows it to be self-evident. I don't know if you read the quote by Richard Milton since you think he's a fraud, but it certainly applies:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But those "many" are not here at and there's no reason to think that the "many" you are referring to includes any large percentage of "science minded people" as you claimed.

Milton makes claims like this, too yet fails to provide any specific examples.

Originally Posted by Milton

Whole areas of the western scientific model come in this
category: theories that seem as solid as rock and, indeed, are the
foundations of much of western thinking, yet in reality are at best
unsubstantiated and at worst no more than superstitions:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What theories is he referring to?

Please read the whole quote and get back to me. I forget what page it's on.

Originally Posted by Milton

there are many examples of Earth beliefs that have been exported the world
over.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF is an "Earth belief"?

I assume it's a belief that appears irresistible based on our limited view of the world.

Originally Posted by Milton

But why should any rational person — let alone a trained
scientist — accept such beliefs?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Such beliefs as what?

This is why I call him a fraud...what the hell is he criticizing exactly?

He made a lot of sense. He was making a general statement regarding the bias he sees in some scientific circles (not all). Once again, you are too quick to condemn before even understanding what someone is saying. That, to me, is the antithesis of good scientific investigation.

“We are
living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which important new
discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are being ridiculed and
rejected for reasons that are not scientific. Something precious and
irreplaceable is under attack. Our academic liberty — our freedom of
thought — is being threatened by an establishment that chooses to
turn aside new knowledge unless it comes from their own scientific
circles. Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the
gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has
a two thousand year record of success not because it has been guarded
by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating."

[LadyShea]

He's not saying anything though! He is criticizing something he says is happening, but with no specifics or examples, it is just vacuous butthurt.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Milton

“We are living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which important new
discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are being ridiculed and
rejected for reasons that are not scientific.

What important new discoveries is he referring to?

[LadyShea]

Anyway back to your claim that science minded people accept free will as self evident. On what do you base that statement?

[Lettice]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you asked me in the tone you're asking me now, I would have gladly answered you, but your last sentence in that post was quite sarcastic. If you've been here awhile, you should know that I cannot trace his every step. You'll have to work with the knowledge that I have, and go from there.

I'm sorry? What was sarcastic about that last sentence? You've repeatedly said how insightful and astute Lessans was - hence my comment that I may not be astute as him. I can't judge his astuteness and compare it with my own until you answer my question unfortunately.

And as I have now told you I was not being sarky will you please answer said question? Thanks!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Adding his own words is just as bad as misquoting. Paaaleeeeaaasee give me a break.

Except yesterday you were compelled to admit that I didn't add anything. As usual, you're having difficulty keeping your bullshit straight. It is the alcoholism, the pathological lying, or a combination of both?