A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say that, but feel free to post my quote where you think I said that in case I forgot.

You've talked enough crap about Lessans. Your fake correction won't mean a dam thing. You have been very narrow in your conclusions LadyShea, and you are way too big for your britches. You really don't know that much, but you think you do. You are now the think tank of freethought-forum. Give me a break. Guess that's why you're in this group. You against the world of woos. Makes you feel real important doesn't it. Haaaa

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You must have had a really neat childhood.

It had its moments, I used to play Mumblety Peg with my brother and his friends who were all older, I got pretty good at it so I didn't have to pull the peg out of the ground with my teeth.

I think I learned something about animal cruelty that they never learned. Once they found a chipmonk on the side of a tree and were just shooting at it to terrorize it, they were a bit upset when I shot and killed it outright. Another time they had a crow tied to a post on top of a sawdust pile and would take turns just shooting at it without killing it, I didn't take part in that, I was a bit turned off by it.

When I was born my brother was all excited that he would have someone to play with, but as I grew up and had different attitudes and interests he became more of a jerk. Hasn't changed much and his wife hates me, which is OK with me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay Spacemonkey, you won. This discovery is flawed, and you saved everyone from being hoodwinked.

Well, thank you for another fake concession before your next fake departure.

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong about Lessans defining "greater satisfaction", and that you are not actually able to offer a definition that would render his satisfaction principle non-tautological?

Is basic honesty really that much of a challenge for you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've talked enough crap about Lessans. Your fake correction won't mean a dam thing. You have been very narrow in your conclusions LadyShea, and you are way too big for your britches. You really don't know that much, but you think you do. You are now the think tank of freethought-forum. Give me a break. Guess that's why you're in this group. You against the world of woos. Makes you feel real important doesn't it. Haaaa

You are raving in your snit.

And lol, you fancy yourself the bringer of world peace, who likes to feel important?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you clinched it. I'm talking to morons. I hate to say that but those are my feelings. I've taken enough abuse and now it's over. You absolutely crushed any desire left in me to move forward. Who the hell are you Seebs? Are you that egocentric that you now know more than the author? You came into this thread late and now you have the nerve to tell me that there are no premises? You are the biggest jerk as far as I'm concerned, but you're no match for natural.atheist.

Many years ago I read an account by Issac Asimov where he sat in on a college class on Science Fiction stories. The particular class was about some of the stories that he had written, and the professor was expounding on the meaning and motivation of the author. Asimov spoke up and corrected several points and the professor asked who did he think he was to correct him and was told that Asimov had written the stories. The professor snapped back "What makes you think you know anything about this, you just wrote the story" implying that he wrote it without any understanding of what he was writing. Critics usually think themselves superior to the author in understanding the work, and this can be true because they are not emotionally invested in the work and can see it for what it is. Lessans and Peacegirl are much too close to the work to have any realistic understanding of the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, thank you for another fake concession before your next fake departure.

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong about Lessans defining "greater satisfaction", and that you are not actually able to offer a definition that would render his satisfaction principle non-tautological?

Is basic honesty really that much of a challenge for you?

You're so completely wrong about this discovery that I hope you never get your hands on it. That's very sad to say, but it's true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Many years ago I read an account by Issac Asimov where he sat in on a college class on Science Fiction stories. The particular class was about some of the stories that he had written, and the professor was expounding on the meaning and motivation of the author. Asimov spoke up and corrected several points and the professor asked who did he think he was to correct him and was told that Asimov had written the stories. The professor snapped back "What makes you think you know anything about this, you just wrote the story" implying that he wrote it without any understanding of what he was writing. Critics usually think themselves superior to the author in understanding the work, and this can be true because they are not emotionally invested in the work and can see it for what it is. Lessans and Peacegirl are much too close to the work to have any realistic understanding of the book.

Think what you must. I'm too exhausted from the onslaught of unwarranted attack on this man and myself to even care what you, or anyone else, has to say.

[LadyShea]

I'm too exhausted from the onslaught of unwarranted attack on this man and myself to even care what you, or anyone else, has to say

Yet here you are reading what people have to say.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've talked enough crap about Lessans. Your fake correction won't mean a dam thing. You have been very narrow in your conclusions LadyShea, and you are way too big for your britches. You really don't know that much, but you think you do. You are now the think tank of freethought-forum. Give me a break. Guess that's why you're in this group. You against the world of woos. Makes you feel real important doesn't it. Haaaa

- '7' - You need more profanity to get a higher score.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh shut up thedoc. I'm sick of hearing your whining. Your just as bad as natural.atheist, and now you have lost the chance to learn about a major discovery. I am done with you.

Promise?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, thank you for another fake concession before your next fake departure.

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong about Lessans defining "greater satisfaction", and that you are not actually able to offer a definition that would render his satisfaction principle non-tautological?

Is basic honesty really that much of a challenge for you?

Define Honesty? - Really if she believes what she says then she is being honest, at least to herself. It is Reality that is the real challenge for her, the pity is that Lessans indoctrination has removed her so far from reality that I think NA may be correct that there is no hope for her to ever grasp reality again. Which may be a form of delusional insanity. Any bets on how long it will take Peacegirl to start accusing everyone else of this?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you clinched it. I'm talking to morons.

Careful, your bias and hypocrisy are showing. You wouldn't want to jump to hasty conclusions, now would you?


After all, you have far less data about the intellectual capacities of the various posters here than we do about the physics, anatomy and physiology of sight.

So if we're being "too hasty" in rejecting Lessans' claims, as you frequently insist, then you're displaying incredible hypocrisy in concluding that we're a bunch of morons, given that you have a whole lot less data to work with.



More to the point, let's look at this logically. Point: the only person who has found Lessans' claims convincing is you. And you're far from an unbiased examiner where Lessans is concerned.

Now what's more likely?

A. A whole bunch of very well-educated people -- many of whom are actual experts in the relevant fields, and none of whom have a vested interest in the status quo -- don't know what they're talking about. And in fact, the entire scientific community has somehow gotten it spectacularly wrong.

or

B. You -- who are, by your own admission and by repeated demonstration, almost totally ignorant of the relevant fields -- don't know what you're talking about.


I sure know which option the smart money would bet on.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Careful, your bias and hypocrisy are showing. You wouldn't want to jump to hasty conclusions, now would you?


After all, you have far less data about the intellectual capacities of the various posters here than we do about the physics, anatomy and physiology of sight.

So if we're being "too hasty" in rejecting Lessans' claims, as you frequently insist, then you're displaying incredible hypocrisy in concluding that we're a bunch of morons, given that you have a whole lot less data to work with.



More to the point, let's look at this logically. Point: the only person who has found Lessans' claims convincing is you. And you're far from an unbiased examiner where Lessans is concerned.

Now what's more likely?

A. A whole bunch of very well-educated people -- many of whom are actual experts in the relevant fields, and none of whom have a vested interest in the status quo -- don't know what they're talking about. And in fact, the entire scientific community has somehow gotten it spectacularly wrong.

or

B. You -- who are, by your own admission and by repeated demonstration, almost totally ignorant of the relevant fields -- don't know what you're talking about.


I sure know which option the smart money would bet on.

Yes but does the smart money really make money? It seems that Bernie Madoff made off with a lot of money but was dumb enough to get caught. On another forum someone stated that a police detective said that it is the dumb ones that get caught, the really smart criminals cover their tracks and get away, so I guess you are right. If you are trying to cheat someone or steal something, but an honest bet, maybe not so much.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

We sang a slightly different version when I was a kid, in the 60's

Did you ever think when the Hearse goes by,
That you might be the next to die?
They wrap you up in a big white sheet,
And bury you under 6 feet deep.
The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The ants play pinochle on your scalp.
Your stomach turns a slimey green,
And puss squirts out just like whipped cream.

Just a bit shorter, same tune.

In the version that we sang when I was child it was slugs that played pinochle and they played it on your snout. Also, your version lacks the toe jam eating. That is a serious fail.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So funny!!!

So glad that you enjoyed it. Now, how about my question? Are you unfamiliar with the process of decomposition? Death is quite dynamic and not at all a static state. There are all kinds of changes taking place and I don't think that any of that movement can reasonably be described as in the direction of greater satisfaction. Greater putrefaction, to be sure, but satisfaction does not even enter into it.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the hell are you Seebs?

I'm some random autistic guy. Relevance of that qualifier is that I am, in a meaningful sense, a pretty reliable device for evaluating logical claims without the usual biasing effect where beliefs about the truth or falsehood of the claim overrides the logical analysis.

Are you that egocentric that you now know more than the author? You came into this thread late and now you have the nerve to tell me that there are no premises?

I was here back in the beginning, too. I asked you questions. You never answered them. I looked at the text.

There is no definition offered of "greater satisfaction". There is no argumentation leading to the claim that humans always move in the direction of "greater satisfaction". I dispute the claim that it's circular reasoning, because circular reasoning involves presenting an argument that leads from a premise to that same premise as its conclusion.

But that's not involved here. There is no argument presented for the claim that humans must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. There's no evidence.

An argument might look like any of these:

If humans did not always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, then X would happen, but X does not happen.
Because X, and Y, humans necessarily always move in the direction of greater satistfaction.

But there's no argument! It's a pure assertion. Which is rather his point; this is the basic observation he made -- it's his big revelation. But he never establishes it by argumentation or evidence, because the thing itself was what he observed.

So it's quite true that there's no argumentation for it, and that's true even if we concede for the sake of argument that his determination is correct. Whether it is true or false, he did not present an argument in favor of the claim. He presumably didn't feel the need; it was obvious by inspection.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In the version that we sang when I was child it was slugs that played pinochle and they played it on your snout. Also, your version lacks the toe jam eating. That is a serious fail.

No, it's not a fail because it is shorter and easier to remember, yours is too complicated, with too much extraneous detail.

And useing Peacegirls comment is hardly a valid critique from a competent critic.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And useing Peacegirls comment is hardly a valid critique from a competent critic.

How and where in my response to you did I use a comment by peacegirl?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are raving in your snit.

And lol, you fancy yourself the bringer of world peace, who likes to feel important?

She isn't just any'ol bringer of world peace, it is inevitable because we have no free will. But for some crazy reason it won't happen unless we are convinced of it which requires that we accept things like efferent vision (which is real) or the inevitable peace (which should have already happened) won't happen.

And of course both her and Lessans are perfectly sane.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're so completely wrong about this discovery that I hope you never get your hands on it. That's very sad to say, but it's true.

No, it isn't. You're just venting in frustration because you are incapable of honestly and directly responding to reasonable questions.

Am I wrong in saying that Lessans never defined "greater satisfaction"?

Am I wrong in saying that you are unable to offer a definition that would render his satisfaction principle non-tautological?

I think it's quite obvious to everyone - including yourself - that I'm right on both counts.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by seebs

I'm some random autistic guy. Relevance of that qualifier is that I am, in a meaningful sense, a pretty reliable device for evaluating logical claims without the usual biasing effect where beliefs about the truth or falsehood of the claim overrides the logical analysis.

I was here back in the beginning, too. I asked you questions. You never answered them. I looked at the text.

There is no definition offered of "greater satisfaction". There is no argumentation leading to the claim that humans always move in the direction of "greater satisfaction". I dispute the claim that it's circular reasoning, because circular reasoning involves presenting an argument that leads from a premise to that same premise as its conclusion.

But that's not involved here. There is no argument presented for the claim that humans must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. There's no evidence.

An argument might look like any of these:

If humans did not always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, then X would happen, but X does not happen.
Because X, and Y, humans necessarily always move in the direction of greater satistfaction.

But there's no argument! It's a pure assertion. Which is rather his point; this is the basic observation he made -- it's his big revelation. But he never establishes it by argumentation or evidence, because the thing itself was what he observed.

So it's quite true that there's no argumentation for it, and that's true even if we concede for the sake of argument that his determination is correct. Whether it is true or false, he did not present an argument in favor of the claim. He presumably didn't feel the need; it was obvious by inspection.

I see your point, and I agree that once again simply claiming that things were like he thought they were so seems to have been enough for the author, who was a firm believer in himself as an authority on everything he spoke about.

However, it seems to me that the circularity of his reasoning is implicit, exactly because he offers no argumentation. He offers up quite a few examples of his principle in action, and then presents every outcome as that which must have been what led to the greater satisfaction. At that point he seems to say "That which ends up being chosen, had to be chosen, because it was chosen", not noticing that he never gave us any reason to believe the compulsion was there. So really all he has is "That which is chosen is that which is chosen".

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Name one person who said that.

The point is, as has been explained to you, that the line between "alive" and "dead" is often very hard to define.

I think the issue is that Life or Death are not very clear descriptions. They describe a practical effect: the continuance of certain processes, and the fact that when these processes are stopped, they can sometimes not be started up again. We call these things life and death, and we attach great significance to them because they involve us intimately.

But really death means nothing but a mechanical breakdown that is too complex for us to deal with using our current technology. We only consider someone dead if we are pretty sure that person will stay that way.

Even here there are more subtleties: sometimes we call someone brain-dead: we know we could keep the body alive for a long time, but at the same time we know the personality that used to be expressed by that body will never be manifested again. The personality can be called dead: irretrievably lost. And yet the body lives on and can do so for decades, in some cases. Do we call it death or life?

Now let us think of our drowning victims who quickly cool to near zero temperatures in near-freezing water. All processes are slowed and sometimes even stopped, as in the case of the heartbeat and breath. Let us say we invent a way to go one step further, and find a way to preserve people in this state for a long time. For all practical purposes that person is now dead: the processes of life have been stopped. However, that person can potentially be brought back to life.

Do we call this person dead or alive? If that person stays like that indefinitely, what do we call it? If an accident damages to body to a point where it cannot be safely unfrozen again, what do we call it? And if the person is unfrozen again, what do we call it?

I think this shows that what we think of as opposites, Life and Death, merely seem that way because we define them that way. They usefully describe practical experiences, but that does not give them some sort of platonic ideal existence. This is why I have a hard time believing in any kind of afterlife, or reincarnation.

[peacegirl]

I guess you're surprised I'm here, or maybe you aren't. I don't want to hold onto anger and bitterness, so I refuse to be offended. Yesterday got me to a pitch when LadyShea said that Lessans didn't care about definitions. You know that I disagree that his proof is a tautology, but there's no convincing anyone here, so I'm letting it go. There is so much confusion that I don't think it's possible to go on. The problem is not with Lessans' work; you'll have to trust me on that. I do want to say I'm sorry for my outburst yesterday. I am human, and I couldn't help but retaliate after being abused for so long. It was a visceral reaction to feeling cornered and being misunderstood. But I feel better today and now I can forgive anyone who has hurt me. I hope you can forgive me as well for anything I may have said that was hurtful. I don't want anyone to carry any unsettled feelings that may be left unresolved.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess you're surprised I'm here...

Can you explain why you think anyone would be surprised that you are still here?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that I disagree that his proof is a tautology...

We know that your faith leads you to reject a lot of obvious facts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is so much confusion that I don't think it's possible to go on.

Mmhmm. You've been saying that for weeks.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is not with Lessans' work; you'll have to trust me on that.

I don't think we do. In fact I think we can all safely conclude that you are quite wrong about that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do want to say I'm sorry for my outburst yesterday.

Apology accepted.

I have questions awaiting your attention in both this thread and the other one whenever you are ready.

[Vivisectus]

I guess you're surprised I'm here, or maybe you aren't. I don't want to hold onto anger and bitterness, so I refuse to be offended. Yesterday got me to a pitch when LadyShea said that Lessans didn't care about definitions. You know that I disagree that his proof is a tautology, but there's no convincing anyone here, so I'm letting it go. There is so much confusion that I don't think it's possible to go on. The problem is not with Lessans' work; you'll have to trust me on that. I do want to say I'm sorry for my outburst yesterday. I am human, and I couldn't help but retaliate after being abused for so long. It was a visceral reaction to feeling cornered and being misunderstood. But I feel better today and now I can forgive anyone who has hurt me. I hope you can forgive me as well for anything I may have said that was hurtful. I don't want anyone to carry any unsettled feelings that may be left unresolved.

That is not an apology, that is a passive aggressive accusation. You are a rather vicious little thing underneath it all, Peacegirl. You take responsibility for nothing, and blame any outcome that you do not like on other people, and not on your own behaviour or, quite simply, the flaws in what you are trying to convey. Everything is always someone else's fault, never yours or Lessans.

You consistently equate understanding with agreement, and dissent with stupidity or malice. I find this very dishonourable. If it wasn't for the comic relief that you and your father provide with your wilfully maintained ignorance you would be insufferable.

If you want anyone here to respect you, you must debate fairly. This means simply admitting to the obvious, even if you still choose to not change your mind about it. It would not hurt to say "I see your point, and I cannot answer it, and yet I feel that there must be something more to this. I will think about it for a bit." every now and again. Or perhaps just to say "I don't know" in stead of trying to hide behind meaningless babble. Or just to admit that the correctness of your fathers work is an item of faith for you. These are all honest positions that you can take. But stop trying to pretend that you have rational arguments unless you can actually produce them. It is that kind of deceitful and dishonourable behaviour that makes you a fair target for ridicule every time.