A revolution in thought - Page 1326

peacegirl · #**33126** 10-23-2013, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

But this discovery can be proven via testing. That's just it.

What are these tests that will clearly demonstrate the discovery, other than world wide adoption of the principles?

It is difficult to test this knowledge when we are living in a free will environment because it requires a no free will environment. The only thing that can be done for those who demand empirical evidence is to create a separate society using these principles which could be used as a test pilot.

peacegirl · #**33127** 10-23-2013, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which of these posts below are you considering your refutation against the charge of modal fallacy rather than a mere assertion? If it's not one of these, then you really have to help find it, because I went back several months

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

That does not mean the same thing. It means that the choice to throw the dart could not have been otherwise at that moment in time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Modal fallacy: you are mistakenly assuming that the fact that the result is a certain way constitutes proof that it could not have been otherwise. It does not get much more classic.

Modal fallacy, my foot. I am not mistakenly assuming anything. The fact that the result is a certain way is not his proof, so to say that this is his proof is completely fallacious.

You are assuming that because it happened, it was necessary that it happened. It is as simple as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have not shown that it could not have been otherwise. You have merely shown that the result is a certain thing.

If you understood the law of greater satisfaction (which you obviously don't Vivisectus), you would know that anytime there are two or more choices where there is a preferable difference, a person is compelled to pick the choice that is most preferred, not the choice that is least preferred. This is an inviolable law.

I am perfectly aware of what you claim. However, that is merely a different way of saying "people pick what they pick".

It's really ashame that this is what it has come down to. Like I told Adam, it is much more than you pick what you pick. You are simplifying this until it loses its value, which is a sham. It is anything but valueless because the proof is there if you would only open your eyes. You just don't want to see it, for whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Only if I get confirmation that whatever we choose could not have been otherwise since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying in comparison

The problem is I am not convinced by Lessans reasoning as it is fallacious and tautological, so how can I confirm that I agree with it?

I hope one day you will be convinced, but this has no bearing on its validity. I told you that being a tautology does not change the fact our choice, whatever it is, can only go in one direction, which means that after the choice is made, it could not have been otherwise. This has major significance, and you are conveniently playing it down. FYI, your modal fallacy rebuttal doesn't work either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is saying X has to happen. I just told you that you can rebuke this claim by saying I don't have to eat eggs for breakfast, I can if I want to, but I don't have to, therefore saying eating eggs is necessary is a modal fallacy, but this is a strawman because this in no way disproves the claim that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is his proof of determinism.

You're so close.

OK, first, no one is trying to "disprove...the claim that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction". As has been pointed out, that claim is just an obfuscatory way of saying that whatever we choose is what we choose. You get that, right? Can I get confirmation that you understand that no one is arguing that we do not "move in the direction of greater satisfaction" (i.e. choose whatever it is we choose)?

Only if I get confirmation that whatever we choose could not have been otherwise since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying in comparison. This is not an obfuscatory statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

The fallacy lies in your (and Lessans') interpreting "I must have chosen whatever it is I chose" as being necessarily, rather than contingently, true. In other words, you're confusing, "If I have chosen X, then I must have chosen X" with "It must be the case that, if I have chosen X, I have chosen X."

No Adam, you are doing what LadyShea does. You are asserting that Lessans is wrong because you don't understand that this is a strawman. No one is saying that before a choice is made it is necessarily true that the person has to eat eggs for breakfast. It is only necessarily true that he is considering two or more options. We cannot predict with absolute certainty what choice a person will make. Choice is contingent upon present and antecedent factors that may only be known to the person doing the choosing. There is no prediction that can be made that is absolute because no one knows all the factors involved in a person's choice, but this is, again, a strawman because he is not defining determinism as being able to predict in advance what someone's choice will be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To understand the modal fallacy, consider a darts player.

Before the player throws the dart, we know it must land somewhere.

After he throws the dart, we know what all the factors involved caused it to land in a specific spot

The modal fallacy is to assume that before the player threw the dart, it must land in that specific spot

So: to say that we must choose something is correct. To say that that which we have chosen is what we preferred is correct.

To say that we must choose what we prefer is only correct in a tautological, trivial sense. It is like saying the darts player is going to hit what he is going to hit.

Does that help at all?

No, it doesn't because you're talking about a different issue entirely. No one has claimed to know where a particular choice (the dart) will lead until we make the choice (and throw the dart), but this does not negate the fact that once the dart is thrown, it could not have been otherwise. You can try to disprove this by saying you won't throw the dart at all. Then this becomes a necessary choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. You cannot get away from this law because it's immutable.

I can see that indeed it has not helped.

by the way, this

Quote:

once the dart is thrown, it could not have been otherwise.

is just another way of saying "Once the dart is thrown, it has been thrown".

That does not mean the same thing. It means that the choice to throw the dart could not have been otherwise at that moment in time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is because you don't understand this knowledge at all. You really don't, and as a result you will continue to tell me that this is a modal fallacy. It is not. It is a fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction from the moment we're born to the moment we die. If you cannot understand this, then it's no wonder you keep coming back with fallacious rebuttals.

It is not a fact, it is an opinion you hold strongly. You can't prove or provide evidence for that assertion at all. Anyway even if I concede that we do move in the direction of greater satisfaction, that doesn't mean we must move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

The difference between "X is " and "X must be" is where the modal fallacy lies.

LadyShea, I'm telling you you are the one that is confused on this, not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It goes back to the difference between "X happened" and "X had to have happened"

No one is saying X has to happen. I just told you that you can rebuke this claim by saying I don't have to eat eggs for breakfast, I can if I want to, but I don't have to, therefore saying eating eggs is necessary is a modal fallacy, but this is a strawman because this in no way disproves the claim that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is his proof of determinism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have asserted "is not" plenty of times, though. If you believe you posted an actual refutation, you need to search the thread and find it because I have searched for one numerous times and can't find one.

If I missed it, I am sorry. I have long asked for one from you and actively looked for one from you, so it's not lack of interest or ignoring you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave one not long ago and it was a repeat of what I told you before; that every moment is a movement in one direction, which means that choice is an illusion. Yes, we have the ability to change our minds before a choice is made, but that in no way negates the fact that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Even the desire to compare alternatives to decide which one is preferable is not a free choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not a refutation of the modal fallacy as you've not demonstrated that there is a necessary component. You are merely making assertions again.

You skipped right over it. If every moment is a one way street (even the moments before a choice is made by virtue of the fact that the very act of comparing alternatives is a compulsion in the direction of greater satisfaction), how can you separate before the fact and after? You are very confused on this one point, and I don't know if you will ever get it, but you are not the final word on this. You have always asserted that these are assertions, and they are not. It is you that is making assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, I am not the one making a positive claim and failing to back it up with any evidence whatsoever.

I am not at all confused. I am saying that for your argument to be non-fallacious you must prove a compulsion exists.

You are confused but you can't even consider this possibility. You are, once again, too high on your horse. A compulsion does exist, but you're missing the other side of the equation which proves that we are not under a compulsion to do something if we don't want to, which has been confusing philosophers for centuries. They don't understand why the knowledge of determinism does not give anyone an excuse to be less responsible. It does just the opposite, which you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, and don't tell me you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You immediately googled the more "prominent" philosophers for information and you trusted Norman Swarz who doesn't know what he's talking about. This is what keeps bad information in and good information out. You are no less faith based in your belief in these people than the fundies are in their faith based belief in God.

LOL, you are losing your shit and making an ass of yourself!

I never Googled Swartz until just now, actually. davidm originally mentioned and linked to Swartz paper due to its being a clear and easy to follow explanation of the Modal Fallacy. You still don't understand the fallacy nor do you understand why people have charged Lessans with the modal fallacy in his satisfaction principle. You've never even tried to refute it in any kind of logical or rational or reasonable manner, simply made assertions that the fallacy was not committed. If you don't like Swartz, then use any explanation of the Modal Fallacy you do like to understand the charge and come up with a refutation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I came up with a refutation. This is not a modal fallacy LadyShea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not a refutation, that's an assertion. You have made this assertion numerous times, but never even once posted a logical, or rational, or reasonable refutation.

re·fute
[ri-fyoot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing.
1.
to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2.
to prove (a person) to be in error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is your lack of understanding that compels you to say this. This is a very superficial explanation. You do not understand the explanation I gave in refutation, or you wouldn't be saying this. Either you intentionally didn't listen, or you ignored it. Now who is the one making an ass of themselves? :glare:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I have never seen a refutation from you at all, it stands to reason I did not understand the imaginary one you haven't posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What an ignorant thing to say. Just because you don't understand the explanation (using yourself as the Gold Standard), it can't be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've not given an explanation. How can I understand or misunderstand something that doesn't exist?

That is because you don't understand this knowledge at all. You really don't, and as a result you will continue to tell me that this is a modal fallacy. It is not. It is a fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction from the moment we're born to the moment we die. If you cannot understand this, then it's no wonder you keep coming back with fallacious rebuttals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have asserted "is not" plenty of times, though. If you believe you posted an actual refutation, you need to search the thread and find it because I have searched for one numerous times and can't find one.

If I missed it, I am sorry. I have long asked for one from you and actively looked for one from you, so it's not lack of interest or ignoring you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave one not long ago and it was a repeat of what I told you before; that every moment is a movement in one direction, which means that choice is an illusion. Yes, we have the ability to change our minds before a choice is made, but that in no way negates the fact that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Even the desire to compare alternatives to decide which one is preferable is not a free choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not a refutation of the modal fallacy as you've not demonstrated that there is a necessary component. You are merely making assertions again.

You skipped right over it. If every moment is a one way street (even the moments before a choice is made by virtue of the fact that the very act of comparing alternatives is a compulsion in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control), how can you separate before the fact and after? You are very confused on this one point, and I don't know if you will ever get it, but you are not the final word on this. You have always asserted that these are assertions, and they are not. It is you that is making assertions.

I did explain it and you still are not getting it LadyShea. Just because you are not determined in advance to choose eggs before the fact does not mean that the choice to eat eggs was a free one. I can have 100 choices before me, and I can change my mind a thousand times, but that does not make the choice I ultimately make a free choice.

peacegirl · #**33128** 10-23-2013, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it can't be tested, people must either accept it or reject it based on faith, or feelings, or trust or whatever. That's not science, that's simple belief. It's therefore not a discovery, it's a tenet.

But sometimes it cannot be shown this way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Tough for you then! We've learned pretty well from history that when you use ridiculous things like 'faith' or 'anecdotes' or 'spot on observations', you screw up. Science, on the other hand, works.

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

But this discovery can be proven via testing. That's just it.

Then what on Earth were you referring to with 'sometimes it cannot be shown this way [via testing]'?

Also, we've tested your daft non-discoveries on light. It failed, remember?

Sorry Dragar, I know you're an astrophysicist, but the tests have not been done in a way that negates Lessans' observations.

LadyShea · #**33129** 10-23-2013, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added:

Regardless of the label that is given to a particular behavior for diagnostic purposes, the fact is that vaccines are risky to some children and the vaccine courts were created for that very reason. That is enough for a parent to have the right to reject a vaccine if they think the risk is not worth the benefit.

And the fact that the choice to not vaccinate is not done in a vacuum, that other people can be negatively affected by that choice, is reason enough to warrant the mandates. The availability of exemptions is to try to balance personal liberty and public health risks.

After all, other parents may not find it an acceptable risk for their babies to be exposed to measles. In one parent making a choice to not vaccinate, they are putting other people at possible risk without their knowledge or consent.

If an unvaccinated child infects another child causing death or injury, where can those parents go for compensation and justice?

peacegirl · #**33130** 10-23-2013, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It very well might be coincidence, but without some statistics of incidence of specific illnesses to analyze there is nothing to discuss. So, to answer your question again...I am focusing on autism because you are with your sources.

By breaking symptoms down and labeling them, this discussion is becoming too simplified. It is very easy to say, "Well this symptom doesn't seem to fit our diagnostic criteria therefore this child has not been damaged, and we already took thimerosal out of vaccines so autism can't be caused by mercury." But mercury has not been removed completely, and the study that says ethylmercury clears the system may not be totally accurate. Moreover, autism could be caused by something else entirely. Whether a child is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, or some other disorder, the most important aspect which you seem to be ignoring is that vaccines could be causing many different type disorders that are manifesting in different ways. How can a judiciary board not take into consideration the timeline that showed a marked change in behavior right after the shot? How can they stare into the face of a parent and say that their first hand observation meant nothing? Lastly, how can any caring doctor justify firing a parent because she doesn't want the child to get the recommended dosage of vaccines when no doctor can claim that there are no risks?

peacegirl · #**33131** 10-23-2013, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added:

Regardless of the label that is given to a particular behavior for diagnostic purposes, the fact is that vaccines are risky to some children and the vaccine courts were created for that very reason. That is enough for a parent to have the right to reject a vaccine if they think the risk is not worth the benefit.

And the fact that the choice to not vaccinate is not done in a vacuum, that other people can be negatively affected by that choice, is reason enough to warrant the mandates. The availability of exemptions is to try to balance personal liberty and public health risks.

There is so much hype LadyShea, obviously you have not read any of the articles I posted on the myth of herd immunity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

After all, other parents may not find it an acceptable risk for their babies to be exposed to measles. In one parent making a choice to not vaccinate, they are putting other people at possible risk without their knowledge or consent.

Your argument doesn't hold because vaccinated children still get sick. And the children who do get the illness end up with long term immunity. Boosters have to be constantly updated. You mentioned that out of this Jewish outbreak of measles, kids got sick but no one died. How do you know the mother who had a miscarriage was directly the result of this outbreak? Mothers have miscarriages all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If an unvaccinated child infects another child causing death or injury, where can those parents go for compensation and justice?

You keep talking about death. There is no proof that children who get measles in this day and age are dying even those who are not vaccinated. You are an alarmist, yet you are casting aspersions on anti-vaxers just because their idea of what constitutes a safer way to go is not your idea.

Vivisectus · #**33132** 10-23-2013, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Observation

thedoc · #**33133** 10-23-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does Dragar being gifted have to do with my father being gifted? Are you trying to imply that Dragar's opinion regarding my father's book is more credible than the person who made this discovery? When I say he was gifted, he truly was and for you to try to downplay his gift by comparing him to someone else is, once again, an attempt to disregard his accomplishment.

Odd that you would think that someone else comparing Lessans to another person is problematical when Lessans compared himself to others like Socrates, Einstein, Durant. And you have compared him to Edison among others. Why do you object now? Lessans only "Gift" was in making mistakes and declaring them true, unlike these others who, in time, corrected the mistakes they made

LadyShea · #**33134** 10-23-2013, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not a refutation of the modal fallacy as you've not demonstrated that there is a necessary component. You are merely making assertions again.

You skipped right over it. If every moment is a one way street (even the moments before a choice is made by virtue of the fact that the very act of comparing alternatives is a compulsion in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control), how can you separate before the fact and after? You are very confused on this one point, and I don't know if you will ever get it, but you are not the final word on this. You have always asserted that these are assertions, and they are not. It is you that is making assertions.

This is good enough. I did explain it and you still are not getting it LadyShea.

I get what you are saying, but it is still fallacious unless you can demonstrate that a compulsion to choose one way or another, and this lack of control, actually exists.

Quote:

Just because you are not determined in advance to choose eggs before the fact does not mean that the choice to eat eggs was a free one.

It rather does, though. Only a compulsion to choose to eat eggs, and a lack of ability to not eat eggs, negates the freedom inherent in the choice of what to eat. If I have the ability to choose to not eat eggs-to eat something else or not eat at all- I have the freedom to choose eggs or not eggs.

Quote:

I can have 100 choices before me, and I can change my mind a thousand times, but that does not make the choice I ultimately make a free choice.

It does unless a compulsion to choose only one of those hundred is shown to exist and be in force at all times.

Spacemonkey · #**33135** 10-23-2013, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does Dragar being gifted have to do with my father being gifted?

Dragar is gifted. Your father wasn't - at least not intellectually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you trying to imply that Dragar's opinion regarding my father's book is more credible than the person who made this discovery?

Absolutely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say he was gifted, he truly was...

You're not qualified to make such a judgement.

Spacemonkey · #**33136** 10-23-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is it so difficult for you and all those people who are having a problem with this discussion to stop coming here?

You're the only one who wants to leave but can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can walk away...

No you can't. You've tried several times and failed.

Spacemonkey · #**33137** 10-23-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is difficult to test this knowledge when we are living in a free will environment because it requires a no free will environment. The only thing that can be done for those who demand empirical evidence is to create a separate society using these principles which could be used as a test pilot.

What if this separate society doesn't feel like flying experimental aircraft?

Could you perhaps use them as a test case, or for a pilot study instead?

LadyShea · #**33138** 10-23-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is so much hype LadyShea, obviously you have not read any of the articles I posted on the myth of herd immunity.

I did read them, I think their conclusions are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your argument doesn't hold because vaccinated children still get sick. And the children who do get the illness end up with more permanent immunity. You mentioned that out of this Jewish outbreak of measles, kids got sick but no one died. How do you know the mother who had a miscarriage was directly the result of this outbreak? Mothers have miscarriages all the time.

Nobody died, true. But people were hospitalized, including the pregnant mother who miscarried. We know the miscarriage happened during her illness and hospitalization...so the timing implicates the measles was either a causal or contributing factor.

Isn't that how it works with vaccine injuries? If the illness follows the vaccine it's definitely the vaccine? Bailey Banks didn't have his seizure until 6 weeks post vax. Don't people develop medical issues and have seizures "all the time" too? How can we know if it was a direct result of the vaccine?

Vaccinated children very rarely get ill with the diseases they have received vaccines for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about death. There is no proof that children who get measles in this day and age are dying even those who are not vaccinated.

There are over 100,00 dead children worldwide as proof. There is a miscarried fetus in New York as proof. In the Netherlands ongoing outbreak, with over 1200 cases, over 80 children have been hospitalized, some with meningitis, and their future prognosis is still unclear.

Quote:

You are an alarmist, yet you are casting aspersions on anti-vaxers just because their idea of what constitutes a safer way to go is not your idea.

You are the alarmist by saying vaccines aren't safe. Millions of vaccinated children and adults haven't been injured nor died from getting vaccinated.

LadyShea · #**33139** 10-23-2013, 02:11 PM

Quote:

But mercury has not been removed completely

Yes it has. There are mercury free flu vaccines as well. Remember?

LadyShea · #**33140** 10-23-2013, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is difficult to test this knowledge when we are living in a free will environment because it requires a no free will environment. The only thing that can be done for those who demand empirical evidence is to create a separate society using these principles which could be used as a test pilot.

So do that. Get a bunch of people to accept Lessans discovery, and start a community that lives by the principles. This can be done by a group of people who agree, just look at other purposeful communities like the Amish and eco-living communes.

If it works, then you'll have some evidence, right? You'll have a wonderful society other people want to join, leading to the Golden Age through a grassroots effort.

LadyShea · #**33141** 10-23-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it can't be tested, people must either accept it or reject it based on faith, or feelings, or trust or whatever. That's not science, that's simple belief. It's therefore not a discovery, it's a tenet.

But sometimes it cannot be shown this way.

Tough for you then! We've learned pretty well from history that when you use ridiculous things like 'faith' or 'anecdotes' or 'spot on observations', you screw up. Science, on the other hand, works.

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

It's actually funny at this point. You are comparing yourself to a man who was unusually gifted. I don't know what to say other than one day you will be extremely embarrassed and apologetic by your insistence that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about.

Dragar is also gifted...sort of a requirement for being an astrophysicist.

What does Dragar being gifted have to do with my father being gifted? Are you trying to imply that Dragar's opinion regarding my father's book is more credible than the person who made this discovery? When I say he was gifted, he truly was and for you to try to downplay his gift by comparing him to someone else is, once again, an attempt to disregard his accomplishment.

Why did you find the idea of Dragar comparing himself to Lessans funny in light of Lessans' being "unusually gifted"? You are the one who brought it up. You downplayed Dragar's own gifts by saying it was "funny" to try to compare himself to Lessans (which Dragar didn't do, BTW).

peacegirl · #**33142** 10-23-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does Dragar being gifted have to do with my father being gifted? Are you trying to imply that Dragar's opinion regarding my father's book is more credible than the person who made this discovery? When I say he was gifted, he truly was and for you to try to downplay his gift by comparing him to someone else is, once again, an attempt to disregard his accomplishment.

Odd that you would think that someone else comparing Lessans to another person is problematical when Lessans compared himself to others like Socrates, Einstein, Durant. And you have compared him to Edison among others. Why do you object now? Lessans only "Gift" was in making mistakes and declaring them true, unlike these others who, in time, corrected the mistakes they made

Do you not see the problem here? You are putting these people like Socrates on a huge pedestal. He was a person, and he made mistakes. So did my father, and he corrected them as he went along. He burned his first set of books for that very reason.

peacegirl · #**33143** 10-23-2013, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it can't be tested, people must either accept it or reject it based on faith, or feelings, or trust or whatever. That's not science, that's simple belief. It's therefore not a discovery, it's a tenet.

But sometimes it cannot be shown this way.

Tough for you then! We've learned pretty well from history that when you use ridiculous things like 'faith' or 'anecdotes' or 'spot on observations', you screw up. Science, on the other hand, works.

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

It's actually funny at this point. You are comparing yourself to a man who was unusually gifted. I don't know what to say other than one day you will be extremely embarrassed and apologetic by your insistence that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about.

Dragar is also gifted...sort of a requirement for being an astrophysicist.

What does Dragar being gifted have to do with my father being gifted? Are you trying to imply that Dragar's opinion regarding my father's book is more credible than the person who made this discovery? When I say he was gifted, he truly was and for you to try to downplay his gift by comparing him to someone else is, once again, an attempt to disregard his accomplishment.

Why did you find the idea of Dragar comparing himself to Lessans funny in light of Lessans' being "unusually gifted"? You are the one who brought it up. Your downplayed Dragar's own gifts by saying it was "funny" to try to compare himself to Lessans.

LadyShea, you are grasping at straws.

LadyShea · #**33144** 10-23-2013, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are absolutely grasping at straws. Do you know what even means, big shot? I don't know if you do. You are such an intellectual snob it disgusts me. I don't like your comparsion for good reason.

You made the statement that comparing Dragar to Lessans is laughable because of Lessans "unusual gifts", and further implying that Dragar should be embarrassed by such a comparison. You implied that Dragar is not gifted with your statement and label - the label "gifted" has no basis in reality BTW.

So why am I the disgusting one and not you?

LadyShea · #**33145** 10-23-2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You are so arrogant, I can't penetrate your wall. We are better off by not talking.

No you!

If you don't want to talk to me then stop talking to me.

Why don't you stop answering my posts. Let's both compromise, okay?

No. I am not the one who has any problem with this discussion. Why do you need my participation in your stopping participating? Why is there any compromise on the table. If you don't like it, walk away. Why is it so difficult for you?

Why is it so difficult for you and all those people who are having a problem with this discussion to stop coming here? I can walk away, and I will when the time is right, but it would make it easier for me if I wasn't tempted to answer the butthurt responses I am reading on a daily basis.

Nobody else here has expressed a problem with the discussion. To be histrionic so you can understand, temptation is your cross to bear. Will you bear it or will you fall under its great weight?

peacegirl · #**33146** 10-23-2013, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does Dragar being gifted have to do with my father being gifted? Are you trying to imply that Dragar's opinion regarding my father's book is more credible than the person who made this discovery? When I say he was gifted, he truly was and for you to try to downplay his gift by comparing him to someone else is, once again, an attempt to disregard his accomplishment.

Odd that you would think that someone else comparing Lessans to another person is problematical when Lessans compared himself to others like Socrates, Einstein, Durant. And you have compared him to Edison among others. Why do you object now? Lessans only "Gift" was in making mistakes and declaring them true, unlike these others who, in time, corrected the mistakes they made

Incorrect. Why are you making stuff up?

peacegirl · #**33147** 10-23-2013, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You are so arrogant, I can't penetrate your wall. We are better off by not talking.

No you!

If you don't want to talk to me then stop talking to me.

Why don't you stop answering my posts. Let's both compromise, okay?

No. I am not the one who has any problem with this discussion. Why do you need my participation in your stopping participating? Why is there any compromise on the table. If you don't like it, walk away. Why is it so difficult for you?

I can walk away, and I will when the time is right, but it would make it easier for me if I wasn't tempted to answer the butthurt responses I am reading on a daily basis.

Nobody else here has expressed a problem with the discussion. To be histrionic so you can understand, temptation is your cross to bear. Will you bear it or will you fall under its great weight?

No one has expressed a problem with this discussion, because to them this is lulz. They don't bear the burden of proof. They can say anything they want and be thanked for their brilliance. :doh:

peacegirl · #**33148** 10-23-2013, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are absolutely grasping at straws. Do you know what even means, big shot? I don't know if you do. You are such an intellectual snob it disgusts me. I don't like your comparsion for good reason.

You made the statement that comparing Dragar to Lessans is laughable because of Lessans "unusual gifts", and further implying that Dragar should be embarrassed by such a comparison.

I never implied that Dragar should be embarrassed by such a comparison. What are you thinking LadyShea? What is your problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You implied that Dragar is not gifted with your statement and label - the label "gifted" has no basis in reality BTW.

I never implied such a thing. You wrote this:

Dragar is also gifted...sort of a requirement for being an astrophysicist.

I wrote this:

What does Dragar being gifted have to do with my father being gifted? Are you trying to imply that Dragar's opinion regarding my father's book is more credible than the person who made this discovery? When I say he was gifted, he truly was and for you to try to downplay his gift by comparing him to someone else is, once again, an attempt to disregard his accomplishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So why am I the disgusting one and not you?

Because you use insinuation and innuendo in your debates. This is anything but free thought.

Dragar · #**33149** 10-23-2013, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry Dragar, I know you're an astrophysicist, but the tests have not been done in a way that gives no credibility to Lessans' observations.

Sorry peacegirl, I know understanding mathematics and statistics and science is hard for you, but Lessans is as ruled out as all the other theories of vision we've ruled out.

The tests were spot on.

Quote:

I never implied that Dragar should be embarrassed by such a comparison.

I'm mortified every time I'm compared to Lessans, believe me.

peacegirl · #**33150** 10-23-2013, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not a refutation of the modal fallacy as you've not demonstrated that there is a necessary component. You are merely making assertions again.

You skipped right over it. If every moment is a one way street (even the moments before a choice is made by virtue of the fact that the very act of comparing alternatives is a compulsion in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control), how can you separate before the fact and after? You are very confused on this one point, and I don't know if you will ever get it, but you are not the final word on this. You have always asserted that these are assertions, and they are not. It is you that is making assertions.

This is good enough. I did explain it and you still are not getting it LadyShea.

I get what you are saying, but it is still fallacious unless you can demonstrate that a compulsion to choose one way or another, and this lack of control, actually exists.

It is not fallacious just because you say it is. I have tried to get you to understand this concept more than once. I'm sorry that I couldn't explain it to your satisfaction.

Quote:

Just because you are not determined in advance to choose eggs before the fact does not mean that the choice to eat eggs was a free one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It rather does, though. Only a compulsion to choose to eat eggs, and a lack of ability to not eat eggs, negates the freedom inherent in the choice of what to eat.

You are wrong. This has nothing to do with being forced to do anything, as if we are robots with no say in the matter. That is the standard definition of determinism, not the definition Lessans is proposing. You are also using a description of what people assume free will to be, but it is a very superficial one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I have the ability to choose to not eat eggs-to eat something else or not eat at all- I have the freedom to choose eggs or not eggs.

Yes, in that trivial sense you are free but that does not make you free in the deeper sense of having freedom of the will. Lessans explained this in Chapter One. Do you see why I'm frustrated?

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

p. 51 The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

Quote:

I can have 100 choices before me, and I can change my mind a thousand times, but that does not make the choice I ultimately make a free choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does unless a compulsion to choose only one of those hundred is shown to exist and be in force at all times.

That is what he is trying to show; that every single moment of our lives is a movement in the direction of [greater] satisfaction, therefore when two or more options are before us it doesn't change the law of our nature. It may just take more time for us to contemplate the consequences of each choice in order to determine which choice is the most preferable but, to repeat, it doesn't change the direction our nature is compelled to go.

p. 50 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. You must
bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that a
juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that affect
choice.