Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11276  
Old 05-03-2013, 05:54 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Okay. Where does Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'? And is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
How many times do I have to repeat that whatever choice we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction so in that sense it is tautological...
This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-

a) Whatever object you select, it will be made of atoms.
b) Whatever circle you draw, it will not have corners.

Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?
b) Whatever choice you make, it will always be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is a necessary truth, so now you're saying that necessary truths and contingent truths don't mix? Is that it?
Whu?

Let Me Google That for you
Reply With Quote
  #11277  
Old 05-03-2013, 06:43 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Okay. Where does Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'? And is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
How many times do I have to repeat that whatever choice we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction so in that sense it is tautological...
This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-

a) Whatever object you select, it will be made of atoms.
b) Whatever circle you draw, it will not have corners.

Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?
b) Whatever choice you make, it will always be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is a necessary truth, so now you're saying that necessary truths and contingent truths don't mix? Is that it?
No, I'm saying that his principle being a tautology means there can be no compulsion involved, and makes it fallacious for him to infer a contingent conclusion from it.

A principle that rules out nothing doesn't rule out any particular choices, and therefore can't compel in the direction of any given choice. It is meaningless to say we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction if every conceivable choice counts as the direction of greater satisfaction if taken. And if this principle holds no matter what choice one could conceivably take, then it obviously doesn't show that there is only one conceivable choice that could have been chosen.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11278  
Old 05-03-2013, 06:51 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Where did the photons come from?

Where did he define greater satisfaction?

Where did he support his claim of the innate potential perfection of conscience?
It's all explained and it's all there Spacemonkey. He didn't talk about photons, and he didn't have to. He didn't define greater satisfaction; he didn't have to. We know what satisfaction means, I would hope. Greater is just added onto it, which means "more satisfied or content". It's not that difficult Spacemonkey, and you're making much ado about nothing for reasons that only you know. Moreover, he clearly shows how conscience functions under optimal conditions, and how it will not permit a person to hurt another for unjustified reasons. He did not presuppose anything.
Nothing I asked about is explained anywhere, and you haven't answered any of my questions here. He didn't show how efferent vision could be compatible with what we know about photons, and your attempts to resolve this have been flatly contradictory as you know all too well. Taken literally, it is simply false that we always choose what is most satisfying, or even what we expect to be most satisfying in every choice, yet he never bothered to clearly and explicitly define this key term in his argument. And his whole non-discovery rests upon this assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience which he provided zero support for, and which you keep failing to even recognize as a premise of his argument.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11279  
Old 05-03-2013, 06:56 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Being here has definitely taught me what not to do ever again, so all was not lost.
But you will do it again. We both know that.
That's just another one of your flawed conclusions, which just shows me how wrong wrong can be. :yup:
I'll bet you one hundred US dollars (to charity) that one year from now you'll either still be here doing the same thing, or you'll have started all over at a new forum doing exactly the same thing. Deal?
You'll never know whether I'm doing the same thing because you'll never find me. And I don't need your money. Deal or no deal? NO DEAL. :wave:
See? Even you know you're full of shit when you claim that you've actually learned what not to do again. We both know you'll be doing this all over again in exactly the same way just as soon as you find a new website, and that until then you'll continue doing exactly the same thing right here.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11280  
Old 05-03-2013, 08:05 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So then show me a proof. Lay it out in terms of premises, inferential steps, and a conclusion. For instance, you said he proved we are born again and again. Show me the proof. Show me any proof instead of just asserting it's there somewhere in his writings.
I refuse to discuss this. There are more important things on the table than this chapter, so let it be. When this knowledge is brought to light, there will be time enough to understand his reasoning based on observations (clues) while alive.
You were the one who brought up his alleged proof that we are born again and again. You introduced it in support of your claims regarding his superior reasoning ability. It is disingenuous in the extreme to introduce something as evidence and then subsequently refuse to defend its probative value.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is misleading, because the choice could not have been any different, and as long as you use your faulty logic to try to disprove this, you will continue to tell me he was wrong, just like your flawed faulty logic has tried to prove that efferent vision is a contradiction, and it is not. That is the difference between a logical account and a mathematical account. And I don't care whether you don't like his terms; there is a major difference.
There is indeed a difference between a logical account and Lessans' mathematical accounts (so-called). The principle difference being that logical accounts represent coherent, rational and defensible positions. Lessans' mathematical accounts are simply unsupported expressions of opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are not paying attention to the infallibility of his premises.
It is notoriously difficult for people to pay attention to things that they are unable to perceive. No one here, so far, has managed to notice this alleged infallibility. Clearly it is our perceptual faculties that are at fault.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It's amazing how moral responsibility is increased with the knowledge that we will not be blamed...
What is really amazing is your ability to describe hypothetical future conditions in the present tense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He never said that it doesn't have to do with science, which is a synonym for undeniability. Please don't make the use of the term "scientific" a misnomer when he clarified how he was using it in the introduction. He didn't compile data because he didn't intend to make a discovery which was not his intention, but that in no way means his observations were inaccurate.
Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that his observations were inaccurate, only that they were not scientific, by any definition of the word.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-03-2013), Spacemonkey (05-03-2013)
  #11281  
Old 05-03-2013, 09:27 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He never said that it doesn't have to do with science, which is a synonym for undeniability. Please don't make the use of the term "scientific" a misnomer when he clarified how he was using it in the introduction.

Peacegirl you have spent almost 1,400 pages claiming that current scientific knowledge is inaccurate and false, now you are claiming that science is undeniabile? Am I the only one who sees this as a contradiction?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-03-2013), Spacemonkey (05-03-2013)
  #11282  
Old 05-04-2013, 03:20 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Haven't you been paying attention? She is not talking about that kind of science.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-04-2013)
  #11283  
Old 05-04-2013, 03:25 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Exactly Ang, she is only talking about the science that means undeniable, not the science that comes up with results she doesn't like
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-04-2013)
  #11284  
Old 05-04-2013, 04:22 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Okay. Where does Lessans define 'greater satisfaction'? And is his satisfaction principle a tautology?
How many times do I have to repeat that whatever choice we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction so in that sense it is tautological...
This is still ambiguous between being universal and being necessary. Here are two sentences to compare:-

a) Whatever object you select, it will be made of atoms.
b) Whatever circle you draw, it will not have corners.

Both are universal, but only the second is necessary and tautological. The second is true by meaning, whereas the first could have turned out to be false, as we can imagine a possible universe where things are not made of atoms. So which does his satisfaction principle compare to? Is it universal but contingent like (a)? Or is it universal and tautological like (b)?
b) Whatever choice you make, it will always be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is a necessary truth, so now you're saying that necessary truths and contingent truths don't mix? Is that it?
No, I'm saying that his principle being a tautology means there can be no compulsion involved, and makes it fallacious for him to infer a contingent conclusion from it.

A principle that rules out nothing doesn't rule out any particular choices, and therefore can't compel in the direction of any given choice. It is meaningless to say we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction if every conceivable choice counts as the direction of greater satisfaction if taken. And if this principle holds no matter what choice one could conceivably take, then it obviously doesn't show that there is only one conceivable choice that could have been chosen.
This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choices or to compel in the direction of a particular choice. It's a descriptive statement; it doesn't have prescriptive power. Again, you're trying to negate the validity of this law by faulty logic. It is not meaningless to say we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. I've said this countless times that "greater satisfaction" means that we can only move in one direction which is not established until the choice is made. It is not the discovery, and doesn't prove anything at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #11285  
Old 05-04-2013, 04:32 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
No, I'm saying that his principle being a tautology means there can be no compulsion involved, and makes it fallacious for him to infer a contingent conclusion from it.

A principle that rules out nothing doesn't rule out any particular choices, and therefore can't compel in the direction of any given choice. It is meaningless to say we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction if every conceivable choice counts as the direction of greater satisfaction if taken. And if this principle holds no matter what choice one could conceivably take, then it obviously doesn't show that there is only one conceivable choice that could have been chosen.
This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choices or to compel in the direction of a particular choice. It's a descriptive statement; it doesn't have prescriptive power. Again, you're trying to negate the validity of this law by faulty logic. It is not meaningless to say we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. I've said this countless times that "greater satisfaction" means that we can only move in one direction which is not established until the choice is made. It is not the discovery, and doesn't prove anything at this point.
I've highlighted the two contradictory parts here for you. If the principle doesn't rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, then it doesn't show that we can only move in one direction. I don't see how this point could be made any simpler for you.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11286  
Old 05-04-2013, 04:33 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So then show me a proof. Lay it out in terms of premises, inferential steps, and a conclusion. For instance, you said he proved we are born again and again. Show me the proof. Show me any proof instead of just asserting it's there somewhere in his writings.
I refuse to discuss this. There are more important things on the table than this chapter, so let it be. When this knowledge is brought to light, there will be time enough to understand his reasoning based on observations (clues) while alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
You were the one who brought up his alleged proof that we are born again and again. You introduced it in support of your claims regarding his superior reasoning ability. It is disingenuous in the extreme to introduce something as evidence and then subsequently refuse to defend its probative value.
I discussed this chapter way back when, and I'm not discussing it again. I'm sorry that it appears disingenuous. I only brought it up to defend observation and reasoning as an important means of finding truth; just as important as empiricism, because we cannot get empirical proof of what happens after death after we are gone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is misleading, because the choice could not have been any different, and as long as you use your faulty logic to try to disprove this, you will continue to tell me he was wrong, just like your flawed faulty logic has tried to prove that efferent vision is a contradiction, and it is not. That is the difference between a logical account and a mathematical account. And I don't care whether you don't like his terms; there is a major difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
There is indeed a difference between a logical account and Lessans' mathematical accounts (so-called). The principle difference being that logical accounts represent coherent, rational and defensible positions. Lessans' mathematical accounts are simply unsupported expressions of opinion.
This has gotten to the point that I'm just going to ignore these type of remarks. They add nothing to the conversaton.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are not paying attention to the infallibility of his premises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
It is notoriously difficult for people to pay attention to things that they are unable to perceive. No one here, so far, has managed to notice this alleged infallibility. Clearly it is our perceptual faculties that are at fault.
Again, this is another remark that adds nothing to the conversation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It's amazing how moral responsibility is increased with the knowledge that we will not be blamed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
What is really amazing is your ability to describe hypothetical future conditions in the present tense.
Yes, I can do this because the principles are valid. Just because we haven't created this world yet doesn't mean it can't be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He never said that it doesn't have to do with science, which is a synonym for undeniability. Please don't make the use of the term "scientific" a misnomer when he clarified how he was using it in the introduction. He didn't compile data because he didn't intend to make a discovery which was not his intention, but that in no way means his observations were inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that his observations were inaccurate, only that they were not scientific, by any definition of the word.
However you want to define the word "scientific". If this is an immutable law of our nature, call it what you want. I don't care what term you use. It doesn't negate the soundness of his observations.
Reply With Quote
  #11287  
Old 05-04-2013, 04:47 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So then show me a proof. Lay it out in terms of premises, inferential steps, and a conclusion. For instance, you said he proved we are born again and again. Show me the proof. Show me any proof instead of just asserting it's there somewhere in his writings.
I refuse to discuss this. There are more important things on the table than this chapter, so let it be. When this knowledge is brought to light, there will be time enough to understand his reasoning based on observations (clues) while alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
You were the one who brought up his alleged proof that we are born again and again. You introduced it in support of your claims regarding his superior reasoning ability. It is disingenuous in the extreme to introduce something as evidence and then subsequently refuse to defend its probative value.
I discussed this chapter way back when, and I'm not discussing it again. I'm sorry that it appears disingenuous. I only brought it up to defend observation and reasoning as an important means of finding truth; just as important as empiricism, because we cannot get empirical proof of what happens after death after we are gone.
How do you think it accomplishes that (i.e. defending observation and reasoning as an important means of finding the truth) given that none of Lessans' claims about being born again and again are verified or verifiable?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #11288  
Old 05-04-2013, 12:39 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Where did the photons come from?

Where did he define greater satisfaction?

Where did he support his claim of the innate potential perfection of conscience?
It's all explained and it's all there Spacemonkey. He didn't talk about photons, and he didn't have to. He didn't define greater satisfaction; he didn't have to. We know what satisfaction means, I would hope. Greater is just added onto it, which means "more satisfied or content". It's not that difficult Spacemonkey, and you're making much ado about nothing for reasons that only you know. Moreover, he clearly shows how conscience functions under optimal conditions, and how it will not permit a person to hurt another for unjustified reasons. He did not presuppose anything.
Nothing I asked about is explained anywhere, and you haven't answered any of my questions here. He didn't show how efferent vision could be compatible with what we know about photons, and your attempts to resolve this have been flatly contradictory as you know all too well. Taken literally, it is simply false that we always choose what is most satisfying, or even what we expect to be most satisfying in every choice, yet he never bothered to clearly and explicitly define this key term in his argument. And his whole non-discovery rests upon this assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience which he provided zero support for, and which you keep failing to even recognize as a premise of his argument.
We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, so if there is a choice between two alternatives, we are compelled in that direction even though it may appear to others as a less satisfying choice. We may choose to sacrifice our own life for someone else's. To another it may appear as the less satisfying choice, but to the individual making that choice it is the most preferable. This IS an immutable law Spacemonkey, whether you see it or not. And, yes, his discovery rests upon the knowledge of how conscience works, and under changed environmental conditions it will not permit certain actions.
Reply With Quote
  #11289  
Old 05-04-2013, 12:40 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So then show me a proof. Lay it out in terms of premises, inferential steps, and a conclusion. For instance, you said he proved we are born again and again. Show me the proof. Show me any proof instead of just asserting it's there somewhere in his writings.
I refuse to discuss this. There are more important things on the table than this chapter, so let it be. When this knowledge is brought to light, there will be time enough to understand his reasoning based on observations (clues) while alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
You were the one who brought up his alleged proof that we are born again and again. You introduced it in support of your claims regarding his superior reasoning ability. It is disingenuous in the extreme to introduce something as evidence and then subsequently refuse to defend its probative value.
I discussed this chapter way back when, and I'm not discussing it again. I'm sorry that it appears disingenuous. I only brought it up to defend observation and reasoning as an important means of finding truth; just as important as empiricism, because we cannot get empirical proof of what happens after death after we are gone.
How do you think it accomplishes that (i.e. defending observation and reasoning as an important means of finding the truth) given that none of Lessans' claims about being born again and again are verified or verifiable?
Only by clues which lead to certain conclusions. These clues are facts and when these facts are put together, the conclusion is undeniable.
Reply With Quote
  #11290  
Old 05-04-2013, 01:29 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, so if there is a choice between two alternatives, we are compelled in that direction even though it may appear to others as a less satisfying choice. We may choose to sacrifice our own life for someone else's. To another it may appear as the less satisfying choice, but to the individual making that choice it is the most preferable. This IS an immutable law Spacemonkey, whether you see it or not.
It is an empty tautology from which he fallaciously infers the falsity of free will. There cannot be any kind of compulsion when the direction of greater satisfaction is being defined as whatever choice one happens to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And, yes, his discovery rests upon the knowledge of how conscience works, and under changed environmental conditions it will not permit certain actions.
And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11291  
Old 05-04-2013, 02:28 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Oops, My apologizes, it seems that I was confusing R-science with L-science, and since everyone else here is useing R-science and only Peacegril is useing L-science, I was assuming that everyone was on the same page. I see that I must read the book again, and review all the threads again, to be sure that I am clear on everything, or will that just add to the confusion?
Reply With Quote
  #11292  
Old 05-04-2013, 04:01 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
No, I'm saying that his principle being a tautology means there can be no compulsion involved, and makes it fallacious for him to infer a contingent conclusion from it.

A principle that rules out nothing doesn't rule out any particular choices, and therefore can't compel in the direction of any given choice. It is meaningless to say we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction if every conceivable choice counts as the direction of greater satisfaction if taken. And if this principle holds no matter what choice one could conceivably take, then it obviously doesn't show that there is only one conceivable choice that could have been chosen.
This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choices or to compel in the direction of a particular choice. It's a descriptive statement; it doesn't have prescriptive power. Again, you're trying to negate the validity of this law by faulty logic. It is not meaningless to say we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. I've said this countless times that "greater satisfaction" means that we can only move in one direction which is not established until the choice is made. It is not the discovery, and doesn't prove anything at this point.
I've highlighted the two contradictory parts here for you. If the principle doesn't rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, then it doesn't show that we can only move in one direction. I don't see how this point could be made any simpler for you.
If you didn't follow your flawed reasoning you would see that these two parts are not contradictory at all. This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choice before IT IS CHOSEN, but that doesn't mean that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. NO CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER.
Reply With Quote
  #11293  
Old 05-04-2013, 04:04 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, so if there is a choice between two alternatives, we are compelled in that direction even though it may appear to others as a less satisfying choice. We may choose to sacrifice our own life for someone else's. To another it may appear as the less satisfying choice, but to the individual making that choice it is the most preferable. This IS an immutable law Spacemonkey, whether you see it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It is an empty tautology from which he fallaciously infers the falsity of free will. There cannot be any kind of compulsion when the direction of greater satisfaction is being defined as whatever choice one happens to make.
According to our logic it does, but your logic is much to be desired.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And, yes, his discovery rests upon the knowledge of how conscience works, and under changed environmental conditions it will not permit certain actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.
It is so ironic that a person who is supposed to be well-versed in philosophy is the least well-versed person in here. Next to LadyShea, you are not all that. You cannot place yourself above others unless you hold yourself above others, but you cannot because you haven't proven yourself, and your logic doesn't prove anything either. It is completely and utterly mistaken Spacemonkey. I can't spend that much more time here. I know you feel compelled to argue your points but I am literally freeing you. Go your merry way and enjoy your life. I have nothing against you, but you are wrong on all counts. You will never allow me to show you where you are wrong in your logic because you think your logic proves you right. You have literally backed me against a wall of your own making. It takes a very unthreatened person to admit that he may not have all the answers. As a result, I'm totally burned out, done, finished, and needing to move on. I did enjoy my time here, however challenging. I learned a lot.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-04-2013 at 04:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11294  
Old 05-04-2013, 10:19 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
So then show me a proof. Lay it out in terms of premises, inferential steps, and a conclusion. For instance, you said he proved we are born again and again. Show me the proof. Show me any proof instead of just asserting it's there somewhere in his writings.
Okay. What kind of logic do you want in this proof? Computation tree logic?
Reply With Quote
  #11295  
Old 05-04-2013, 10:20 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
No, I'm saying that his principle being a tautology means there can be no compulsion involved, and makes it fallacious for him to infer a contingent conclusion from it.

A principle that rules out nothing doesn't rule out any particular choices, and therefore can't compel in the direction of any given choice. It is meaningless to say we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction if every conceivable choice counts as the direction of greater satisfaction if taken. And if this principle holds no matter what choice one could conceivably take, then it obviously doesn't show that there is only one conceivable choice that could have been chosen.
This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choices or to compel in the direction of a particular choice. It's a descriptive statement; it doesn't have prescriptive power. Again, you're trying to negate the validity of this law by faulty logic. It is not meaningless to say we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. I've said this countless times that "greater satisfaction" means that we can only move in one direction which is not established until the choice is made. It is not the discovery, and doesn't prove anything at this point.
I've highlighted the two contradictory parts here for you. If the principle doesn't rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, then it doesn't show that we can only move in one direction. I don't see how this point could be made any simpler for you.
If you didn't follow your flawed reasoning you would see that these two parts are not contradictory at all. This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choice before IT IS CHOSEN, but that doesn't mean that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. NO CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER.
If you could follow my reasoning you'd see that it is not flawed. But instead of even trying to understand, you just assert - AND IN CAPS THIS TIME - that I'm wrong and that your contradictions aren't really contradictory. You are still confusing epistemic and causal/metaphysical points, for it is only the epistemic possibilities that change from before to after the choice. Epistemic possibilities are not what I'm discussing. And despite your unreasoned denials, it remains contradictory to claim that a principle which rules out nothing also rules out all but one possible choice.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11296  
Old 05-04-2013, 10:24 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I repeat, what kind of logic should I use in constructing the proof?
Reply With Quote
  #11297  
Old 05-04-2013, 10:25 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
According to our logic it does, but your logic is much to be desired.
Why thank you. I suppose it probably is, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.
It is so ironic that a person who is supposed to be well-versed in philosophy is the least well-versed person in here. Next to LadyShea, you are not all that. You cannot place yourself above others unless you hold yourself above others, but you cannot because you haven't proven yourself, and your logic doesn't prove anything either. It is completely and utterly mistaken Spacemonkey. I can't spend that much more time here. I know you feel compelled to argue your points but I am literally freeing you. Go your merry way and enjoy your life. I have nothing against you, but you are wrong on all counts. You will never allow me to show you where you are wrong in your logic because you think your logic proves you right. You have literally backed me against a wall of your own making. It takes a very unthreatened person to admit that he may not have all the answers. As a result, I'm totally burned out, done, finished, and needing to move on. I did enjoy my time here, however challenging. I learned a lot.
Another weaseling ad hominem personal attack in place of any rational response. Lessans failed, and so have you. You are obviously wasting your time here, and you haven't learned a thing.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11298  
Old 05-04-2013, 10:26 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Don't change the topic. What kind of logic should I use to construct the proof?
Reply With Quote
  #11299  
Old 05-04-2013, 10:29 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Don't change the topic. What kind of logic should I use to construct the proof?
Who are you talking to? Who asked you to prove anything?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #11300  
Old 05-04-2013, 10:32 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I'm talking to you, for example. Or Angakuk. Don't change the topic. You asked for a proof. I'm going to construct it for you in a language you understand.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.16889 seconds with 14 queries