A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Once again

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You might consider starting with the premise "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction". Isn't that a pretty logical first premise from the book, peacegirl?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it won't work. People are very incredulous (which adds to the problem), and if I make one misstep, this whole thread will have been useless because no one will take this discovery seriously. I have to do the best I can to show that his premises were correct, but to do that I have to share a little bit of the background that led to these premises. We're only talking about two chapters, but they are the entire foundation for the rest of the book. Everything rests on Chapters One and Two.

If you can't explain Lessans' first 'discovery' yourself, then you are indeed wasting your time trying to convince others that he was correct. And if you can't post the premises behind his claims about conscience, then you have no business at all claiming they were actually conclusions rather than assumptions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Premises aren't "built". What on earth do you think a premise is?

And why are you still doing anything but explaining Lessan's first 'discovery'?

All I meant is that reading the chapter as it was intended leads up to a better understanding of where these premises originated.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I meant is that reading the chapter as it was intended leads up to a better understanding of where these premises originated.

But that's not what is being asked for. We just want to hear the premises themselves that he uses to conclude our will is not free. LadyShea proposed "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" as a possible premise. Would you agree with that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I meant is that reading the chapter as it was intended leads up to a better understanding of where these premises originated.

What premises?

And what do you think a premise is?

Why won't you just explain the 'discovery' in your own words? Don't you understand it yourself well enough to do so?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you can't explain Lessans' first 'discovery' yourself, then you are indeed wasting your time trying to convince others that he was correct. And if you can't post the premises behind his claims about conscience, then you have no business at all claiming they were actually conclusions rather than assumptions.

He explained exactly how conscience works. These were based on accurate observations, but I'm not going to start there since that's in Chapter Two. I need you to understand Chapter One first. Is everybody so impatient that they can't tolerate reading a few pages in order to make the discussion that follows much more productive?

[LadyShea]

I for one don't care where his premises originated or what he went through. Can you or can you not start with "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction"? And then list the following premises from there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What premises?

And what do you think a premise is?

Why won't you just explain the 'discovery' in your own words? Don't you understand it yourself well enough to do so?

I have explained in my own words until I'm blue in the face, and when I see what people have gotten from the discussion, it's disheartening. That's why I have to take a different approach.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

But that's not what is being asked for. We just want to hear the premises themselves that he uses to conclude our will is not free. LadyShea proposed "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" as a possible premise. Would you agree with that?

Of course I agree with that. That is one of his premises that leads to the discovery itself (the two-sided equation). But I want you to see that this is not a tautology. He explained his observations and his reasoning which led him to these premises. The free will/determinism debate has gone on for centuries, so if I'm not careful people are going to think this is just another theory.

[Stephen Maturin]

Posts: 230+

Progress: 0

Shocking, utterly shocking.

[LadyShea]

So let's discuss ONLY the premise "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" for now.

Jeez peacegirl it's like pulling teeth. You've been doing this for a decade and haven't learned how to have a scholarly discussion yet?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He explained exactly how conscience works. These were based on accurate observations...

You mean he made claims about how he thinks conscience works. Claims which you assume on faith to have been based upon 'accurate observations' which you cannot share and know nothing about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but I'm not going to start there since that's in Chapter Two. I need you to understand Chapter One first. Is everybody so impatient that they can't tolerate reading a few pages in order to make the discussion that follows much more productive?

Fine, then start explaining in your own words what he is saying in Chapter 1. There's no point in our trying to discuss it with you if you can't show that you actually understand him yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again

Not at all. Look what happened in the other thread. Everybody kept saying it's circular reasoning. We do what we do because we do it. That's not his proof.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean he made claims about how he thinks conscience works. Claims which you assume on faith to have been based upon 'accurate observations' which you cannot share and know nothing about.

No, he made claims about how conscience does indeed work. I do not assume that he is right based on faith. I know that these observations are spot on. Conscience works in a very predictable way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but I'm not going to start there since that's in Chapter Two. I need you to understand Chapter One first. Is everybody so impatient that they can't tolerate reading a few pages in order to make the discussion that follows much more productive?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Fine, then start explaining in your own words what he is saying in Chapter 1. There's no point in our trying to discuss it with you if you can't show that you actually understand him yourself.

I already did that in the other thread. I don't think you were here yet. It didn't work. I would like to think people believe I have a grasp of this knowledge.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So let's discuss ONLY the premise "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" for now.

Jeez peacegirl it's like pulling teeth. You've been doing this for a decade and haven't learned how to have a scholarly discussion yet?

After nearly a decade of constant failure, her idea of a scholarly discussion on this topic is still that of her posting Lessans' entire chapters, and having other people then read them and either agree with him or politely ask for help in clearing their obvious confusion.

She's still incapable of concieving that others might understand it better than her, and thereby both understand it and still disagree with it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. Look what happened in the other thread. Everybody kept saying it's circular reasoning. We do what we do because we do it. That's not his proof.

Then correct people by explaining his 'discovery' in your own words.

Merely telling people they're wrong and redirecting them to Lessans' words is just going to confirm people's beliefs that they are right and that you don't understand his words yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he made claims about how conscience does indeed work. I do not assume that he is right based on faith. I know that these observations are spot on. Conscience works in a very predictable way.

How can you know that his claims were based upon 'accurate observations' if you don't know what they were? How do you know that conscience works the way he claimed? How do you know that his premises were correct, or that his 'observations' were accurate?

All you have is faith.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already did that in the other thread. I don't think you were here yet. It didn't work. I would like to think people believe I have a grasp of this knowledge.

No-one is going to believe you have any grasp of this 'knowledge' at all when you refuse to present or discuss it in your own words.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained in my own words until I'm blue in the face...

No you haven't. You started this thread to discuss his first 'discovery' and have so far completely refused to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and when I see what people have gotten from the discussion, it's disheartening. That's why I have to take a different approach.

You're not taking a different approach. You're taking the exact same approach which you've tried and failed with at every single forum you've ever been to.

[davidm]

I want to return to the substantive discussions in this thread (i.e., the non-Lessans stuff).

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well, sort of, but again not really. These worlds aren't 'real', for one thing.

For instance, consider the cat. If we talk about it using MW, we say that once we open the box, the universe splits into two worlds, one with a dead-cat and one with an alive cat.

But wait! What if you are the one opening the box, while I wait in another oom? I can still sensibly describe the world as a superposition of alive-cat-happy-davidm and dead-cat-sad-davidm states.

This 'branching' of worlds replaces wavefunction collapse, and so happens at just such ambiguous points. We used the same argument for the non-reality of wavefunction collapse; we should therefore also conclude there is no reality in the manifestation of 'worlds'.

In that case I am puzzled as to how we should think of the "actual" world.

I take MWI to be telling us that the wavefunction does not collapse, so all the "worlds" are equally actual. If that is not the case, you are back to picking out one world as "preferred" but this is just to smuggle the wavefunction collapse back in and seems the opposite of what MWI intends.

I think MWI says that alive-cat-happy-davidm and dead-cat...etc are both equally real, and so too is the observer in the other room, who himself is in a superposition of states. So I guess I remain puzzled as to your take on the ontology indicated by QM absent wavefunction collapse, but also absent the usual explication of MWI, an explication with which you disagree.

BTW, strictly, "splitting" is not a property of MWI, as I think Max Tegmark points out -- I will try to dig up his paper -- so maybe this is where the confusion arises. There is a superposition but no "splitting," the splitting is the illusion generated by the fact that we always find ourselves in one particular "branch" but not more than one or all of them at the same time. I will try to dig up the paper where he discusses this.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by davidm

I want to return to the substantive discussions in this thread (i.e., the non-Lessans stuff).

In that case I am puzzled as to how we should think of the "actual" world.

The correct description is a superposition of wavefunctions.

I mean, even MWI happily accepts that sometimes you need to describe the world in this way. Before we open the box, for example. So if you are confused by the ontology I am talking about, then MWI does not offer any sanctuary from that confusion.

I agree splitting is not a necessary property of MWI, but once you remove any and all splitting, you also remove any and all worlds bar one - a completely uncollapsed world that has none of the well-defined classical properties that cause us trouble to talk about in quantum mechanics.

So you could say I agree with MWI, except I don't agree with the part about the many worlds.

BTW: You know of Tegmark's test of MWI, right? I think we may have discussed it before.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. Look what happened in the other thread. Everybody kept saying it's circular reasoning. We do what we do because we do it. That's not his proof.

We aren't talking about any conclusions or reasoning right now. Only the premises.

The premise is "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction". For anything else he wrote to work, this premise must be shown to be valid.

Premises are not conclusions, peacegirl

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

BTW: You know of Tegmark's test of MWI, right? I think we may have discussed it before.

Yes, quantum suicide, delightful stuff.

[LadyShea]

Okay I'll start

Premise: Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction

Since I can't conceive of any way to directly observe satisfaction in other people, nor any way to objectively measure greater or lesser degrees of an unobservable mental state, I don't think the premise can be proven or disproven.

Only subjective self reporting allows one to even detect such a thing in another human being.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay I'll start

Premise: Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction

Since I can't conceive of any way to directly observe satisfaction in other people, nor any way to objectively measure greater or lesser degrees of an unobservable mental state, I don't think the premise can be proven or disproven.

Only subjective self reporting allows one to even detect such a thing in another human being.

But any adequate account of satisfaction is going to have to allow that people occasionally make poor decisions leading them to be less satisfied than if they had chosen otherwise.

Of course, Peacegirl is no better at distinguishing between actual and expected satisfaction than she is at providing any non-circular explanation of how satisfaction is to be measured or determined.

[LadyShea]

Lessans spends a great deal of time "proving" this premise before he even talks about decision making.

One of his proofs of the truth of the premise was that people do anything other than kill themselves at any given moment, for example. He also says "from here to there" a lot. Here being living in this moment and there being not death.