A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

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?

Okay, I will compromise. I will repeat only the few pages where he specifically gives you his observation as to why we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you can't see that this observation is spot on, you'll have to trust that his premise is accurate in order to move on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

You're right. That's why I am going to give you that section again which is only a few pages, but it's pivotal. I'm hoping that you ponder his reasoning more carefully which is based on very astute observations. If you don't agree with his reasoning, or you still can't understand why it is true that every movement we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction, then you will reject his premise. But that doesn't mean his premise is wrong. You'll just have to trust that it's not wrong and continue on, or reject his discovery and move on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Spacemonkey, you have a misconception as to what "greater satisfaction" even means by the response you just gave. Also, we're not measuring the satisfaction quotient of each individual to determine if they are moving in this direction. We know they are moving in this direction by his proof, which I'm giving to you momentarily. Then we can discuss it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

If that's all you got from his proof LadyShea, then you really need to reread this section very carefully. Throwing a few words around is not a true understanding of what those words meant in a conceptual framework.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Good point. So to truly give peacegirl a fair chance, can we agree that the premise is more accurately stated:

Humans always attempt to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

That is true. It doesn't mean they are always satisfied. It only means they are picking the best choice that is available under the circumstances. They are always choosing the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil. They are not choosing the lesser of two goods, the greater of two evils, or an evil over a good.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. So the next question is how this is supposed to be known or supported. Is it meant as an analytic truth, true by definition? Or is it a synthetic contingent truth known by empirical observation?

It is an inductive truth known by empirical observation. Just as we know that apples fall off of trees to the ground, and we know this through observation, Lessans is showing that this knowledge is true based on his observations of human nature which are immutable universal laws.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl. We spent two pages last night going over this one premise in an orderly fashion. That is the very definition of taking it seriously, and already you are telling me to re-read Lessans muck and that I don't understand.

You aren't cut out for this level of discussion. Take it to the woos.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm hoping that you ponder his reasoning more carefully which are based on astute observations. If you don't agree with it, or can't understand why it is true that every movement is in the direction of greater satisfaction, then you will reject his premise. But that doesn't mean his premise is wrong.

You're correct, disagreeing or not understanding something does not equate to it being wrong. Trouble is, much like the rest of the book, people haven't just been disagreeing with or failing to understand this idea. They have stated specific objections and reasons, i.e., they have shown where, how, and why they think it is wrong. None of these objections, to the best of my knowledge, were ever directly addressed or satisfactorily answered, but merely glossed over, misunderstood, or simply ignored.

Furthermore, in the strictest sense it is not even necessary to show that the premise "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" is incorrect. In this particular case, Lessans entire argument loses this leg to stand on if it is merely shown to be unsupported. Meaning, in part, that whatever "observations" he claims to make in the giant copypastas you keep posting have to be observable to other people as well. We have to be able to see the same things, to witness the same phenomena, and it has to be attributable to the same cause.

As LadyShea has pointed out, this does not appear to be possible when it comes to "man always moving in the direction of greatest satisfaction," because how could you know that the option chosen was the greatest possible satisfaction? Unless of course you define it that way post facto, which is of course exactly what he does, and is of course completely unacceptable for reasons that should be obvious.

And so: Is there a particular passage or observation he claims to have made that you think can be replicated by others, that we could go out and observe right now, that supports the premise "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's a common term in philosophy, taken from Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. The former are those where the predicate is contained within the very meaning of the subject term, for example: "All bachelors are unmarried".

This is analytic because being unmarried is a part of what "bachelor" is defined to mean.

Similarly, "We always move in the direction of greatest expected satisfaction" would be an analytic truth if "greatest expected satisfaction" is defined in terms of the direction in which one eventually decides to move.

If it is not defined in this way as an analytic truth, then it remains to be explained how the truth of the principle is being observed to be true in any given specific case of observation.

Thank you! That was a very clear explanation. This is definitely not an analytic truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

You're correct, disagreeing or not understanding something does not equate to it being wrong. Trouble is, much like the rest of the book, people haven't just been disagreeing with or failing to understand this idea. They have stated specific objections and reasons, i.e., they have shown where, how, and why they think it is wrong. None of these objections, to the best of my knowledge, were ever directly addressed or satisfactorily answered, but merely glossed over, misunderstood, or simply ignored.

Furthermore, in the strictest sense it is not even necessary to show that the premise "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" is incorrect. In this particular case, Lessans entire argument loses this leg to stand on if it is merely shown to be unsupported. Meaning, in part, that whatever "observations" he claims to make in the giant copypastas you keep posting have to be observable to other people as well. We have to be able to see the same things, to witness the same phenomena, and it has to be attributable to the same cause.

As LadyShea has pointed out, this does not appear to be possible when it comes to "man always moving in the direction of greatest satisfaction," because how could you know that the option chosen was the greatest possible satisfaction? Unless of course you define it that way post facto, which is of course exactly what he does, and is of course completely unacceptable for reasons that should be obvious.

And so: Is there a particular passage or observation he claims to have made that you think can be replicated by others, that we could go out and observe right now, that supports the premise "man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction?"

Kael, this is exactly why I have to post this section. There is no other way. If you can't grasp this concept from the horse's mouth (because it's a very difficult concept to grasp), then to expect me to explain this in my own words is going to be a disaster, as it has been in the past.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This would require that each person be totally objective and honest in their evaluation of each decision thay make, but Peacegirl has stated that this is unreliable because scientists (some of the most objective of all of us) will bias their observation to suit the prevaling or popular theory. So Peacegirl herself has negated any possable proof of this premise by direct observation and interigation of subjects. According to Peacegirl the test subjects or the people conduction the test will bias the results to prove what ever they want to prove.

His conclusions came from observing human nature but this also included his sound reasoning which was the actual proof. That's why this is so difficult because you can't empirically test this. You have to understand the reasoning which will allow you to know that the choices we make are under a compulsion.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, this is exactly why I have to post this section. There is no other way. If you can't grasp this concept from the horse's mouth (because it's a very difficult concept to grasp), then to expect me to explain this in my own words is going to be a disaster, as it has been in the past.

I'm ok with quotes, if you would be willing to quote just the specific passage where he states the observation, or "proof", as you put it. Re-posting pages of stuff that many have already waded through just to be told we must not understand it because we still disagree and should wade through it again is simply being obtuse and extremely rude.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That may be a more accurate statement of a possable premise, but I believe that Lessans wrote that "People are compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction." Cutting Lessans slack may help our discussion, but does a disservice to peasegirl by watering down his writing.

"Attempting to move in the direction of greater satisfaction" does not contradict that we are compelled to move in this direction. It only means that we are attempting to be satisfied to the best of our ability with the options that are before us, which is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes but I do not remember 'Attempt' in the book.

Thank you guys for at least trying to really and truly grasp what he is saying. I know this concept is not easy, so after thousands of pages, maybe just maybe we will make some progress.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

I was interested in this thread til peacegirl started posting in it again

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This would require that each person be totally objective and honest in their evaluation of each decision thay make, but Peacegirl has stated that this is unreliable because scientists (some of the most objective of all of us) will bias their observation to suit the prevaling or popular theory. So Peacegirl herself has negated any possable proof of this premise by direct observation and interigation of subjects. According to Peacegirl the test subjects or the people conduction the test will bias the results to prove what ever they want to prove.

No, it does not require a totally objective and honest evaluation. Sometimes we are in a hurry so we make a rash decision that may turn out to be the right one, or it may not. Every single movement we make, not just when we're choosing between two or more options, is a movement away from a dissatisfying position, or else we would never have moved.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His conclusions came from observing human nature but this also included his sound reasoning which was the actual proof.

One cannot empirically observe human nature. One can observe humans behaving. One can observe humans acting. One can observe human spoken or written words.

So, what humans did he observe doing what behaviors, actions, or words?

No conclusions about or interpretations of those behaviors, actions, or words is appropriate at this point, only specific observations.

[peacegirl]

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 38-44

Please understand that the word "God" in this context only means the laws governing our universe. He does not mean there is actually an entity called God that takes on human characteristics.

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was
because they never attempted to look behind the door marked ‘Man’s
Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced man’s
will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the
world and saw the truth but in a confused sort of way because the
element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told
the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they
threw him out because the Bible told them that God said — ‘An eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ When his enemies nailed him to
the cross he was heard to say — “They know not what they do.”
“Turn the other cheek,” he said.

Because Christ exemplified in his
behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering
in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were
many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never
reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of
such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused and in spite of
every possible criticism how was religion able to convince the world to
be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their
inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and
evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in
a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half and God was
only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed
man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil.

To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness and since man does
many things considered evil they were given no choice but to endow
him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all
responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the
reason why religion is so hostile towards any person who speaks
against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza plus
innumerable others pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder
Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to
the thinkers of that time how could any intelligent person believe in
Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good
and evil with a caring and loving God, therefore Satan was destined
to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of
good and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around
quite a bit but did not know how to slay the fiery dragon (the great
impasse of blame), so he pretended it wasn’t even there: He stated,

“We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when seen in total
perspective,” and he rejected the principle of ‘an eye for an eye.’ Will
Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s philosophy,
although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was
humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He
also went in and looked around very thoroughly and, he too, saw the
fiery dragon but unlike Spinoza he made no pretense of its
non-existence. He just didn’t know how to overcome the beast but
refused to agree with what common sense told him to deny. The
implications really need no further clarification as to why free will is
in power.

Nobody, including Spinoza and other philosophers, ever
discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free because they never
unlocked the second door which leads to the discovery.
The belief in free will was compelled to remain in power until the
present time because no one had conclusive proof that determinism
was true, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an
impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnson didn’t want to get into
this matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond
the vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so
difficult to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated? Since the
modern world of science was playing havoc with religion it needed a
boost and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave
seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote
his book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that
God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written
in his book, “Man Stands Alone.” Both tried to answer the question,
“Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is
right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t,’ but Morrison’s arguments were
mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith
again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing
happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil.
It went something like this:

“Chance seems erratic, unexpected and subject to no method of
calculation, but though we are startled by its surprises, chance is
subject to rigid and unbreakable law. The proverbial penny may turn
up heads ten times in a row and the chance of an eleventh is not
expected but is still one in two, but the chances of a run of ten heads
coming up consecutively is very small. Supposing you have a bag
containing one hundred marbles, ninety-nine black and one white.
Shake the bag and let out one. The chance that the first marble out
of the bag is the white one is exactly one in one hundred. Now put
the marbles back and start again. The chance of the white coming out
is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white coming out first
twice in succession is one in ten thousand (one hundred times one
hundred).
Now try a third time and the chance of the white coming out
three times in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one
in a million. Try another time or two and the figures become
astronomical. The results of chance are as clearly bound by law as the
fact that two plus two equals four.

In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was
dealt to one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third
and diamonds to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so
on, until each player had a complete set in numerical order, no one
would believe the cards had not been arranged.

The chances are so great against such a happening that it probably
never did happen in all the games played anywhere since cards was
invented. But there are those who say it could happen, and I suppose
the possibility does exist. Suppose a little child is asked by an expert
chess player to beat him at chess in thirty-four moves and the child
makes every move by pure chance exactly right to meet every twist and
turn the expert attempts and does beat him in thirty-four moves. The
expert would certainly think it was a dream or that he was out of his
mind. But there are those who think the possibility of this happening
by chance does exist. And I agree, it could happen, however small the
possibility.

My purpose in this discussion of chance is to point out
clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any life can exist on
earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact requirements
of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by
chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the
thickness of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of
carbon dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his
survival all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to
the fact that according to the inexorable laws of mathematics all these
could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a
billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur. When the
facts are so overwhelming and when we recognize as we must the
attributes of our minds which are not material, is it possible to flaunt
the evidence and take the one chance in a billion that we and all else
are the result of chance? We have found that there are 999,999,999
chances to one against a belief that all things happen by chance.
Science will not deny the facts as stated; the mathematicians will
agree that the figures are correct. Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind, which is reluctant to give up fixed
ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two
thousand years to convince men that this fact is true. New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth
survives and is verified. The argument is closed; the case is submitted
to you, the jury, and your verdict will be awaited with confidence.”

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in
the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil;
consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had
faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true. Well, do you
still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe
through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with
man, and that everything happens by chance? Do you believe that
your faith in God has been in vain? You are in for the surprise of
your life.

This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an epiphenomenon
of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away the evil, and
the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of the evil that
He is now removing through these discoveries which He also caused;
and no person alive will be able to dispute these undeniable facts.

There is tremendous misunderstanding about the meaning of
determinism, therefore, it is necessary to first demonstrate why
man’s will is not free so the reader can follow the reasoning which
leads to my discovery. The fact that man’s will is not free is the
gateway that allows the reader to come face to face with the
fiery dragon himself. It really doesn’t make any difference whether or
not the proof of determinism is established beforehand because
undeniable proof is established in the meaning; but for those who
want proof before we attack the heart of the problem I shall
demonstrate in an undeniable manner exactly why man’s will is not
free. Once it is proven mathematically — which takes into
consideration the implications — there can be no more opinions or
theories expressed on the subject, just as our ancestors stopped saying,
“I believe the earth is flat,” once they knew for a fact it was round.

There is a great deal of irony here because the philosophers who did
not know it was impossible to prove freedom of the will believed in
this theory because they were under the impression their reasoning
had demonstrated the falseness of determinism. The reason proof of
determinism is absolutely necessary is to preclude someone quoting
Durant and interjecting a remark about man not being a machine.
Is there anything about my demonstration thus far that would make
the reader believe man is now a machine? On page 87 in Mansions
of Philosophy he writes, “If he committed crimes, society was to
blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine, which had
slipped a cog in generating him.” In other words, he assumes that this
kind of knowledge, the knowledge that states man’s will is not free,
allows a person to shift his responsibility for what he does. One
individual blames society for his crimes as he rots in prison while
another blames the mechanical structure of the machine which slipped
a cog and made him into a fool.

You will soon see that not only
Durant but all mankind are very much confused by the misleading
logic of words that do not describe reality for what it is. This is why
it is imperative that we proceed in an undeniable, not logical, manner
otherwise someone may quote Durant, a priest, professor, lawyer,
judge or politician as an authority for believing in freedom of the will.
I recently had a conversation with a friend who was very sincere in his
desire to understand the principles in my book. His questions were
predictable coming from a superficial understanding of man’s nature
and represent the confusion many people feel when the issue of
determinism comes up.

[LadyShea]

You think elementary and rather silly religious apologetics are going to be remotely convincing here at ?

We have found that there are 999,999,999 chances to one against a belief that all things happen by chance.

Who's we? How did he arrive at that figure? Was he aware that as long as the possibility is > 0 then whatever it is WILL necessarily happen given large enough numbers of chances (and the Universe offers many, many, many billions of "chances")

Well, do you still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws

Yes, I still believe that. Now what?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"Attempting to move in the direction of greater satisfaction" does not contradict that we are compelled to move in this direction. It only means that we are attempting to be satisfied to the best of our ability with the options that are before us, which is true.

NO, 'attempt to' and 'compelled to' do not mean the same thing and are not equavalent. 'Attempt', denotes a conscious effort on the part of the individual, 'compelled' denotes that the subject has no choice and could be acting on the level of instinct much like animals act. It may not contradict, but it also does not support, again are we discussing Lessans book or the concepts in general?

[davidm]

Oh, look, more copypasta from Teh Great Man's book.

peacegirl, can't you just do a copypasta of the fun parts, ilke the transluscent sex robes, rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table and Seymour's lawsuit against President Carter?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My purpose in this discussion of chance is to point out clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any life can exist on
earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact requirements
of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by
chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the
thickness of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of
carbon dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his
survival all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to
the fact that according to the inexorable laws of mathematics all these
could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a
billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur.

I can't believe I''m reading something so stupid. It's too early in the morning, I need coffee! Yaaargh!!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it does not require a totally objective and honest evaluation. Sometimes we are in a hurry so we make a rash decision that may turn out to be the right one, or it may not. Every single movement we make, not just when we're choosing between one or more options, is a movement away from a dissatisfying position, or else we would never have moved.

Without objective and honest evaluation on the part of the subject it is only surmise and conjecture on the part of the observer. Many times a subject may do something and the observer will attribute it to an expected cause but the subject may have some other reason for doing it. I myself have experienced this when I have done something for a particular reason and someone else will declair that they know why I did that, and state some reason that had nothing to do with my action. Unless Lessans interviewed those he observed and verified the reasons for the action he was only guessing and the reasoning and conclusions were based on surmise and conjecture, not empherical data and certainly not fact.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who's we? How did he arrive at that figure? Was he aware that as long as the possibility is > 0 then whatever it is WILL necessarily happen given large enough numbers of chances (and the Universe offers many, many, many billions of "chances")

Omg, that quote sounds like something someone would come up with to make fun of people who believe it "can't be chance."

The recursion! It burns!

[Kael]

Wow, this really is Creationist Apologetics 101 stuff. It's even complete with the Appeal to Large Numbers followed immediately by the Appeal to Personal Incredulity:

In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was
dealt to one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third
and diamonds to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so
on, until each player had a complete set in numerical order, no one
would believe the cards had not been arranged.

It's almost like he has no idea that anyone has ever thought of any of this before! He even seems to think that there are no theological positions whatsoever that reject libertarian Free Will!