A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

*Bump for peacegirl*

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessan's two great pillars of thought:

1. Free will/determinism = fallacy of circularity, elementary modal fallacy.

2. Light and sight = incorrect due to the fact that we know empirically that the eye is afferent and not efferent, and due to the fact that we know from the special theory of relativity, the empircal observations of the moons of Jupiter and thousands of other tests conducted over hundreds of years that we see light, not the "object itself," and that we see in delayed time and not in real time.

End of Lessans. End of story.

Oh, and:

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am giving you his proof. You can take it or leave it.

Given that you can't defend his 'proof' against even the most obvious of objections, I have no choice but to leave it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a trivial tautology. He proved determinism which automatically disproves free will because free will is the opposite of determinism. Maybe you should read this excerpt again if you haven't already. <snip>

I read your excerpt. What did you think it showed? Why did you post it? It was long-winded, repetitive, misused terminology ("mathematical" and "logic"), and proved only the obvious point that the truth of indeterministic free will (and thereby the falsity of determinism) cannot be demonstratively proven.

I don't disagree with that, and it has nothing to do with my point you were replying to. I was asking you to show how he can use the satisfaction principle to disprove freewill without first showing it to be more than a trivial analytic truth-by-definition. Your excerpt doesn't address that issue at all.

Is the problem that you don't understand what Lessans was saying? Or that you haven't understood what I've been saying?

Furthermore, his own argument here undercuts his satisfaction argument against free will. Just as you cannot prove free will without going back in time and repeating the same choice to get a different answer, you cannot prove determinism without going back in time and repeating the same choice to always get the same answer. So even if our selected choice is always what we consider to be the direction of greater satisfaction, it is impossible to prove that we could not have selected a different choice as also being what we consider to be the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see what you're doing Spacemonkey. You are trying to use the definition of "satisfaction" as your first premise to try to logically disprove "greater satisfaction." I am not going to answer you because the definition of "satisfaction" is not important. It's how we always choose that which is the most preferable. You are trying to disprove his claim using logic (which always ends up in a tautology or some false conclusion) while he proved his claim experientially.

How can the very meaning of his principle key term, upon which his entire 'discovery' rests, not be important? And you've denied that he proved his satisfaction principle experientially. You've repeatedly claimed it was not experientially falsifiable, in that no conceivable experiential observations could ever have possibly shown it to be wrong. What can't be disproved by experience cannot be proved by experience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's not defined through logic; it's defined through observation. You can observe the reality of "greater satisfaction" every time you move off of the spot called "here" to another spot called "there". It is obvious to someone who is perceptive that we don't do anything at all unless there is an unconscious desire to satisfy an urge, whatever form that urge takes. It could be as simple a movement as stretching, or swatting a fly, or turning on the radio, or cracking your knuckles, or pushing your hair back because it's gotten in your eyes, or taking off your jacket because it has gotten to hot, or changing positions because your arm has gone numb. These are all movements in the direction of greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. I can't explain this any better so if this doesn't help you, I don't think there's hope.

If you can't explain it any better, then his principle remains refuted. If any movement whatsoever qualifies as moving in the direction of satisfaction, then it isn't being defined through observation at all. It's being defined a priori, in advance of any observation, rendering it a trivial tautology. If it were truly being defined through observation, then the term 'greater satisfaction' would be definable in terms of some directly observable empirical property. Just as I asked you to do. But you can't, because there is no empirical content to the term as he is using it. That is why it is a trivial analytic truth, quite compatible with free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic concludes that Lessans is wrong because you can't prove this empirically, and if it's an analytic truth then it supports indeterminism. There is something very wrong with this picture.

What is wrong with this picture? Where is my reasoning flawed? Don't make such claims if you can't back them up.

And "supports" is the wrong word above. That his satisfaction principle is a trivial analytic tautology in his usage doesn't mean it supports indeterminism, but only that it is compatible with it. I would have passed over this error, only it seems to be a critical fault in your understanding as you seem to be under the impression that anything not disproving Lessans somehow actually supports his claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because nothing causes anything. Hard determinism states that there is a first cause that determines everything down the line. This is where the confusion lies because nothing causes anything. I am giving you this excerpt to read. Take it or leave it.

I will leave it. What part of "In your own words" did you not understand?

And if "nothing causes anything" then why do things happen? Do you really mean to claim that there is no such thing as causality? Or is this just another instance of you misusing words?

And anything short of hard determinism leaves the door open to indeterministic free will. I agree that his form of determinism (that we always choose the direction of greater satisfaction) differs from hard determinism. That is precisely why it fails to refute indeterministic free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have faith in your reasoning ability, but it's flawed.

No, I do not have faith in my reasoning abilities. But I will rationally conclude that my reasoning here is correct when you are unable to meet objections or support your own claims. So again, where is my reasoning flawed?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are listening but they aren't hearing. There's a big difference.

People are listening and hearing. They just aren't agreeing. And you can't expect them to when you have no evidence for any of your points, and merely dismiss anyone's objections as invalid purely on the grounds that they disagree with you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was right because the proof is accurate.

His proof cannot be known to be accurate unless its premises are known to be true. And what I am asking you is how either you or he could know his claim about conscience ((7) above) to be true.

And all you can tell me is that he was right because he was right.

Your faith claims do not amount to an answer here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Empirical investigation can be done now. Conscience works in a very predictable way. Conscience can be eased, and it can also be strengthened. I have no idea what you read, but I'm posting this again for your convenience. <snip>

Why would you post that passage? It doesn't answer or even address my question. It simply shows Lessans once more asserting what I've asked you to support. He again just claims - without argument or evidence - that conscience has been prevented from reaching a "higher temperature" by the conditions of blame and punishment he seeks to remove.

What I am asking is: (i) How could he have known this to be true?; and (ii) How do you know that he was right? Again, faith in the existence of mythical and unspecifiable 'accurate/astute observations' will not constitute an answer here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He obviously had more insight and analytical ability than any of you put together. It's very unfortunate that this discussion has made such little progress.

Unfortunately that's not obvious at all to anyone but his single faith-bound devoted disciple.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

More to the point, does she have the capability to understand that Lessans is wrong, I doubt it.

She's repeatedly proved (with Lessans' switching-on-the-sun example) that in her view Lessans was not even wrong when she explicitly disagrees with him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you cannot. You can sympathize, but not empathize.

Sympathy, empathy, and compassion are not synonyms.

I can have empathy for someone and not experience what they've gone through.

Definitions of Empathy
(from The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, These Things Called Empathy, Daniel Batson)
"The term empathy is currently applied to more than a half-dozen phenomena."

1. Knowing another persons internal state, Including thoughts and feelings
2. Adopting the posture or matching the neural responses of an observed other
3. Coming to feel as another person feels
4. Intuiting or projecting oneself into another's situation
5. Imagining how another is thinking and feeling
6. Imagining how one would think and feel in the other's place
7. Feeling distress at witnessing another person's suffering
8. Feeling for another person who is suffering (empathic concern) An other-oriented emotional response elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of someone in need. Includes feeling sympathy, compassion, tenderness and the like (i.e. feeling for the other, and not feeling as the other)

All about Empathy: Definitions of Empathy

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I totally agree, just like the capacity to develop a strong conscience is innate but it depends on the environment to bring it out.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Somewhat agreed, though the terminology "bring it out" doesn't sit right with me.

All that means is that the capacity to develop a strong conscience is innate as long as nothing from the environment intrudes on that process.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Conscience is the product of an internal values system, and that values system develops from one's experiences and cognition and temperament. Environment certainly has a large role, but is only one aspect.

It is a huge aspect. What does temperament have to do with conscience? Are you saying only certain temperaments are conscientious? An internal values system? Does that mean knowing what's right and wrong? And how does cognition relate to conscience?

Definition:
Cognition is a term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, including thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem-solving. These are higher-level functions of the brain and encompass language, imagination, perception and planning.

You seem to be throwing words around.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, please define compassion as you are using it. I don't think we have the same understanding of what it means

When we see someone is in distress and we feel their pain as if it were our own, and strive to eliminate or lessen their pain, this is compassion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to distinguish compassion from empathy, compassion would be the less emotive reaction. It's feeling sympathy or sorry for someone's circumstances without having to actually experience the pain they are going through firsthand.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that's not the commonly understood meaning of compassion at all. Where did you come up with your definition?

Compassion is an extension of strong feelings of empathy and sympathy into a deep desire to act on them to alleviate suffering.

I can be compassionate just by showing concern. I don't necessarily have to do anything. There might not be anything for me to do other than to be there for the person. This can alleviate the perception of pain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is commonly understood to be the most intense of these related emotions, not the least.

I agree. Sympathy seems to be the least intense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking in terms of the person receiving compassion, not the one who is giving it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Recipients of compassion are having their suffering alleviated (to whatever degree possible) through the actions of another. It is way beyond "being understood"

It all depends. If someone takes the time to listen to someone who is in need of a listening ear, this could definitely help to alleviate their suffering because it's important to feel understood.

That is absolutely not true. What you are saying in so many words is that we have to have war, crime, poverty, and suffering because we need this in order to bring out the best in others. I'm sure that anyone who has lost someone in war would not agree with you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am saying that without suffering, compassion would be obsolete.

Whether I think that's a good or bad thing is beside the point.

We don't need war, crime, poverty, hatred, and murder to have compassion. There will always be a need for others to feel our pain and to offer their comfort; a child who scrapes her knee and is crying inconsolably, a parent who is gravely ill, or a friend who was diagnosed with a serious illness, etc.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you read, heard, or personally experienced something doesn't make it true for everyone. You of all people should know that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, but it does make your understandings and definitions very idiosyncratic

I think our definitions of compassion, sympathy, and empathy are pretty much the same. It certainly isn't worth debating about.

[peacegirl]

Time for a little break. My father loved this song. Enjoy!

Debussy, Clair de lune (piano music) -...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can have empathy for someone and not experience what they've gone through.

You don't have to experience the exact same thing, but need to have had a similar enough experience to be able to truly understand their feelings.

I cannot empathize with a rape victim. I can sympathize with them, I can even ache for what I imagine they might be feeling, but I have never experienced any kind of violation on par with that.

Saying "I understand" or "I empathize" or "I know it must be difficult" would be an insult to them...because no, I do not understand. No, I do not know.

What the hell do you think conscience is that you don't understand the role of temperament, cognition, or one's personal internal values systems?

Temperament: Some people are more sensitive to others feelings. Some are more in tune with their own feelings. Some are more laid back and blase and others are very driven. Some people are more apt to ruminate negatively and judge themselves for mistakes while others view mistakes as opportunities to improve oneself and relationships. And on and on an on.

Internal values system: One's personal framework of ethics and priorities aka values.

"Knowing right from wrong" is how you express this concept to a small child. Did you never get past that stage of moral development?

Cognition:After reading the definition (or at least I hope you read it as well as copied and pasted it) you don't understand how congition plays a role in the development of conscience?

You don't see any role for learning and thinking about and considering the issues of morality, ethics, emotional responses, coping mechanisms, and problem solving etc. or how cognitive processes inform one's value system which is an inherent part of conscience?

Again, what the hell do you think conscience is, exactly? Don't tell me Lessans tiny phrase "feelings of guilt" is the entirety of your understanding or the entirety of his definition, because that would mean I am discussing this concept with someone on the level of a toddler.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You seem to be throwing words around.

I am sorry you do not have the vocabulary or comprehension to understand the words I am using, which were carefully chosen for their precision in describing the concepts I am conveying.

When we see someone is in distress and we feel their pain as if it were our own, and strive to eliminate or lessen their pain, this is compassion.

Okay great, you either looked it up or thought about more because this is a far cry from your "being understood" and "less emotive than empathy"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can be compassionate just by showing concern. I don't necessarily have to do anything. There might not be anything for me to do other than to be there for the person. This can alleviate the perception of pain.

Listening and showing concern are both "doing something", so yes those are compassionate acts.

I see you now agree. Did you read something that changed your view?

Also, I now would probably add "pity" as the least intense and involved after discussing this a little with mickthinks

Yes, true, but you didn't include anything except "being understood" originally, so yet again it sure seems like you changed your definitions today. Which is fine and all, but you were vehemently disagreeing with me earlier.

What changed your mind?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think our definitions of compassion, sympathy, and empathy are pretty much the same. It certainly isn't worth debating about.

They seem to be the same this afternoon, they were not this morning

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you hit me with your fist, you caused me to be hurt. This kind of hurt will be prevented because your strike was a first blow which cannot be justified in the new world. Lessans was differentiating between hard determinism which states that we are caused to do what we do by previous determinants and the determinants that came before that all the way back to a first cause, and his more accurate definition of what is really going on. Remember, definitions mean nothing as far as reality is concerned. He states: We can't say that previous circumstances caused us to do what we did because nothing, not heredity, environment, God, or anything else we care to throw in can cause us to do what we make up our minds not to do. This is the part that philosophers missed altogether.

I get it now. "Nothing causes anything" means that somethings do cause some other things. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to defend my truth. You either trust me or you don't, but I am not going to bend over backwards to convince you that your opinions about him are baseless.

Most of us don't trust you. For the very simple reason that you have given us no reason to trust you and considerable reason to doubt your trustworthiness. If you are not actually dishonest, then you are, at the very least, incompetent. Incompetence does not generally inspire trust.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Time for a little break. My father loved this song. Enjoy!

Debussy, Clair de lune (piano music) - YouTube

Interesting, Debussy was a romantic.

I'm learning this piece, do you play Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Except all the academics he routinely disparages for their "closed minds" and "dogmatic beliefs." The attitude of hurt, yet still smug, superiority is palpable throughout the book.

That's your interpretation.

You resent him because you think he was boasting but he wasn't.

Originally Posted by Kael

You're projecting again.

I don't think so. I think you are very resentful of him.

If he turns out to be right, I hope you have the courage to admit you were wrong about him in every way.

Originally Posted by Kael

And if he turns out to be wrong (ignoring for a moment all the points we've already shown to be wrong)? Will you have the same courage? I doubt it.

There are no points that have been shown to be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Most of us don't trust you. For the very simple reason that you have given us no reason to trust you and considerable reason to doubt your trustworthiness. If you are not actually dishonest, then you are, at the very least, incompetent. Incompetence does not generally inspire trust.

I'm going to ignore any posts from now on that are only meant to poke fun, so don't expect me to be talking to you anymore Angakuk.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no points that have been shown to be wrong.

Kael, you are forgetting that in her closed and dogmatic little mind, Peacegirl cannot comprehend that her father could ever be wrong, in spite of almost everything he has written being shown to be wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no points that have been shown to be wrong.

Your impenetrable faith and emotional attachment/lack of objectivity prevents you from recognizing the many points on which he has been shown to be wrong.

[LadyShea]

The moons of Jupiter observation disproves real time sight

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Interesting, Debussy was a romantic.

I'm learning this piece, do you play Peacegirl.

I'm really curious Peacegirl, what is yours and your fathers experience with the piano or any other musical instrument?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no points that have been shown to be wrong.

Lessan's two great pillars of thought:

1. Free will/determinism = fallacy of circularity, elementary modal fallacy.

2. Light and sight = incorrect due to the fact that we know empirically that the eye is afferent and not efferent, and due to the fact that we know from the special theory of relativity, the empircal observations of the moons of Jupiter and thousands of other tests conducted over hundreds of years that we see light, not the "object itself," and that we see in delayed time and not in real time.

End of Lessans. End of story.

Bye-bye Seymour.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am giving you his proof. You can take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Given that you can't defend his 'proof' against even the most obvious of objections, I have no choice but to leave it.

I certainly have defended his proof against every single objection. Anyway, if your will is free then how come you have no choice?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a trivial tautology. He proved determinism which automatically disproves free will because free will is the opposite of determinism. Maybe you should read this excerpt again if you haven't already. <snip>

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I read your excerpt. What did you think it showed? Why did you post it? It was long-winded, repetitive, misused terminology ("mathematical" and "logic"), and proved only the obvious point that the truth of indeterministic free will (and thereby the falsity of determinism) cannot be demonstratively proven.

Right, but there's still a possibility that determinism can be demonstratively proven even though free will cannot.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't disagree with that, and it has nothing to do with my point you were replying to. I was asking you to show how he can use the satisfaction principle to disprove freewill without first showing it to be more than a trivial analytic truth-by-definition. Your excerpt doesn't address that issue at all.

It's not a trivial analytic truth-by-definition. I'm sorry if you don't see that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is the problem that you don't understand what Lessans was saying? Or that you haven't understood what I've been saying?

I know exactly what Lessans was saying, but I'm afraid you don't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Furthermore, his own argument here undercuts his satisfaction argument against free will. Just as you cannot prove free will without going back in time and repeating the same choice to get a different answer, you cannot prove determinism without going back in time and repeating the same choice to always get the same answer. So even if our selected choice is always what we consider to be the direction of greater satisfaction, it is impossible to prove that we could not have selected a different choice as also being what we consider to be the direction of greater satisfaction.

I'm sorry to say that your analysis is completely inaccurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see what you're doing Spacemonkey. You are trying to use the definition of "satisfaction" as your first premise to try to logically disprove "greater satisfaction." I am not going to answer you because the definition of "satisfaction" is not important. It's how we always choose that which is the most preferable. You are trying to disprove his claim using logic (which always ends up in a tautology or some false conclusion) while he proved his claim experientially.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can the very meaning of his principle key term, upon which his entire 'discovery' rests, not be important?

I didn't say it's not important. I said that you can't use this kind of faulty logic to try to disprove his observations.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you've denied that he proved his satisfaction principle experientially. You've repeatedly claimed it was not experientially falsifiable, in that no conceivable experiential observations could ever have possibly shown it to be wrong. What can't be disproved by experience cannot be proved by experience.

Okay, so maybe I used the wrong word. What I meant is that this did not come from logic. It came from observation. He experienced the observation. Get it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's not defined through logic; it's defined through observation. You can observe the reality of "greater satisfaction" every time you move off of the spot called "here" to another spot called "there". It is obvious to someone who is perceptive that we don't do anything at all unless there is an unconscious desire to satisfy an urge, whatever form that urge takes. It could be as simple a movement as stretching, or swatting a fly, or turning on the radio, or cracking your knuckles, or pushing your hair back because it's gotten in your eyes, or taking off your jacket because it has gotten to hot, or changing positions because your arm has gone numb. These are all movements in the direction of greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. I can't explain this any better so if this doesn't help you, I don't think there's hope.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you can't explain it any better, then his principle remains refuted. If any movement whatsoever qualifies as moving in the direction of satisfaction, then it isn't being defined through observation at all. It's being defined a priori, in advance of any observation, rendering it a trivial tautology.

Absolutely wrong. Any movement qualifies as moving in the direction of greater satisfaction because it has been observed that this is the direction we must move. If you can't see this, it doesn't make Lessans wrong. It is not defined a priori because this knowledge is not in advance of observation. It was the observation that allows us to know that this is true without having to prove it each and every time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it were truly being defined through observation, then the term 'greater satisfaction' would be definable in terms of some directly observable empirical property. Just as I asked you to do. But you can't, because there is no empirical content to the term as he is using it. That is why it is a trivial analytic truth, quite compatible with free will.

I'm sorry if his observation doesn't meet your requirements. There are many observations that can't be tested empirically, but nevertheless they are valid observations. You really don't know what you're talking about. It is not a trivial analytic truth Spacemonkey, therefore it is not compatible with free will. I don't know why you feel so threatened by this knowledge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic concludes that Lessans is wrong because you can't prove this empirically, and if it's an analytic truth then it supports indeterminism. There is something very wrong with this picture.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What is wrong with this picture? Where is my reasoning flawed? Don't make such claims if you can't back them up.

They are backed up but you are pigeonholing his observations, as if they have to fit into some made up category.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And "supports" is the wrong word above. That his satisfaction principle is a trivial analytic tautology in his usage doesn't mean it supports indeterminism, but only that it is compatible with it. I would have passed over this error, only it seems to be a critical fault in your understanding as you seem to be under the impression that anything not disproving Lessans somehow actually supports his claims.

That's not the impression I'm under. This is not about showing people that they can't disprove his claims. This is about proving that his claims are valid.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because nothing causes anything. Hard determinism states that there is a first cause that determines everything down the line. This is where the confusion lies because nothing causes anything. I am giving you this excerpt to read. Take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I will leave it. What part of "In your own words" did you not understand?

I don't take to threats very well. If you don't read it, it's your loss.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if "nothing causes anything" then why do things happen? Do you really mean to claim that there is no such thing as causality? Or is this just another instance of you misusing words?

I was very clear in that response. This was only in reference to the past causing the present, which is the definition of hard determinism.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And anything short of hard determinism leaves the door open to indeterministic free will.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I agree that his form of determinism (that we always choose the direction of greater satisfaction) differs from hard determinism. That is precisely why it fails to refute indeterministic free will.

But it doesn't. It actually reconciles our ability to choose with no free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have faith in your reasoning ability, but it's flawed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I do not have faith in my reasoning abilities. But I will rationally conclude that my reasoning here is correct when you are unable to meet objections or support your own claims. So again, where is my reasoning flawed?

It's so flawed I don't even know where to start. I hope you aren't so determined to be right, that you have created a block against this knowledge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are listening but they aren't hearing. There's a big difference.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

People are listening and hearing. They just aren't agreeing. And you can't expect them to when you have no evidence for any of your points, and merely dismiss anyone's objections as invalid purely on the grounds that they disagree with you.

That's been the same old refrain from day one, and it's a bunch of baloney.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to defend my truth. You either trust me or you don't, but I am not going to bend over backwards to convince you that your opinions about him are baseless.

First of all you're talking about two different things. One has to do with character defamation, and the other has to do with plain old ignorance on your part.

If Lessans is right, then all criticism is wrong. It's as simple as that.

You got that right.

I'm here to share a discovery. Just because I'm not here for your opinion doesn't mean I'm proselytizing.

Where did he say he surpassed them all? That's in your head Vivisectus.

You are showing your resentment once again, and it's not becoming. You obviously understood nothing that he wrote on education.

That was not arrogance. His knowledge was superior to that of the professor, but that didn't make him more educated.

Lessans never claimed to be better than anyone; in fact, it's is the opposite of what this book stands for. You resent him because you think he was boasting but he wasn't. If he turns out to be right, I hope you have the courage to admit you were wrong.

Potato

[rigorist]

Did Lessans take the brown acid?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a trivial analytic truth-by-definition. I'm sorry if you don't see that.

Then what the hell is it? If you can see that it is something other than a trivial analytic truth-by-definition, then why can't you explain to anyone else what it actually is or how it can be known to be true? Why did you instead have to resort to a massive C&P from Lessans which didn't answer my question at all?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry to say that your analysis is completely inaccurate.

How is it inaccurate? Please be specific.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say it's not important. I said that you can't use this kind of faulty logic to try to disprove his observations.

You damn well did say it was unimportant. Your own words: "I am not going to answer you because the definition of "satisfaction" is not important."

Where has my logic been faulty? Please be specific.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, so maybe I used the wrong word. What I meant is that this did not come from logic. It came from observation. He experienced the observation. Get it?

No. No-one (yourself included) gets how he could know something to be true for all conceivably possible scenarios on the basis of empirical observation, or how his principle could be derived from empirical observation as a synthetic truth without 'satisfaction' being definable in terms of what can be empirically observed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. Any movement qualifies as moving in the direction of greater satisfaction because it has been observed that this is the direction we must move. If you can't see this, it doesn't make Lessans wrong. It is not defined a priori because this knowledge is not in advance of observation. It was the observation that allows us to know that this is true without having to prove it each and every time.

Learn some basic epistemology already. You've had nearly a decade in which to do so. If it is not being defined prior to observation, then any actual observations can only provide supporting instances from which to inductively generalize to a probable but less than certain (and always falsifiable) rule. If you were not making his principle a trivial tautology then you'd be able to specify potential empirically observable criteria which would falsify his claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry if his observation doesn't meet your requirements. There are many observations that can't be tested empirically, but nevertheless they are valid observations. You really don't know what you're talking about. It is not a trivial analytic truth Spacemonkey, therefore it is not compatible with free will. I don't know why you feel so threatened by this knowledge.

I'm not threatened at all, nor is it knowledge. If the above is true then you should have no trouble providing an analogous example of knowledge fitting the same epistemological category as Lessans' satisfaction principle by which to explain how it can be known.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are backed up but you are pigeonholing his observations, as if they have to fit into some made up category.

You haven't backed up a single one of your accusations that my reasoning is flawed. And if you have to invent entirely new epistemological categories (which you have yet to provide or explain) in order for his claims to qualify as knowledge, then that is strong evidence that they simply don't qualify as knowledge at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't take to threats very well. If you don't read it, it's your loss.

I did read it. It was not useful. Where on Earth do you imagine I threatened you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was very clear in that response. This was only in reference to the past causing the present, which is the definition of hard determinism.

You were not at all clear, and in fact directly contradicted yourself as you do quite often. Don't say "nothing causes anything" if that is not what you mean to say.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong.

How?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so flawed I don't even know where to start. I hope you aren't so determined to be right, that you have created a block against this knowledge.

Right, my reasoning is so flawed you can't actually tell me how it is flawed. Please stop making faith-motivated accusations you can't actually support.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm going to ignore any posts from now on that are only meant to poke fun, so don't expect me to be talking to you anymore Angakuk.

In that post I was not poking fun. I was making an astute observation.

Spike Jones You always Hurt the One You Love ...

&feature=related

[LadyShea]

Okay, so maybe I used the wrong word. What I meant is that this did not come from logic. It came from observation. He experienced the observation. Get it?

Then we're back to observed how? Observed in whom? What behaviors were observed that led to this conclusion?

[Vivisectus]

I don't have to defend my truth. You either trust me or you don't, but I am not going to bend over backwards to convince you that your opinions about him are baseless.

This is another case of you elevating what you like to the status of objective truth. It doesn't matter. I am merely reacting to the Lessans as he is portrayed in the book: I am sure the man to knew day-to-day was quite different.

First of all you're talking about two different things. One has to do with character defamation, and the other has to do with plain old ignorance on your part.

I see no real debating points here apart from name-calling, but I will say that the character of the man portrayed in the book is pompous, arrogant and smug. He compares himself to Socrates, considers his knowledge vastly superior to people he doesn't even know anything about, he constantly praises his own work and he constantly lets his readers know that if they disagree with something that is merely because they do not understand. I don't think anyone but you could read that and not think the man writes like a pompous ass.

I am sure he was lovely man in day-today life. I can only judge the man who comes out in his writing, and the palpable air of condescension is one of the reasons the book is actually hard to read.

If Lessans is right, then all criticism is wrong. It's as simple as that.

More proof of your black-and-white thinking. Lessans could be on the right track, but his ideas may need modification to avoid certain pitfalls. Look at the work that Galileo did on ballistics for an example: he had the right idea, but did not account for air-resistance and so his projections where off.

You do not allow for things like that: it is either all right or all wrong.

You got that right.

I am glad you admit that your belief in this work is dogmatic. Again, that is an important step. Next you may want to start exploring why this is. I think you will probably find the reasons are emotional, and there is actually nothing wrong with that. In your mind there is no distinction between your dad and his writings, but I think there probably was a hell of a lot more to your dad than his writings.

Just because he pursued this strange dream of his does not take away all the rest. It just means he had a rather eccentric hobby.

I'm here to share a discovery. Just because I'm not here for your opinion doesn't mean I'm proselytizing.

It rather does, in the same way that a missionary looking for converts is not interested in critical opinions about their holy book, except in so far as they want to remove them in other people through apologetics. They, like you, assume to be 100% correct first, and then work their way back to see if they can find anything to support this idea.

Proselytising is trying to spread the faith, which is what you are doing.

Where did he say he surpassed them all? That's in your head Vivisectus.

He implied it. In the case of Jesus he clearly states that while Jesus was an important messenger and understood much, he only went part of the way. But now lo! Seymour is here to finish the job.

I am sorry but your fathers writing really does smack of a messiah complex sometimes. This is of course another subjective opinion, but one this writing inspires in almost everyone who reads it. Ask around and see if I am right.

You are showing your resentment once again, and it's not becoming. You obviously understood nothing that he wrote on education.

I understand enough about what he wrote about the hurt caused by calling someone educated, which is a completely different thing.

That was not arrogance. His knowledge was superior to that of the professor, but that didn't make him more educated.

That is still pretty arrogant - he knew next to nothing about this professor! Also, he specifically called his education superior. In the same book where he explains what a huge hurt this is.

Lessans never claimed to be better than anyone; in fact, it's is the opposite of what this book stands for. You resent him because you think he was boasting but he wasn't. If he turns out to be right, I hope you have the courage to admit you were wrong.

He certainly claimed to be a better thinker than anyone else. Also, the entire book is stiff with condescension. Sure, that is a pretty subjective point of view, but I don't think there are many people who have read him who feel differently. Ask anyone who has read his writing and see what percentage feel that way.

But according to you, ofcourse, that is no problem. to you, that doesn't mean you have the wrong kind of writitng, it just means you have the wrong kind of people.

And yet it is a pity that we are the only people giving this any attention, which is why you keep coming back here.

As for the courage to admit one is wrong... that is pretty rich for someone faced with contrary evidence who consistently just rejects the evidence.

Infant sight, Dog sight: "I am not happy with the evidence".
Moons of Jupiter "maybe there is another explanation".
Modal fallacy: "No it isn't! But I am not going to explain why it isn't."
Relativity "Nothing travels, so there IS no problem and I don't care that A) that is impossible and B) even if it were, informations still arrives, leaving the problem intact".
Most Satisfaction has a definition that refers to itself and thus becomes a tautology? "No it doesn't, but I am not going to explain why."
There is no reason to assume the removal of blame as a result of the acceptance of the non-existence of free will is going to make everyone perfectly conscientious "Yes there is: the fact that my dad said it worked that way, which he found out by astute observation"

This is just a small selection.

Your answer to all of these problems is more or less: Yeah, but if Lessans is right anyway then all of this doesn't matter. I believe that he was right, so I believe that something will come up to vindicate us both. Just because nothing can be found that vindicates us right now does not mean that something will not come up later, perhaps even after everyone here is dead.

Then follows an interesting leap:

This means that all of you are wrong, so you must be either mean or not smart enough to understand what you read.

Your argument is pretty much this: "you cannot prove beyond even the smallest bit of doubt that he was wrong! There for I am justified in believing he was right!"

The first half is correct. However, you cannot prove that there is not a small teapot circling the planet Earth to the same standard either, or that murder is in fact not intricately linked to the colour blue. So just because you are unable to rule something out beyond the smallest shadow of a doubt does not justify believing it is true.

The second half is incorrect, unless you disagree with the statement above.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He was right because the proof is accurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His proof cannot be known to be accurate unless its premises are known to be true. And what I am asking you is how either you or he could know his claim about conscience ((7) above) to be true.

And all you can tell me is that he was right because he was right.

Your faith claims do not amount to an answer here.

He doesn't have to prove that conscience works a certain way. He is describing how conscience works according to what he sees occurring. If I am a witness to an event --- and my description of what took place is accurate --- there is nothing to prove. There is a difference between proving and describing. If I saw someone go into someone's house and take out a flat screen t.v., I don't have to prove to the police what I saw for them to take my account seriously; I have to describe what I saw.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Empirical investigation can be done now. Conscience works in a very predictable way. Conscience can be eased, and it can also be strengthened. I have no idea what you read, but I'm posting this again for your convenience. <snip>

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would you post that passage? It doesn't answer or even address my question. It simply shows Lessans once more asserting what I've asked you to support. He again just claims - without argument or evidence - that conscience has been prevented from reaching a "higher temperature" by the conditions of blame and punishment he seeks to remove.

That is not true Spacemonkey. He is not just stating something without seeing the evidence. If you keep denying that his observations mean anything, you will never understand this knowledge because you are expecting a different kind of proof; the kind that only meets your definition. A description of how something works can be proof if that description is accurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What I am asking is: (i) How could he have known this to be true?; and (ii) How do you know that he was right? Again, faith in the existence of mythical and unspecifiable 'accurate/astute observations' will not constitute an answer here.

His observations are proof enough, but the final proof is that they work. You can't argue with success Spacemonkey, can you? Obviously, empirical evidence will be the final judge. I'm expending so much energy trying to prove to you that these principles are accurate, that I don't if we are ever going to get beyond the vestibule.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He obviously had more insight and analytical ability than any of you put together. It's very unfortunate that this discussion has made such little progress.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Unfortunately that's not obvious at all to anyone but his single faith-bound devoted disciple.

The fact that this is not obvious to anyone doesn't surprise me and cannot be used against him.