A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Obviously, Spacemonkey was not referring to determinism at all, but at your inability to accept even the possibility of your father being wrong.

This feels like an interrogation to get me to fess up and admit he was wrong, but I don't believe he was wrong. So what does everyone want me to do...lie?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He has patiently and painstakingly explained to you why he disagrees with your case for determinism, showing that it relies on a tautology, something that you have thus far not been able to refute.

This knowledge is not based on logic, so how can it be a tautology?

[LadyShea]

If it's not based on logic, and not based on empirical observation, then just what do you have that can be analyzed or investigated by any third party?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it's not based on logic, and not based on empirical observation, then just what do you have that can be analyzed or investigated by any third party?

That's just it, neither Lessans nor Peacegirl wants it to be analyzed, just accepted on their say-so, it's a completely faith based system that would probably end up like Koresh at Waco, or Jonestown. If you don't believe it's true, just ask Peacegirl, she'll tell you it's true, would she lie?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What people think they see is notoriously innacurate. There are several examples from my own experience. I worked in an office and a group of us would walk to a local resturant for lunch, one day on the way back a large dog came running across a lawn toward us, I stopped and stood still and the owner called the dog back. When we got back to the office another person who was behind me related the encounter and said I had jumped about 3 feet in the air when the dog ran toward me. My feet never left the ground but I think the other person was startled and projected his reaction onto others.

A simple test for anyone who drives on the highway, and you can PM me your answers to avoid embarresment, "What Color is a Yield Sign" This may be getting a bit out of date with younger drivers but it illustrates that people don't always see what is in front of them.

Another time I was at an auction with my parents and we were getting something to eat and the person serving the food said something off color. My father later described my reactiion as that my eyes got as big as saucers, but I really had not even heard what was said and didn't react to that at all.

It is possible that some people just exagerate to make a good story and possibly Lessans was doing this as well. So answer my question and prove that you can actually see what you are looking at.

Is there no-one who will dare to attempt to answer this simple question, and possibly look silly.

(Is that better Vivisectus, I make no claim to be a good speller, and sometimes I'm just too lazy to look it up.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can feel someone is right and still accept the possibility that this is not the case. In fact that is what rational people do: they allow for the possibility of being dead wrong.

You however, dogmatically believe that whatever Lessans says is an absolute, cast in rock objective truth.

Such absolutes are only to be found in religions.

Don't you see why he had to include this excerpt in the introduction?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction: pp. 5-7

To overcome this stubborn resistance and bring about this new
world, it is imperative that the knowledge in this book be adequately
understood which requires that the reader does not apply himself and
his ideas as a standard of what is true and false, but that he
understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an
opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused
with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away
the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the
years. For purposes of clarification please note that the words
scientific and mathematical only mean undeniable, and are
interchanged throughout the text.

The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He has patiently and painstakingly explained to you why he disagrees with your case for determinism, showing that it relies on a tautology, something that you have thus far not been able to refute.

I have been unable to refute this because IT'S NOT TRUE. I can't argue with a lie.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Au Contraire: lies and things that are not true are quite easy to refute. Your problem is that you have been carefully shown where the problem lies, and that you have no rational response to that. So now you are resorting to shouting and accusing people of being malicious, as is your wont.

You say my problem is that I have no rational response to people pointing out where there is a problem. That's not true. I have responded to everybody and continue to respond. Just because I don't agree with the points being made doesn't mean I'm avoiding anyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it's not based on logic, and not based on empirical observation, then just what do you have that can be analyzed or investigated by any third party?

This tract ties into to why there is such skepticism, and why these artificial classifications of epistemology could cause this discovery to fall between the cracks. I hope that doesn't happen.

Empiricism is a theory which holds that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. The term also refers to the method of observation and experiment used in the natural sciences. Often, empiricism is contrasted with rationalism, a theory which holds that the mind may apprehend some truths directly, without requiring the medium of the senses.

Empiricists tend to emphasize the tentative and probabilistic nature of knowledge, while rationalists tend to be dogmatic and assert they have found a method to discover absolutely certain knowledge. Empiricists see philosophical skepticism as limiting what the human mind can hope to accomplish and as a guide to those areas of inquiry we can usefully apply our talents towards. Rationalists see skepticism as something which must be refuted on every count in order to establish a sure footing for absolutely certain knowledge.

There is great irony here since historically it was the rationalists (Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz) who had the vision of a knowable universe, of laws governing all the parts of the whole, of a unified whole, of minds made for knowing this universe, which is essentially today's vision of science. On the other hand, the empiricists' (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) vision of subjective perceptions limiting knowledge, of the need for faith to believe anything beyond immediate perceptions, of minds incapable of knowing much of anything, of dire skepticism, is the vision of anti-science.

empiricism - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This feels like an interrogation to get me to fess up and admit he was wrong, but I don't believe he was wrong. So what does everyone want me to do...lie?

Nope, just speak the truth by admitting that you've accepted his claims on the basis of faith rather than evidence.

If you're not yet capable of that degree of self-honesty, then you need to stop whining and get back to the task of actually addressing the many unanswered questions and objections you still face.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This tract ties into to why there is such skepticism, and why these artificial classifications of epistemology could cause this discovery to fall between the cracks. I hope that doesn't happen.

Your failure to understand epistemological distinctions does not render them artificial. You have yet to provide any epistemological explanation of how Lessans' claims and premises could qualify as knowledge. This is not a problem you can dismiss as a mere product of the rationalism/empiricism debate. Your faith-based defence of his claims relies upon inventing entirely new and as yet unexplained epistemological categories and methods of knowledge production. The simplest explanation remains the most rational - that his claims were not knowledge, and that you have just accepted them on faith and are now desperately flailing around in your attempts to deny this obvious fact.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see why he had to include this excerpt in the introduction?

Do you not see that it equates all disagreement with cheating? Without examining that disagreement first, which is what you are doing right now? There is no room in this excerpt for honest doubt, or for any other idea.

He speaks of it as a game - can you not see this game is rather transparently rigged? That the rules are his, not the worlds?

You say my problem is that I have no rational response to people pointing out where there is a problem. That's not true. I have responded to everybody and continue to respond. Just because I don't agree with the points being made doesn't mean I'm avoiding anyone.

Sure, you responded - except to those things that challenged your faith over-much. You change the subject, claim persecution, throw a hissy fit... anything that allows you to ignore what you do not want to see.

You KNOW that your belief in this book is impervious to anything we might say, no matter how valid - you have said as much. We have known this for some time now, and we have been trying to find out what it would take for you to realize that... or at least admit it.

Now you have. You have said it out loud in several ways, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly.

So you see, you have no more excuses now. We know, you know, we all know. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

[davidm]

Here, Quantum Theorem Shakes Foundations, with a link to the paper in question; maybe we can get back to the decent discussion we were having early in this thread before peacegirl returned to muck it up with the lessans shit.

[davidm]

Here's the paper abstract; haven't read the paper. Maybe Dragar will read and comment.

Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising
that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state represents. There are at least
two opposing schools of thought, each almost as old as quantum theory itself. One is that a pure
state is a physical property of system, much like position and momentum in classical mechanics.
Another is that even a pure state has only a statistical signicance, akin to a probability distribution
in statistical mechanics. Here we show that, given only very mild assumptions, the statistical
interpretation of the quantum state is inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. This
result holds even in the presence of small amounts of experimental noise, and is therefore amenable
to experimental test using present or near-future technology. If the predictions of quantum theory
are conrmed, such a test would show that distinct quantum states must correspond to physically
distinct states of reality.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure, you responded - except to those things that challenged your faith over-much. You change the subject, claim persecution, throw a hissy fit... anything that allows you to ignore what you do not want to see.

You KNOW that your belief in this book is impervious to anything we might say, no matter how valid - you have said as much. We have known this for some time now, and we have been trying to find out what it would take for you to realize that... or at least admit it.

Now you have. You have said it out loud in several ways, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly.

So you see, you have no more excuses now. We know, you know, we all know. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

She has done no such thing. She is incapable of it.

peacegirl will continue the indoctrination until utopia is achieved or they carry her out in a strait jacket.

Which to you think will come first?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your failure to understand epistemological distinctions does not render them artificial. You have yet to provide any epistemological explanation of how Lessans' claims and premises could qualify as knowledge. This is not a problem you can dismiss as a mere product of the rationalism/empiricism debate. Your faith-based defence of his claims relies upon inventing entirely new and as yet unexplained epistemological categories and methods of knowledge production. The simplest explanation remains the most rational - that his claims were not knowledge, and that you have just accepted them on faith and are now desperately flailing around in your attempts to deny this obvious fact.

peacegirl has been very consistent.

1. She is incapable of understanding most new knowledge.
2. What she can understand she ignores.
3. She continues to quote Lessans as if she understands its relevance, which usually she doesn't understand.
4. She persists in claiming that Lessans was not perfect yet produced a perfect book.
5. rinse and repeat.

over and over and over again.

I would hardly call that flailing. Perhaps broken record would better describe it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think it's fair to compare Lessans' astute observations to an event that may not be able to be explained scientifically.

The Exodus could be demonstrated scientifically. We can even specify the kind of evidence that would constitute such a demonstration. Such as archeological evidence that would support the claim that the Exodus, or something very like it, actually happened. That compelling evidence for such an event has not been found should not be taken to imply that it can never be found. Given that you have repeatedly claimed that the truth of Lessans' observations is susceptible to being demonstrated empirically, even though that hasn't happened yet, Lady Shea's comparison with the Exodus story is an emminently fair comparison. Likewise, your conviction that Lessans' uncorroborated observations are accurate, absent any evidence other than his own testimony for that accuracy, is fairly compared to the believer's conviction, based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the Hebrew scripture, that the Exodus took place .

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

She has done no such thing. She is incapable of it.

peacegirl will continue the indoctrination until utopia is achieved or they carry her out in a strait jacket.

Which to you think will come first?

No, she admitted it all right. She clearly stated that she considers all criticisms invalid on the basis that she believes Lessans is right. So now we can rest assured that she is aware that this is a dogmatic belief for her, not a rational conviction.

Most people who have beliefs like these now start talking about higher truths, mystical knowledge or other forms of magical thinking.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, she admitted it all right. She clearly stated that she considers all criticisms invalid on the basis that she believes Lessans is right. So now we can rest assured that she is aware that this is a dogmatic belief for her, not a rational conviction.

She will admit to that behaviour, but she won't admit to being dogmatic or irrational. Because those are bad words which would refect poorly on her, but she doesn't understand why they are bad, or why her dogmatism is problematic or irrational. And she is absolutely committed to not understanding this, such that explaining it will only produce more cognitive dissonance resulting in further frustration and denial. She is completely and willfully blind to the role her faith and dogmatism is playing here.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here's the paper abstract; haven't read the paper. Maybe Dragar will read and comment.

I haven't read it either, but the abstract doesn't really seem to be saying (or claiming to show) anything we didn't know before - physical states are entirely represented and described by the wavefunction, and you can't merely interpret them as statistical descriptions.

I''ll read it at some point and try to figure out why they think it's so novel, but I'm inclined to think it's the university press department up to their usual fun and games.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope, just speak the truth by admitting that you've accepted his claims on the basis of faith rather than evidence.

If you're not yet capable of that degree of self-honesty, then you need to stop whining and get back to the task of actually addressing the many unanswered questions and objections you still face.

I am being as truthful as anyone can be, but you keep making this into a tautology and you want me to admit that this is what it is. It is your logic that is faulty, not Lessans' discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The Exodus could be demonstrated scientifically. We can even specify the kind of evidence that would constitute such a demonstration. Such as archeological evidence that would support the claim that the Exodus, or something very like it, actually happened. That compelling evidence for such an event has not been found should not be taken to imply that it can never be found. Given that you have repeatedly claimed that the truth of Lessans' observations is susceptible to being demonstrated empirically, even though that hasn't happened yet, Lady Shea's comparison with the Exodus story is an emminently fair comparison. Likewise, your conviction that Lessans' uncorroborated observations are accurate, absent any evidence other than his own testimony for that accuracy, is fairly compared to the believer's conviction, based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the Hebrew scripture, that the Exodus took place .

There is a difference between Lessans' claims and the claims of the Exodus. One event has already occurred, and scientists are trying to determine if the event was made up or if it actually took place. Lessans' observations are not based on a specific event, but rather on a pattern of behavior that could only be seen by someone with a very keen eye.

Did anyone see the television show (on the green channel) where they theorized that at the exact location of the parting of the Sea, the wind current could have separated the water if it was strong enough. They did an experiment that showed this could have actually occurred. When they turned off their wind turbine the water quickly rushed back and filled the empty space. They surmised that anyone crossing that path would have drowned.

[LadyShea]

I was illustrating that one must have reasons for judging a description as "accurate" or likely to be accurate. Similar descriptions from other sources and corroborating evidence are two such ways. You mentioned the person's reliability in other aspects of life, which would require having experienced or ascertained their reliable nature over the course of time.

The Exodus was chosen because currently we have nothing to judge its accuracy against, nothing to compare the description to, same as Lessans ideas. They may find evidence for the Exodus someday , but that doesn't justify a belief that it was an accurate description right now. That has to be believed on faith until that time.

You are asking us to believe Lessans on faith until the possible corroborating evidence shows up. I don't do that.

You then call me paranoid, because I do not just assume everything described to me is accurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your failure to understand epistemological distinctions does not render them artificial. You have yet to provide any epistemological explanation of how Lessans' claims and premises could qualify as knowledge. This is not a problem you can dismiss as a mere product of the rationalism/empiricism debate. Your faith-based defence of his claims relies upon inventing entirely new and as yet unexplained epistemological categories and methods of knowledge production. The simplest explanation remains the most rational - that his claims were not knowledge, and that you have just accepted them on faith and are now desperately flailing around in your attempts to deny this obvious fact.

Don't you see that you are the one doing what you are accusing me of doing? You are trying desperately to make his knowledge wrong because it doesn't fit into your epistemological category. I think you feel very threatened by determinism and you are not being as objective as you think you are. His explanation is very simple. Man does not have free will because he must choose the alternative that is the most preferable, not the alternative that is the least preferable, each and every moment of time. This means that what we find most preferable changes from moment to moment based on previous experience. This also means that Lessans' definition of determinism does not mean our choices are fixed, nor does it mean that we are robots that are programmed to respond a certain way. Lessans is reconciling these two opposing ideologies because they both are correct. In other words, his definition does not remove the agent who is still able to make choices. But, according to proponents of free will, the ability to make choice IS the meaning of free will. They believe this is the very definition of what freedom of the will is. But, according to Lessans, being able to choose does not make our will free. I still don't think you understand the distinction between Lessans' definition vs. the conventional definition, which is why you're up in arms.

[LadyShea]

He used a very flexible form of determinism against a very hard form of free will. That's not fair is it? We have some say in our choices and multiple options to choose from...that means that the will has some level of "freedom", right? It's a form of compatibilism. Some factors are determined by our mindset and circumstances, others chosen.

Nothing special about that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I haven't read it either, but the abstract doesn't really seem to be saying (or claiming to show) anything we didn't know before - physical states are entirely represented and described by the wavefunction, and you can't merely interpret them as statistical descriptions.

I''ll read it at some point and try to figure out why they think it's so novel, but I'm inclined to think it's the university press department up to their usual fun and games.

I still haven't read it yet either, but I gather what's new is they are claiming that there is a way to experimentally confirm that the wave function is real and not just a statistical description.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This feels like an interrogation to get me to fess up and admit he was wrong, but I don't believe he was wrong. So what does everyone want me to do...lie?

I realize you do - I merely want to try to make you realize that this belief is based on your desire to believe it, in the vague hope that you have the cojones to admit it.

This knowledge is not based on logic, so how can it be a tautology?

You are right that this book is not based on logic. Or empirical evidence. The tautology lies in "We are compelled to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction" because that which is chosen is simple defined as that which leads to the most satisfaction, as has been endlessly explained to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, she admitted it all right. She clearly stated that she considers all criticisms invalid on the basis that she believes Lessans is right. So now we can rest assured that she is aware that this is a dogmatic belief for her, not a rational conviction.

Most people who have beliefs like these now start talking about higher truths, mystical knowledge or other forms of magical thinking.

Vivisectus, forget what you know about the discovery or whether it's right or not. If something feels untrue, it is normal for someone to reject it. But this causes a problem. In other words, if I believe one plus one equals two based on every single formula tested, and someone comes along and says that it's three, I will reject that argument because I saw for myself that this is wrong from my very own observations. I don't need someone to tell me that this is wrong, I already know it. By the same token, Lessans' argument defies logic, because everyone believes that the argument that defies one plus one equals three must be wrong. The bottom line is that this knowledge can be tested empirically, but unfortunately most people believe that man's will is free so the testing will be biased. They will misinterpret everything to prove they are right. Can't you see the problem, or are you too blind?