A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're the one that posted this. I was just responding. So you're calling yourself stupid.

No, I was calling the content of your post stupid. That stupidity was a distinct problem from the length of your response. You keep fragmenting posts to give separate responses to every single sentence, making further replies unmanageable. In the post I was complaining about, I made 12 points, and you replied with 18 points plus a massive copypaste. In your post after this one I am now replying to, you replied to my 9-point post with again 18 separate points. Replying to so many points (especially when they are all hopelessly inadequate) simply isn't worth the effort. It also just feeds your delusion by giving you the impression that you are engaged in legitimate discussion when you are not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you read my copy-pastes or haven't you?

Well have you? You told me you weren't going to read any of the excerpts I posted.

Yes, I read all of your pointless copypastes. And no, I never told you that I wasn't going to read any of them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that doesn't make it compatible. You obviously don't understand his proof of determinism.

If his version of 'determinism' does not entail hard determinism, then it is by definition compatible with causal indeterminism. You obviously do not understand any of the words you keep using.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I've answered those objections.

With faith claims, incomprehension, and denial.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say we weren't under a compulsion; I said that we don't always feel the compulsion.

"But there is a strong compulsion to choose that which is most preferable."

"I never said that there is always a strong compulsion."

Just another example of you directly contradicting yourself by failing to accurately express what you are trying to say. There's no reason to speak of compulsion if it is not felt, and it makes your claim that there is always such compulsion unfalsifiable and meaningless.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what's the point. I am missing something. You can make anything a definition, but what good is it if it's wrong. Lessans' definition is uncommon but it's right. The standard definition of determinism is common but it's wrong because nothing causes people to do what they do, which implies that something other than the person is responsible for their actions, which is a fallacy.

The definition cannot be right or wrong, but the thesis that a word is being defined to represent might be right or wrong. Or do you think we should define "geocentrism" as the theory that the Earth moves around the Sun so as to prevent it from being a 'wrong' definition?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wasn't your point to prove that people could choose another option in a parallel world?

Explain where I got the terminology wrong, and I'll show you that it made no difference as far as my understanding and my response.

Case in point. Your misunderstanding of possible worlds terminology meant you had no understanding at all of what you were replying to, meaning you had no adequate response at all. A possible world is just one maximal counterfactual way things might have been. It does not involve quantum mechanics or require actual parallel worlds. Here is the point again:

Assume his principle correct, and assume libertarian indeterministic free will. Of two choices, A and B, in one possible [way things could have gone] Bob might indeterministically select A as his direction of greater satisfaction. In another possible [way things could have gone] he might instead select B as being in his direction of greater satisfaction. His free will might lie not in whether or not to choose the direction of greater satisfaction, but of indeterministically determining which option lies in that direction.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your post is very cold Vivisectus and proves nothing. You are taking on the negative personalities of the people in here. No surprise.

peacegirl, if you don't find that alluring then I guess not even you think Lessans was right.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually it's right.

Do you even read what you reply to? How can it be right that "He doesn't have to prove that conscience works a certain way" when you just told me it's obvious that he does have to prove this?

PG: A
SM: Not-A
PG: Obviously not-A
SM: So 'A' was wrong?
PG: No, it was right!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would appear circular if you refuse to read his proof. If you can't understand his proof after reading it, then all bets are off not because his proof is wrong, but because you might have a block which is out of my hands.

There is no proof for the point here in question. We are discussing his premise concerning conscience. This is by definition what his 'proof' (that conscience must 'go up' in a no blame environment) presupposes without arguing for. No-one can argue for all their premises as every argument must start from somewhere, but in this case he started from an assumption that no-one has any reason at all to agree with. His argument doesn't work unless one assumes that conscience is innately (potentially) perfect, and that blame and punishment have only negative effects and are also the only negative influences involved. None of this is plausible, and none of it is actually argued for or supported by Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, he had incredible insight, and through his reading he was able to accurately identify what conscience needs in order to allow an individual to perform "evil" acts. You can accept it or reject it. I can't worry about one person's wrong opinion.

So then it's not a priori; his observations came from observation which makes it capable of being tested empirically. I've said this all along. Just because it's hard to set up because we can't test this knowledge in a free will environment, doesn't mean it can't be done.

If his inductive reasoning is correct because he accurately describes the way something works across the board, then it's not probable, it's actual. If I give an accurate description of what I observe, then it's not based on probability; it's based on certainty.

Then it's not 'mathematically' certain or undeniable is it? Make up your mind. If it is to be 'mathematically' certain and undeniable then it is a priori knowledge for which empirical observation and testing is not even relevant. And if it is instead to be an a posteriori inductive generalization based upon empirical observation and extensive reading, then it is only probable and cannot be known with certainty. You can't have it both ways. Even 100% accurate inductive reasoning cannot be known to be so, and is therefore always only probable even when correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he doesn't have to specify his actual observations. All he needs to do is show why his observations are correct by first describing how conscience works, and then explaining what causes it to be strengthened or weakened. He never said this could not be tested empirically.

Still hopelessly circular. His 'observations' in this case just are his descriptions of how (he thought) conscience works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I remember giving the example but I don't remember making any promises not to use it again.

Lessans' observations were based on years and years of reading which allowed him to recognize patterns in human behavior just like someone can see patterns in math that others can't see. That was his genius. He was then able to make an inductive generalization. At least we found the right category.

Yes, a category that is completely inconsistent with his and your claims that his ideas were 'mathematically' certain and undeniable. Inductive generalizations are always only probable. And we have no reason whatsoever to agree that any of his 'obervations' based upon reading and insight were even remotely accurate. Will you at least now agree to stop using the 'equations-that-got-us-to-the-moon' analogy now that I've shown you how those equations were only probable and were established by experiment and testing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not.

Of course it is. It's truly amazing how blind you are to your own faith. You don't have a single shred of evidence of any sort for thinking his observations were correct with 'mathematical' accuracy. This is a dogmatic article of faith for you, as demonstrated by your complete inability to offer anything but faith-claims in support of it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to give him more credit as someone who was extremely insightful and precise in his observations...

You've given no-one any reason at all for giving him such credit. All evidence suggests rather that he was very misguided and ignorant (both scientifically and philosophically), and was wildly inaccurate in his observations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That doesn't prove that his observations were accurate but it should give you pause in order not jump to premature conclusions, which is exactly what you're doing.

The only one who has jumped to a premature conclusion here is yourself, by assuming that all of his 'observations' (aka assumptions) were 'astute' and 'accurate' prior to any actual evidence in support of them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is not true at all. It has nothing to do with assuming anything about his premise. It has to do with how YOU would feel under a different set of environmental conditions.

No, this could be done without anyone even knowing about these premises. Imagination is used all the time. We imagine that if we do this or that, how we will feel. We are always imagining the outcome of our actions. That's how we determine what our next action will be. Are you kidding me?

How you imagine you would feel under changed circumstances is not a reliable guide to how you would actually behave, still less is it evidence of how all people must behave under those conditions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong Spacemonkey. I hope you continue to carefully examine your refutations and make modifications to them so that you don't give up on this major work.

At no point have you ever given me any reason at all to change or modify any of my refutations. At no point have you given any reason at all for thinking that his claims about conscience were accurate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My goal is to try to help you to understand WHY these observations are accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can do is vouch for him until you see the truth of this knowledge for yourself.

Peacegirl, do you see any problem at all with the combination of these two statements? If so, please explain to us your understanding of what that problem might be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're the one that posted this. I was just responding. So you're calling yourself stupid.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I was calling the content of your post stupid. That stupidity was a distinct problem from the length of your response. You keep fragmenting posts to give separate responses to every single sentence, making further replies unmanageable. In the post I was complaining about, I made 12 points, and you replied with 18 points plus a massive copypaste. In your post after this one I am now replying to, you replied to my 9-point post with again 18 separate points. Replying to so many points (especially when they are all hopelessly inadequate) simply isn't worth the effort. It also just feeds your delusion by giving you the impression that you are engaged in legitimate discussion when you are not.

I answered in a way that I felt was appropriate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you read my copy-pastes or haven't you?

Well have you? You told me you weren't going to read any of the excerpts I posted.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I read all of your pointless copypastes. And no, I never told you that I wasn't going to read any of them.

Don't tell me they were pointless, okay? Your attitude is starting to wear me down.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that doesn't make it compatible. You obviously don't understand his proof of determinism.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If his version of 'determinism' does not entail hard determinism, then it is by definition compatible with causal indeterminism. You obviously do not understand any of the words you keep using.

No, you don't. What is it that you don't understand?

It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is
mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will’ which has come
to signify this aspect — that nothing can compel man to do what he
doesn’t want to do — is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here
lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and
confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO
DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT
TO DO — but that does not make his will free.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I've answered those objections.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

With faith claims, incomprehension, and denial.

I asked you this once before and you never answered. Why are you here if you are so positive he's wrong?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say we weren't under a compulsion; I said that we don't always feel the compulsion.

"But there is a strong compulsion to choose that which is most preferable."

"I never said that there is always a strong compulsion."

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Just another example of you directly contradicting yourself by failing to accurately express what you are trying to say. There's no reason to speak of compulsion if it is not felt, and it makes your claim that there is always such compulsion unfalsifiable and meaningless.

Absolutely wrong. We are always under a compulsion because our will is not free, but when we use the expression "I was compelled" it means we felt a strong drive to do something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what's the point. I am missing something. You can make anything a definition, but what good is it if it's wrong. Lessans' definition is uncommon but it's right. The standard definition of determinism is common but it's wrong because nothing causes people to do what they do, which implies that something other than the person is responsible for their actions, which is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The definition cannot be right or wrong, but the thesis that a word is being defined to represent might be right or wrong. Or do you think we should define "geocentrism" as the theory that the Earth moves around the Sun so as to prevent it from being a 'wrong' definition?

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wasn't your point to prove that people could choose another option in a parallel world? Explain where I got the terminology wrong, and I'll show you that it made no difference as far as my understanding and my response.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Case in point. Your misunderstanding of possible worlds terminology meant you had no understanding at all of what you were replying to, meaning you had no adequate response at all. A possible world is just one maximal counterfactual way things might have been. It does not involve quantum mechanics or require actual parallel worlds. Here is the point again:

Assume his principle correct, and assume libertarian indeterministic free will. Of two choices, A and B, in one possible [way things could have gone] Bob might indeterministically select A as his direction of greater satisfaction. In another possible [way things could have gone] he might instead select B as being in his direction of greater satisfaction. His free will might lie not in whether or not to choose the direction of greater satisfaction, but of indeterministically determining which option lies in that direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "indeterministically" select. If you understood this knowledge at all you would know that this example is hypothetical nonsense. There's no reality to it because there is no possible [way things could have gone] where he could have selected B.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1009787]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My goal is to try to help you to understand WHY these observations are accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can do is vouch for him until you see the truth of this knowledge for yourself.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, do you see any problem at all with the combination of these two statements? If so, please explain to us your understanding of what that problem might be.

Spacemonkey, please stop treating me like a child. If you think there is a problem with these two statements, tell me your reasons, but don't test me. I'm not your student. I don't think there is a problem with these two statements. Until you understand the accuracy of these observations, all I can do is vouch for him because I do understand these observations and I know they're correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually it's right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you even read what you reply to? How can it be right that "He doesn't have to prove that conscience works a certain way" when you just told me it's obvious that he does have to prove this?

PG: A
SM: Not-A
PG: Obviously not-A
SM: So 'A' was wrong?
PG: No, it was right!

I said he described reality accurately. When you describe something accurately, that is the proof. I also said that it can be confirmed through empirical testing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would appear circular if you refuse to read his proof. If you can't understand his proof after reading it, then all bets are off not because his proof is wrong, but because you might have a block which is out of my hands.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no proof for the point here in question. We are discussing his premise concerning conscience. This is by definition what his 'proof' (that conscience must 'go up' in a no blame environment) presupposes without arguing for. No-one can argue for all their premises as every argument must start from somewhere, but in this case he started from an assumption that no-one has any reason at all to agree with. His argument doesn't work unless one assumes that conscience is innately (potentially) perfect, and that blame and punishment have only negative effects and are also the only negative influences involved. None of this is plausible, and none of it is actually argued for or supported by Lessans.

Lessans never said blame and punishment have only negative effects. Blame and punishment is the only deterrent we have to stop people from hurting others, but now that we know man's will is not free, there is a much better deterrent. Please read this again if you read it at all.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 21-30

In spite of
everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However,
in order to reach this stage of development so God could reveal
Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it
was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he
believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a
dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all
civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief
in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not
only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate
crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his
problems without blame and punishment which required the
justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience.
Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did
because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to
choose between good and evil.

In other words, if you were called upon
to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you
would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative
than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled
by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but
to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the
principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my
discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point
because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does.

Well, is it any wonder the
solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it
possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing
and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are
supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less
responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature?
Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough he
will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other
nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor
from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of
punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart
of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a
problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since
time immemorial.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, he had incredible insight, and through his reading he was able to accurately identify what conscience needs in order to allow an individual to perform "evil" acts. You can accept it or reject it. I can't worry about one person's wrong opinion.

So then it's not a priori; his observations came from observation which makes it capable of being tested empirically. I've said this all along. Just because it's hard to set up because we can't test this knowledge in a free will environment, doesn't mean it can't be done.

If his inductive reasoning is correct because he accurately describes the way something works across the board, then it's not probable, it's actual. If I give an accurate description of what I observe, then it's not based on probability; it's based on certainty.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then it's not 'mathematically' certain or undeniable is it? Make up your mind. If it is to be 'mathematically' certain and undeniable then it is a priori knowledge for which empirical observation and testing is not even relevant. And if it is instead to be an a posteriori inductive generalization based upon empirical observation and extensive reading, then it is only probable and cannot be known with certainty. You can't have it both ways. Even 100% accurate inductive reasoning cannot be known to be so, and is therefore always only probable even when correct.

He got this knowledge from observing patterns in human behavior. It's as accurate as the observation that apples always fall to the ground from trees. If you call gravity a posteriori inductive generalization based on empirical observation, then I guess you could call Lessans' observations the same.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he doesn't have to specify his actual observations. All he needs to do is show why his observations are correct by first describing how conscience works, and then explaining what causes it to be strengthened or weakened. He never said this could not be tested empirically.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Still hopelessly circular. His 'observations' in this case just are his descriptions of how (he thought) conscience works.

Yes, but his observations are correct and can be tested for accuracy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I remember giving the example but I don't remember making any promises not to use it again.

Lessans' observations were based on years and years of reading which allowed him to recognize patterns in human behavior just like someone can see patterns in math that others can't see. That was his genius. He was then able to make an inductive generalization. At least we found the right category.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, a category that is completely inconsistent with his and your claims that his ideas were 'mathematically' certain and undeniable. Inductive generalizations are always only probable. And we have no reason whatsoever to agree that any of his 'obervations' based upon reading and insight were even remotely accurate. Will you at least now agree to stop using the 'equations-that-got-us-to-the-moon' analogy now that I've shown you how those equations were only probable and were established by experiment and testing?

They were confirmed by experiment and testing. Men did not go to the moon without a precise mathematical formula which included knowledge of physics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is 'observations' were correct with 'mathematical' accuracy is an article of faith for you.

No it is not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it is. It's truly amazing how blind you are to your own faith. You don't have a single shred of evidence of any sort for thinking his observations were correct with 'mathematical' accuracy. This is a dogmatic article of faith for you, as demonstrated by your complete inability to offer anything but faith-claims in support of it.

I have much more than faith claims that conscience has the ability to control one's actions on a scale never before seen.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation p. 92

To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt
— was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to
melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only
necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed
wherein this new law can effectively operate. It was impossible for any
previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper
factors involved which was necessary for an adequate solution, just as
it was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an
earlier time because the deeper relations were not perceived at that
stage of development; but at last we have been granted understanding
which reveals a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in
every way with the mathematical accuracy of the solar system, and we
are in for the greatest series of beneficent changes of our entire
existence which must come about as a matter of necessity the very
moment this knowledge is understood.

Although this book only
scratches the surface, it lays the foundation for scientists to take over
from here. The undeniable knowledge I am presenting is a blueprint
of a new world that must come about once this discovery is
recognized, and your awareness of this will preclude you from
expressing that this work is oversimplified. Because it would take
many encyclopedias combined to delineate all of the changes about to
occur, it would have been much too long for a book that was written
for the express purpose of providing mankind with a general outline.
It will be up to future scientists to extend these principles in much
greater depth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to give him more credit as someone who was extremely insightful and precise in his observations...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've given no-one any reason at all for giving him such credit. All evidence suggests rather that he was very misguided and ignorant (both scientifically and philosophically), and was wildly inaccurate in his observations.

You are 100% wrong Spacemonkey. I'm sorry if you feel that way but you have no grounds on which to base your conclusions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That doesn't prove that his observations were accurate but it should give you pause in order not jump to premature conclusions, which is exactly what you're doing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The only one who has jumped to a premature conclusion here is yourself, by assuming that all of his 'observations' (aka assumptions) were 'astute' and 'accurate' prior to any actual evidence in support of them.

How do you know that when we haven't even gotten to Chapter Two where he describes how conscience works in detail?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is not true at all. It has nothing to do with assuming anything about his premise. It has to do with how YOU would feel under a different set of environmental conditions.

No, this could be done without anyone even knowing about these premises. Imagination is used all the time. We imagine that if we do this or that, how we will feel. We are always imagining the outcome of our actions. That's how we determine what our next action will be. Are you kidding me?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How you imagine you would feel under changed circumstances is not a reliable guide to how you would actually behave, still less is it evidence of how all people must behave under those conditions.

It is a very reliable guide. That's what we do all the time. We contemplate how our actions will affect others and the consequences that could follow if we are caught doing something unlawful. Why do we threaten people punishment if not to have them think twice before doing something wrong? This knowledge becomes part of their decision making process in the hope that it will deter them from making a choice that is punishable under the law.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong Spacemonkey. I hope you continue to carefully examine your refutations and make modifications to them so that you don't give up on this major work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At no point have you ever given me any reason at all to change or modify any of my refutations. At no point have you given any reason at all for thinking that his claims about conscience were accurate.

I would be surprised if you did. We still haven't gotten past page 59. Maybe if we did, you'd have good reason.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, please stop treating me like a child. If you think there is a problem with these two statements, tell me your reasons, but don't test me. I'm not your student.

That's really good Peacegirl you presume to be a teacher who will disseminate knowledge to others and test them on it, but refuse to be tested yourself. You are not a teacher, not in any way shape or form, we are not your students. The teacher needs to have more information and understanding than the student, and you do not qualify in any way. You are totally lacking in knowledge and understanding compaired to everyone else on the thread. Your only hope is to learn from what has been presented here, at first for your benefit, but now to counter your false beliefs.

[thedoc]

To all the sane and rational people here, Happy Thanksgiving, and to Peacegirl, I hope your day was quiet and calming, have you taken your med's?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"My goal is to try to help you to understand WHY these observations are accurate."

"All I can do is vouch for him until you see the truth of this knowledge for yourself."

I don't think there is a problem with these two statements.

The problem would be obvious to anyone not mentally incompetent and crippled by faith-bound delusion. If you cannot do anything more than vouch for him and hope that we can see the truth of these things for ourselves, then you are not in any position to help us understand why they are true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until you understand the accuracy of these observations, all I can do is vouch for him because I do understand these observations and I know they're correct.

If you understood them and knew them to be correct, then you would be able to to more than merely vouch for him. That you cannot do anymore than vouch for him shows that you are in no position at all to know that his claims were correct.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that you have to accept these principles on face value. My goal is to try to help you to understand WHY these observations are accurate. (sorry TLR ).

Be that as it may, we are not talking about his priniciples here. We are talking about your claim that we need to give him credit for being extremely insightful and precise in his observations and my counter-claim that doing so, in the absence of any good reason for believing that he is extremely insightful and precise in his observations would be premature on our part. You agreed with that counter-claim, so I am asking you again, why did you tell us that we need to give him credit when you agree that doing so would be premature on our part?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you don't. What is it that you don't understand?

I don't understand how you can think that his satisfaction principle can be incompatible with causal indeterminism while agreeing that it does not entail hard determinism. That's wrong by definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. We are always under a compulsion because our will is not free, but when we use the expression "I was compelled" it means we felt a strong drive to do something.

Like I said, there's no reason to speak of compulsion if it is not felt, and it makes your claim that there is always such compulsion unfalsifiable and meaningless.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you mean by "indeterministically" select. If you understood this knowledge at all you would know that this example is hypothetical nonsense. There's no reality to it because there is no possible [way things could have gone] where he could have selected B.

If there is no possible way things could have gone where he could have selected otherwise, then his account does entail hard determinism, contrary to the example's initial assumptions. You just proved my point.

("Indeterministically select" just means to make a selection in a way that is not causally determined by prior events.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said he described reality accurately. When you describe something accurately, that is the proof. I also said that it can be confirmed through empirical testing.

You said he didn't need to show that conscience works as he claimed. I said that he did have to show this, and you then agreed but denied that your first claim was incorrect. And no, an accurate description is not self-validating (I can accurately describe the sky as blue, but that is not in itself proof that I'm right).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans never said blame and punishment have only negative effects. Blame and punishment is the only deterrent we have to stop people from hurting others, but now that we know man's will is not free, there is a much better deterrent. Please read this again if you read it at all.

I know he didn't say it. These things are his presuppositions - things that have to be true for his 'proof' to work. If conscience is not innately potentially perfect, corrupted only by the practices of blame and punishment which he seeks to remove, then removing them won't guarantee a perfect conscience always capable of preventing a first blow. These presuppositions are ludicrously implausible, and neither you nor Lessans have anything at all to offer in support of them.

And you have again resorted to copypasta to deflect from your inability to address the point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He got this knowledge from observing patterns in human behavior. It's as accurate as the observation that apples always fall to the ground from trees. If you call gravity a posteriori inductive generalization based on empirical observation, then I guess you could call Lessans' observations the same.

Given that it is not mathematically certain or undeniable that an apple will always fall towards the ground, does this mean you are prepared to stop claiming that his 'observations' were mathematically certain and undeniable?

Moreover, the two are still not analogous as the falling of an apple is directly observable, whereas Lessans' claims about conscience go beyond what can be directly observed to make claims about how it would operate under different (and as yet unobserved) circumstances. It's like watching a thousand apples fall downwards from a tree and thereby 'observing' that they must fall sideways when dropped from a ladder.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They were confirmed by experiment and testing. Men did not go to the moon without a precise mathematical formula which included knowledge of physics.

The physics formulae used were probable and not certain, and established by years of empirical testing. So I ask again: Will you agree to stop using this 'equations-to-the-moon' analogy now that it has been shown to be an inaccurate one?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have much more than faith claims that conscience has the ability to control one's actions on a scale never before seen.

Then provide something other than faith claims. Your copypasta presupposes rather than supports the premises in question.

Originally Posted by Lessans

"To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate."

This is a perfect example if the very same circular reasoning you have been engaging in. What "must follow" from his new conditions will only follow if his claims about conscience are correct, so understanding these alleged consequences of his new conditions cannot also support those claims about conscience. The alleged consequences cannot explain the truth of his claims about conscience when his claims about conscience are what explains the alleged consequences.

Faith claims and circular reasoning =/= evidence or sound reasoning.

Originally Posted by Lessans

How do you know that when we haven't even gotten to Chapter Two where he describes how conscience works in detail?

I would be surprised if you did. We still haven't gotten past page 59. Maybe if we did, you'd have good reason.

You forget that I've been though this entire charade before, and have already been right through his second chapter. None of this changes the fact that you have acted very prematurely in jumping to the conclusion that all of his claims and 'observations' were astute and accurate despite a complete lack of supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Lessans

It is a very reliable guide. That's what we do all the time. We contemplate how our actions will affect others and the consequences that could follow if we are caught doing something unlawful. Why do we threaten people punishment if not to have them think twice before doing something wrong? This knowledge becomes part of their decision making process in the hope that it will deter them from making a choice that is punishable under the law.

None of this has any bearing at all on the fact that personal imagination is an atrociously poor guide to how you, never mind all people, will behave under changed circumstances never before experienced. Again, all you will discover is the result of your own confirmation bias.

[Angakuk]

John Lennon - Imagine - YouTube

&feature=related

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

John Lennon - Imagine - YouTube

Ahh, the atheist's theme song, doesn't quite fit with Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, how long have you been playing the piano, or do you play another musical instrument, and for how long?

Peacegirl, you seem to have no problem giving opinions on the playing of a musical instrumnt. What is your background experience on which you base these opinions?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"My goal is to try to help you to understand WHY these observations are accurate."

"All I can do is vouch for him until you see the truth of this knowledge for yourself."

I don't think there is a problem with these two statements.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem would be obvious to anyone not mentally incompetent and crippled by faith-bound delusion. If you cannot do anything more than vouch for him and hope that we can see the truth of these things for ourselves, then you are not in any position to help us understand why they are true.

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on your ability to put your beliefs aside long enough to hear his entire demonstration. If you have no intention of learning anything because you have already decided that he's wrong, you will never understand why these principles are true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until you understand the accuracy of these observations, all I can do is vouch for him because I do understand these observations and I know they're correct.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you understood them and knew them to be correct, then you would be able to to more than merely vouch for him. That you cannot do anymore than vouch for him shows that you are in no position at all to know that his claims were correct.

I know the claims are correct but until you grasp the principles and realize that he was right after all, I can only keep pressing forward in the hope you finally get it. I don't know if or when this will happen but this has no bearing on the validity of this knowledge. In the meantime all I can do is vouch for him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Be that as it may, we are not talking about his priniciples here. We are talking about your claim that we need to give him credit for being extremely insightful and precise in his observations and my counter-claim that doing so, in the absence of any good reason for believing that he is extremely insightful and precise in his observations would be premature on our part. You agreed with that counter-claim, so I am asking you again, why did you tell us that we need to give him credit when you agree that doing so would be premature on our part?

I do not want you to give him credit prematurely. All I'm saying is you need to listen carefully to his explanation before jumping to conclusions. No one has done that. Is that fair? Is that what a scientist does when he's following a lead? Of course not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on your ability to put your beliefs aside long enough to hear his entire demonstration. If you have no intention of learning anything because you have already decided that he's wrong, you will never understand why these principles are true.

If you cannot do anything more than vouch for him and hope that we can see the truth of these things for ourselves, then you are not in any position to help us understand why they are true. This is an incredibly simple and obvious point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know the claims are correct but until you grasp the principles and realize that he was right after all, I can only keep pressing forward in the hope you finally get it. I don't know if or when this will happen but this has no bearing on the validity of this knowledge. In the meantime all I can do is vouch for him.

If all you can do is vouch for him, then you do not know his claims to be correct. If you actually had knowledge rather than mere faith then you would be in a position to give rational reasons for thinking his claims were correct instead of merely asserting that they are by vouching for him.

What you have is not knowledge. It is faith. And that is why you are incapable of convincing anyone else of its validity.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not want you to give him credit prematurely. All I'm saying is you need to listen carefully to his explanation before jumping to conclusions. No one has done that. Is that fair? Is that what a scientist does when he's following a lead? Of course not.

There's only one person in this thread who has jumped to a premature conclusion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't understand how you can think that his satisfaction principle can be incompatible with causal indeterminism while agreeing that it does not entail hard determinism. That's wrong by definition.

Please tell me the truth, did you read the excerpt I posted yesterday? You are saying that if something isn't caused, then that means we have free will, and he explicitly said that is not true. Why? Because the standard definition has made a false dichotomy between the two apparent opposites of free will and determinism. I'm trying to show you where this has occurred, but your mind is blocked. You won't let me. I will have to keep encouraging you to read and reread this post until it sinks in what he is trying to get across.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 54-56

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but for
the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not.
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have mathematical control. Since I can’t
be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will
free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend
pointed out, that man has mathematical control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction.

It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions.

The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is
free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding
this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must
always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when
the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel
are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in
order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary
that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short.

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from
previous experience.

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and
during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do
because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was
caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause’, like choice
and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than
man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two
plus two, it is that already. As long as history has been recorded,
these two opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The
amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies,
and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law which makes the
motion of all life just as harmonious as the solar system — because we
are these laws.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. We are always under a compulsion because our will is not free, but when we use the expression "I was compelled" it means we felt a strong drive to do something.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Like I said, there's no reason to speak of compulsion if it is not felt, and it makes your claim that there is always such compulsion unfalsifiable and meaningless.

Wrong. It just means that you are going by the first definition. We now have a new definition that will eventually be included as one of the meanings.

Why is that? A compulsion means a conscience feeling of being driven to do something. Being compelled does not have to do with the strength of one's desire. It just means that one's hand was forced (not by something external to oneself), but because the other choices were an impossibility under the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Assume his principle correct, and assume libertarian indeterministic free will. Of two choices, A and B, in one possible [way things could have gone] Bob might indeterministically select A as his direction of greater satisfaction. In another possible [way things could have gone] he might instead select B as being in his direction of greater satisfaction. His free will might lie not in whether or not to choose the direction of greater satisfaction, but of indeterministically determining which option lies in that direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "indeterministically" select. If you understood this knowledge at all you would know that this example is hypothetical nonsense. There's no reality to it because there is no possible [way things could have gone] where he could have selected B.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If there is no possible way things could have gone where he could have selected otherwise, then his account does entail hard determinism, contrary to the example's initial assumptions. You just proved my point.

It does not entail hard determinism. Do you even understand the difference in Lessans' definition, which happens to be more accurate? If you understood the previous copy-paste, you would be able to answer my question.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

("Indeterministically select" just means to make a selection in a way that is not causally determined by prior events.)

This is exactly where the confusion lies. It's a confusion with definition. Don't you see that as a result of his more accurate definition, he was able to reconcile the two opposing ideologies? Everything is determined but when you say something was caused by previous events, it implies that something other than YOURSELF IS CAUSING YOU TO DO WHAT YOU DO, which is not true because NOTHING CAN CAUSE YOU TO DO ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO. In order to move forward you have to get this, or nothing will make sense.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The standard definition is not accurate and I'm trying to show you why it's not, but your mind is blocked. You won't let me.

Wrong. It just means that you are going by the first definition. We now have a new definition that will eventually be included as one of the meanings.

I don't care what you call it, do you even understand the difference in Lessans' definition (which is more accurate) from the conventional definition?

This is exactly where the confusion lies. It's a confusion with definition. Don't you see because of his more accurate definition of determinism, he was able to reconcile the two opposing ideologies?

You truly are incapable of learning. We went over at length why definitions cannot be true or false, or more or less accurate. And you eventually agreed. Right here:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fair enough.

Yet here you are again less than 24hrs later making the exact same mistake all over again! There is no such thing as a 'more accurate' definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A compulsion means a conscience feeling of being driven to do something.

And you just got through telling me compulsion does not have to be felt, and now you're calling it a feeling again. Could you possibly be any less consistent?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not entail hard determinism.

If it doesn't entail hard determinism then you were wrong to say that there is no possible [way things could have gone] where he could have selected B, and still need to address the example:

Assume his principle correct, and assume libertarian indeterministic free will. Of two choices, A and B, in one possible [way things could have gone] Bob might indeterministically select A as his direction of greater satisfaction. In another possible [way things could have gone] he might instead select B as being in his direction of greater satisfaction. His free will might lie not in whether or not to choose the direction of greater satisfaction, but of indeterministically determining which option lies in that direction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will have to keep encouraging you to read and reread this post until it sinks in what he is trying to get across.

This sentence perfectly encapsulates what is so deeply flawed with your entire approach here. You can't explain yourself consistently, or actually address objections without confusing and contradicting yourself, so you instead deflect criticism by repeatedly copypasting the exact same material we've already read, understood, and found to be seriously flawed in the ways our objections already state.

If you're actually serious about being understood, here is a constructive task for you to complete. Define the following (as clearly and concisely as you can, but in your own words instead of directly quoting from other sources):

1. Determinism (as normally defined).
2. Causal indeterminism.
3. Lessans' version of determinism.
4. Libertarian free will.
5. Compatibilist free will.
6. Lessans' version of free will.

Then state which of these theses his account is and is not compatible with, and explain why.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I did, and that's why I engaged you in serious conversation. Now forget it.

How on earth did you get that idea? Where did I ever give you that indication?

The only reason I am still here is because I am fascinated by the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance it requires for you to retain this preconceived notion that this system makes sense, which in turn is based on your firm belief that your father was a genius.

Even though you are to some extent aware that this is going on, it does not seem to make much of a difference. You seem to keep a very careful compartmentalization between the belief that your father was a genius and the fact that your belief in this is gainsaid by a very compelling body of evidence that you cannot adequately deal with. Your refutations tend to either not happen at all or consist solely of either "no it isn't" or "yahbut you cannot say 100% for sure that there is no different explanation, even though I do not have one at the moment" - neither of which is in the slightest bit convincing on a rational level.

On top of that, you have admitted that to you, the infallibility of your father is something you believe in very strongly, so you know at some level that you reason backwards: you assume the infallibility first, and then go to look for anything that might support it. Similarly you do not examine any evidence that contradicts this idea to see if it has merit, but assume it does not and then set out to find any way, no matter how tenuous, to undermine it.

The humorous thing is that you do this while not providing a scrap of evidence to support your ideas, all the while claiming that everyone else has the kind of bias you display yourself, despite the fact that everyone else has provided evidence to support what they are stating. Everyone else is coming up with carefully constructed rational debates, which run off you like water off a ducks back because if rationality and your belief conflict, you just reject rationality.

At some level you must be aware that this is what you are doing, even though you are not admitting it to yourself. I suspect this is because you get a sense of validation and importance from championing this work that is otherwise lacking in your life. I also get a sense that you do it because you still yearn for your fathers recognition and approval. These are the very merest conjectures, and I fully expect you to reject them with some ire, but I urge you to try to see if perhaps the shoe fits even a little bit.

To let go of the delusion would entail having to admit that the sense of validation and importance was delusional too, and this is very hard for people of a fundamentalist frame of mind to accept. No-one wants to give up the idea of being one of the Chosen Ones, even if it means rejecting reality, and even though the idea itself is a delusion that gains you nothing. Also people tend to dislike having to go from a worldview full of absolutes to one that is much more complex and where much less is known for sure. The kind of certainties that fundamentalism offers simply do not exist in reality, and this can be difficult to deal with.

The book has been thoroughly refuted in just about every possible way. It is a piece of juvenalia, written by a man who wanted to pretend he was a great scholar and visionary, but who was neither. He is not even very clever at hiding his ignorance and makes really obvious logical errors.

You are just unable to admit that, and somehow you think that this means all the evidence against it does not count. That however is something that only works inside your head. Everywhere else it is very obvious that you are merely deluded.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define "where you are" in a meaningful way. If everything from scratching an itch to breathing is defined as "movement" -which is considered the only alternative to suicide- then the term movement is completely meaningless and vapid, and creates a self referential (circular) definition. That is piss poor reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His reasoning was so exact, that it's a turn off when you say the things you say instead of being patient and trying to resolve what you are failing to understand.

He is showing that life is made up of constant motion, and this motion is always in the direction of "greater" satisfaction than what the present position offers whether they are tiny motions or larger motions.

Moving in this direction doesn't always involve choosing between options as I explained in the example I gave with animals. Animals don't choose between options, but they are also moving in this direction because that is the motion of all life. This is an important aspect to understand if you're ever going to grasp his accurate definition of what he means by determinism.

I am not failing to understand anything.

What you are doing is defining every action- voluntary and involuntary, consequential and inconsequential- as movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. If nothing can be excluded from this premise, it is unfalsifiable. If everything has the same definition, then that definition is meaningless.

Scratched an itch? Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Decided to have a baby? Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Breathe in and out? Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Invent a cure for cancer? Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction could be replaced by a nonsense term and be just as meaningful.

Defining it this way, therefore, makes his no free will argument equally as meaningless, because he's already defined every action and choice as "Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction"

If you've predefined gormpf as "the cause of everything you do", then the argument "Man's will is not free because everything he does is due to gormpf", becomes true. This is the tautology. It's truth, however, is not meaningful in any way.