A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...?

It is more like mental illness, perhaps some mild form of encephalitic amnesia and possibly some early abuse from her father.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It's not faith that is blocking peacegirl.

It is more like mental illness, perhaps some mild form of encephalitic amnesia and possibly some early abuse from her father.

I think that to a large extent faith just is her mental illness, and that the distinction is therefore largely one of degree. But you're surely right that there is more to it than just faith and indoctrination, as there's certainly a significant degree of memory impairment of some sort - as posters at most of her forums have observed. What I find so fascinating is her complete blindness to the role that faith has in her own thinking.

[thedoc]

I'm sorry to disagree but something just isn't adding up, certainly Peacegirl displays a dogmatism typical of a fundamentalist, but there is a cunning cleverness about her replies. The 2 threads together have gone on over 600 pages of Peacegirl alone against everyone else, and even when someone at first appears to be on her side, she antagonizes them into being on the other side. She seems to be saying just the right things to keep others coming back to try and convince her of the error of her position, there is a kind of ducking and weaving that would make any pro boxer proud. That she has baited this many people on for this long on multiple forums does not seem consistant with a serious mental imparement. With the onslaught of data and information countering her position, a person of questionable mental capability would have been left babeling by the roadside. It just doesn't smell right.

[Vivisectus]

...but someone whose problem pegs them into the role of defender of the misunderstood genius? A sort of munchausen-by-proxy, only of a flawed idea in stead of a sick child?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't call Lessans idea The Force, I made a similarly structured and analogously non-meaningful argument using a movie quote.

This is what you wrote: "The Force surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

Man's will is not free because everything serves The Force."

This was meant as a spoof which is not appropriate given the seriousness of the conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am demonstrating why I think Lessans' reasoning was very poor due to circularity. I have analyzed the excerpt you posted and your subsequent supporting arguments and my conclusion is what I have posted.

Now, can you refute the summary below using any form of rational argumentation and avoiding ad homs regarding my motivations and mindset and without mere assertions of "you're so wrong I can't even believe how wrong you are" and without moving the goalposts and without further diversionary tactics?

If you read the following sentence carefully, you would see that he did not say involuntary movements are in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is why you're having a problem understanding. To say that this is a tautology is missing the boat entirely.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate
object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not analogous at all. It was meant as a spoof which is not appropriate given the seriousness of the conversation.

The seriousness is all yours. It is a testament to your illness that at this point you would still think that anyone is taking you seriously.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think that to a large extent faith just is her mental illness, and that the distinction is therefore largely one of degree. But you're surely right that there is more to it than just faith and indoctrination, as there's certainly a significant degree of memory impairment of some sort - as posters at most of her forums have observed. What I find so fascinating is her complete blindness to the role that faith has in her own thinking.

It certainly looks like faith on first blush, but it is only genuine faith if she were capable of seeing the other side and still chose to "believe" in Lessans. She does not appear to be capable of the smallest amount of comprehension of the other side despite the thousands of posts attempting to educate her. All these attempts appear to have accomplished is to confuse her further. Her brain is addled. The question is, what is the root cause. Is it memory, cognitive, basic reasoning, some deep mental trauma from childhood, some combination? All seem plausible based on her behavior.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It certainly looks like faith on first blush, but it is only genuine faith if she were capable of seeing the other side and still chose to "believe" in Lessans. She does not appear to be capable of the smallest amount of comprehension of the other side despite the thousands of posts attempting to educate her. All these attempts appear to have accomplished is to confuse her further. Her brain is addled. The question is, what is the root cause. Is it memory, cognitive, basic reasoning, some deep mental trauma from childhood, some combination? All seem plausible based on her behavior.

I don't see why genuine faith should require her to be able to see the other side of things. I think it is largely her emotionally driven faith that has led her to develop these defense mechanisms which have completely crippled her cognitive capacities on this matter. When you can get her on to a more tangential topic she ceases to display quite the same blatantly irrational behaviour, suggesting that her cognitive deficiencies are not entirely universal in scope. The memory thing does seem distinct though, and she has herself acknowledged a weakness in this area.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't see why genuine faith should require her to be able to see the other side of things. I think it is largely her emotionally driven faith that has led her to develop these defense mechanisms which have completely crippled her cognitive capacities on this matter. When you can get her on to a more tangential topic she ceases to display quite the same blatantly irrational behaviour, suggesting that her cognitive deficiencies are not entirely universal in scope. The memory thing does seem distinct though, and she has herself acknowledged a weakness in this area.

Defense mechanisms that completely cripple cognitive capacities sounds to be a bit more than faith. It sounds more like trauma. As for her cognitive abilities, I don't see it. She doesn't even understand what Lessans wrote let alone what she writes. And most of what she does is copy paste. I don't see much cognition. The memory problems just make it all the worse. Imagine not being able to understand much or even remember much of what you were able to understand. It would suck. It explains peacegirls overall approach. It's the only approach open to her based on her mental abilities. That would be copy paste, maintain infallibility, pretty much ignore or obfuscate any objections, and then accuse her audience of not understanding. She has been doing this consistently since post one. It is all she can do.

What is throwing everyone off is that she appears just lucid enough to be reasonable. So people try to reason with her and they just are not able to accept that peacegirl's brain is not firing on all cylinders.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course he needs to show how conscience works, but it is not coming from empirical experiments. An accurate description is just that...accurate. I also said his ACCURATE description could be confirmed empirically.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you were wrong to say that he didn't need to show how conscience works. And you haven't shown his description to be accurate yet (putting it in CAPS doesn't help), nor have you explained how you or he could know it to be so in advance of any empirical confirmation.

I will if you give me a chance, but I doubt if you will ever agree that anything Lessans says is correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

DID YOU READ WHAT I JUST POSTED OR NOT?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course I did. Hence my directly quoting it and raising an objection to it in the very next part of my post. DO YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT YOU ARE REPLYING TO OR NOT?

You were the one that told me you were not going to read any of the copy-pastes. Moreover, your response to this question made me believe you either did not read the excerpt or you didn't understand what you read.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is a useless conversation unless you can show me you read my copy-pastes. Removing blame and punishment without setting up other conditions that are necessary to prevent the desire to strike a first blow would not guarantee a perfect conscience. This was explained throughout the book.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So explain what those other factors are which can limit conscience, and explain how they will be removed. Explain how you think this changes the above assumptions about conscience I have said his argument presupposes. Show me how what you think he is actually assuming about conscience is really more plausible. If you can't do this then you are rendering this conversation useless.

When these conditions are met, conscience becomes perfect (as you put it) in the sense that it prevents the actions that require the need for blame and punishment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

If that makes you happy, yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I will temporarily agree so we can move on. Are you happy now?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This shouldn't be about temporary agreement just to make me happy, so no, this is not satisfactory. It should be about what is TRUE and rational to believe. If you followed my explanations and understand why inductive generalizations are never mathematically certain and undeniable, and still believe that his 'observations' fit this category, then you should want to agree that his 'observations' are not mathematically certain or undeniable (and that he was wrong to say otherwise). And if you have understood why the moon equations analogy was an inappropriate analogy then you should want to stop using it.

His observations about conscience are universal. The only time there could be an exception is if someone was born a bad seed, and that has never been observed. The strength of conscience always involves a mixture of nurture versus nature.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Unlike your attitude towards us, I don't want you just nominally agreeing so as to move on. I want you to agree because you actually understand what I'm saying to you.

I know you want me to believe this is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth, but I don't believe it is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Bad bad reasoning.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, his reasoning in this way would have been bad. And yet that is exactly the form of reasoning you are attributing to him.

You are trying to get me to say that there is no way that everyone's conscience works in the same way and therefore it would never be able to control everyone's behavior. But it does just that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where it presupposes rather than supports.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You could shorten your posts by actually reading in full the post you are replying to before beginning your reply. You could then avoid asking stupid questions like this one.

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."

That wasn't a question.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

That is not what he is doing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes it is. It's right there in the quote I took from the copypaste you keep claiming I haven't read. Have you not read it? He clearly says we can know that his assumption about conscience is correct by observing what must follow from his reasoning which is based upon that very assumption. That is viciously circular and fallacious.

Yes, what must follow proves that conscience is alive and well. What I posted was the last paragraph of an entire chapter which explained in detail how conscience works. So how in the world can you tell me that this is an assumption when you haven't even explored his reasoning?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you think otherwise, then you need to explain his passage in your own words to show that this is not what he is doing.

I said I would but I'm sure you will still find something wrong because it seems that you want it to be wrong. That's why you are so confrontational.

Foreword: pp. i-ii

It is important to know that this book does not contain a theory
but an undeniable equation that can be scientifically proven. It has
no biases, prejudices or ulterior motives — its only concern is in
revealing knowledge never before understood. Furthermore, so as to
prevent jumping to conclusions, this book has nothing whatever to do
with communism, socialism, capitalism, government, or religion; only
with the removal of beliefs among the top echelon of the educated who
have been unconsciously passing along from generation to generation
inaccurate facts in the guise of genuine knowledge.

I am about to
demonstrate in a manner our world’s leading scientists will be unable
to deny not only that the mankind system is just as harmonious as the
solar system despite all the evil and ignorance that ever existed, but
that the inception of the Golden Age cannot commence until the
knowledge pertaining to this law is accurately understood.

There are
those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they
come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows
that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may
deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a plethora of supporting evidence, but you're missing it because you expect empirical proof. His observations are described accurately. He doesn't just start with a premise and expect everything that follows to fit.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's exactly what he does. As do you. There isn't a single scrap of supporting evidence of any kind for any of this, and all you can do is repeat your faith-claim mantra that his 'observations' are accurate descriptions.

There is definitely a problem with communication, but it has nothing to do with the accuracy of these claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is your motivation for using the name Lessans? I wrote this, not him. Please use my name.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

An honest mistake. I put the passage from Lessans in a quote box with his name, then accidentally used the same quote box for the rest of the post. Apologies.

No problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I thought you were more contemplative than this. If you're the cream of the philosophical crop, we're in big trouble. You don't have a clue what this knowledge is about.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why the ad hominem attacks. Why can't you just address my points?

I'm upset because you are making yourself an authority on all subjects philosophy. You are condemning Lessans without even hearing his entire proof. Your negative comments will have a definite impact on whether this knowledge is received positively or negatively by the people reading this thread. Thank goodness you are not the final authority on this subject.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will if you give me a chance...

Who's stopping you? Go ahead, explain to me how you or he could know his descriptions of conscience to be accurate in advance of any empirical confirmation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were the one that told me you were not going to read any of the copy-pastes. Moreover, your response to this question made me believe you either did not read the excerpt or you didn't understand what you read.

Bullshit. I never told you that. And what other than my continued disagreement indicates to you that I didn't read what I most certainly have read?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When these conditions are met, conscience becomes perfect (as you put it) in the sense that it prevents the actions that required the need for blame and punishment.

What conditions? How will they be met? And what has to be true of conscience for it to become perfect once this occurs? How should the premise I gave you be modified on account of the role of these conditions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations about conscience are universal. The only time there could be an exception is if someone was born a bad seed, and that's never been observed. The strength of conscience always involved a mixture of nurture versus nature.

Are you agreeing that his claims were not mathematically certain and undeniable? Or are you retracting your claim that they were inductive generalizations? Do you understand what was wrong with your moon-equations analogy, and do you intent to stop using it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you want me to believe this is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth, but I don't believe it is.

You don't know what either of those terms mean. Inductive generalizations are not necessary truths.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to get me to say that there is no way that everyone's conscience works in the same way and therefore it would never be able to control everyone's behavior. But it does just that.

I'm trying to get you to explain how you can know that conscience is innately perfect to the extent required for it to 'go up' under the specific changed circumstances of Lessans' new world. For some reason you don't seem very interested in explaining this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, what must follow proves that conscience is alive and well. What I posted was the last paragraph of an entire chapter which explained in detail how conscience works. So how in the world can you tell me that this is an assumption when you haven't even explored his reasoning?

But I have. I've read the chapter before and know full well that he never supports the assumptions he makes about conscience. If you think otherwise then you are welcome to provide quotes to correct me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said I would but I'm sure you will still find something wrong because it seems that you want it to be wrong. That's why you are so confrontational.

<copypasta snipped>

I asked you to explain how he was not arguing in the fallacious manner I described in the passage you quoted. You still haven't done that.

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."

Me: "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."

Where does my objection misrepresent what he said?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm upset because you are making yourself an authority on all subjects philosophy.

No I'm not. Why would you say that? I know more than you or Lessans when it comes to philosophy, but that doesn't exactly make me any great expert.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are condemning Lessans without even hearing his entire proof.

Nonsense. I have heard his entire 'proof'. He was wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your negative comments will have a definite impact on whether this knowledge is received positively or negatively.

I'm not creating anywhere near the same negative influence on the reception of his work that you are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank goodness you are not the final authority on this subject.

Are you the final authority? Or is it possible that you might be wrong about the alleged accuracy of his 'observations'?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you read the following sentence carefully, you would see that he did not say involuntary movements are in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is why you're having a problem understanding. To say that this is a tautology is missing the boat entirely.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate
object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’

In your sentence and your quote you contradict yourself, the motions he referes to are all involuntary movements, which lessans is including in the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was meant as a spoof which is not appropriate given the seriousness of the conversation.

L.O.L. In reality there has been nothing serious about your side of the conversation for almost a decade.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No answer to this? Gee, what a surprise.

3rd posting.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your negative comments will have a definite impact on whether this knowledge is received positively or negatively by the people reading this thread.

Peacegirl, do these readers who have received Lessans' knowledge positively whisper to you or something? Are they your invisible friends?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you read the following sentence carefully, you would see that he did not say involuntary movements are in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is why you're having a problem understanding. To say that this is a tautology is missing the boat entirely.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied to remain in one positionfor always like an inanimate
object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’

Moving the goalposts and diversionary tactics as well as a new form of "you are wrong".

Can you refute my summary using any form of rational argumentation and avoiding ad homs regarding my motivations and mindset and without mere assertions of "you're so wrong I can't even believe how wrong you are" and without moving the goalposts and without further diversionary tactics?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lettice

Hi LadyShea - I'm normally a serious lurker on forums such as these, as I find most people are able to put their points across much more eloquently than I can!

peacegirl threads I just find fascinating. I read the one at IIDB at the time and by chance discovered the first thread here a few months ago and became hooked again, I'm afraid.

My thoughts? Her father did an amazing job of completely brainwashing her. I am amazed at the mental gymnastics she performs to avoid having to admit her father wasn't infallible.

Philosophy is not really one of my strong points (and science definitely isn't) , so thanks to everyone participating in this thread and the first one- I am learning loads, which is definitely a good thing!


peacegirl, a nice easy question for you though -

You say your father read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 7 times and saw patterns of human behaviour (I think you also claimed that no one else had seen these patterns?).
What patterns did he see then? And page numbers would be good too so I too can see if I can see them.

Welcome Lettice. I pretty much learned all this stuff hanging around these types at IIDB back in the day and here.

Sorry to call you out, I am just nosy.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, do these readers who have received Lessans' knowledge positively whisper to you or something? Are they your invisible friends?

Yahbut, you cannot 100% prove that there is NOT a load of people reading this thread that are getting way convinced, so saying that there isn't is you being biased and unscientific!!11!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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).

The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

deterministic - definition of deterministic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

This definition leaves out the will, or agent, entirely and turns us into pre-programmed automatons, reacting to antecedents events without any say in the matter. It also removes responsibility because the definition implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions. This creates another artificial dividing line between these two opposing ideologies by the way they are defined, not because they are in true opposition. Lessans reconciles these two artificial divisions which makes them look incompatible, by correctly defining the terms. We can then see that they are not only compatible, but responsibility for one's actions remains intact.

2. Causal indeterminism.

The core idea of indeterminism is closely related to the idea of causality. Indeterminism for some philosophers is an event without a cause. But we can have an adequate causality without strict determinism, the "hard" determinism which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future.
Causality does not entail determinism
An example of an event that is not strictly caused is one that depends on chance, like the flip of a coin. If the outcome is only probable, not certain, then the event can be said to have been caused by the coin flip, but the head or tails result was not predictable. So this causality, which recognizes prior events as causes, is undetermined.

Indeterminism

There is confusion with this theory as well. Even though there is not adequate causality of "hard determinism" which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future, this in no way means that there are two possible futures. The choices, although not predictable according to hard determinism, are still just as determined because we can only move in one direction (which was never understood). That's why I mentioned that the definition of "hard" determinism presents an artificial dichotomy with "freedom" of choice.

3. Lessans' version of determinism.

Here is his definition in a nutshell.

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his
nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

4. Libertarian free will.

The Libertarian view - According to libertarianism, the idea that God causes men to act in a certain way, but that man has free will in acting that way is logically false. Free means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused. God limits the actions of men, but not their mind or will. Man has the ability to turn to God in Christ and sincerely ask for help, selfishly perhaps, apart from specific (special) divine enablement. According to Arminianism, God, in his freedom, not only sets a condition on salvation and wills only to save those who would ask Him to rescue them. God, then, predestines those who He “foreknew” to salvation. Or, according to Open Theism, God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what the choice might be.

Libertarian free will - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

You can easily see the confusion here. Man has free will because his decisions are not caused. If he doesn't ask for help to change his ways, he is subject to punishment because God gives man a choice and [this gets really confusing] He predestines those who He "foreknew" to salvation and anxiously waits to see what each person will do. So for those who don't ask for salvation (which he already predestined), he destroys by sending them to hell for their bad choices.


5. Compatibilist free will.

The Compatibilist view - This view affirms that man freely chooses what God has determined that he will chose. In this way, the idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible for his actions are compatible ideas. Free will is affected by human nature and man cannot choose contrary to his nature and desires. This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices. But due to the effects of the fall, as contained in the doctrine of total depravity, man’s nature is corrupted such that he cannot choose contrary to his fallen nature — He cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith apart from divine intervention.

Libertarian free will - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

The idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible, are not compatible ideas. If God has determined what man freely chooses, it's not a free choice at all. Therefore man cannot be held responsible, but the implications are feared since it is believed if man is not held responsible for his choices, he would become even less responsible. Lessans faces the implications head on. The compatibilist view is an effort to close the gap between these two opposing ideologies, but they have fallen short of a coherent explanation.

6. Lessans' version of free will.

He has no version of free will because we have none. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to choose what we want, but what we want is in the direction of "greater" satisfaction which is fixed because we cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction, or what is less preferable when a more preferable alternative is available [in our eyes].

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yahbut, you cannot 100% prove that there is NOT a load of people reading this thread that are getting way convinced, so saying that there isn't is you being biased and unscientific!!11!!

You're right it's not scientific. I never said it was, but from what I know about "group think", I believe there is some validity to this assertion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Moving the goalposts and diversionary tactics as well as a new form of "you are wrong".

Can you refute my summary using any form of rational argumentation and avoiding ad homs regarding my motivations and mindset and without mere assertions of "you're so wrong I can't even believe how wrong you are" and without moving the goalposts and without further diversionary tactics?

LadyShea, there are no "tactics" to divert your attention. You exhaust me. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right it's not scientific. I never said it was, but from what I know about "group think", I believe there is some validity to this assertion.

That, obviously, was a joke. And no, I was wrong: it is in fact unscientific and irrational to expect a 100% proven negative, the absence of which you can also use to defend the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

I am beginning to see Naturalist Atheist's point. Perhaps I have been seriously overestimating what you are capable of understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That, obviously, was a joke. And no, I was wrong: it is in fact unscientific and irrational to expect a 100% proven negative, the absence of which you can also use to defend the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

It was not a joke; it was meant to belittle. Yes, it's definitely irrational and unscientific to expect a 100% proven negative, but who's doing that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am beginning to see Naturalist Atheist's point. Perhaps I have been seriously overestimating what you are capable of understanding.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Listening to him is like listening to a wive's tail, which is ridiculous.

Another one for the collector.

I am guessing that she meant to write "an old wives' tale". Even then it doesn't make a lot sense in this context.