A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought someone gave you the .pdf.

Nope.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you think I can't give you a one sentence definition without people telling me it's circular?

Probably because neither you nor Lessans have any definition which would render his principle non-circular.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Start here:

We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.” So without any further adieu, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary.

Sorry, but there is no definition of "greater satisfaction" in that, or in anything that comes after it. Try again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am self educated, just like Lessans.

Not quite just like Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope.

Probably because neither you nor Lessans have any definition which would render his principle non-circular.

Sorry, but there is no definition of "greater satisfaction" in that, or in anything that comes after it. Try again.

Spacemonkey, you're not listening. I was giving you the beginning paragraph where he explains his proof. Obviously, you didn't read it. I'm not going to continue if all I get are naysayers ready to pounce with no real interest. I'm beating a dead horse. It's just too hard.

[LadyShea]

He didn't ask for the proof, he asked for a definition of a single term. One can't impart information in any language without having definitions for every word used in mind. Lessans didn't do so. How did he define "greater satisfaction"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't ask for the proof, he asked for a definition of a single term. One can't impart information in any language without having definitions for every word used in mind. Lessans didn't do so. How did he define "greater satisfaction"?

He defined "greater" satisfaction as moving in a direction that is away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position. Greater satisfaction is not an end point LadyShea, which is what you seem to be defining it as.

[LadyShea]

Nobody was defining it as an endpoint. I don't think it's anything of the sort. Spacemonkey was asking for Lessans definition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody was defining it as an endpoint. I don't think it's anything of the sort. Spacemonkey was asking for Lessans definition.

I gave it.

[LadyShea]

Thanks. Was that so difficult?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Thanks. Was that so difficult?

Extremely, because you twist everything I say.

[LadyShea]

And you call me paranoid? PROJECT much? (which was what the picture of the projector was about, in case you were still confused)

I am not twisting a thing, peacegirl. I am doing my best to understand your answers, when you bother to offer straight answers. Most of the time you offer some kind of weasel though.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you call me paranoid? PROJECT much? (which was what the picture of the projector was about, in case you were still confused)

I am not twisting a thing, peacegirl. I am doing my best to understand your answers, when you bother to offer straight answers. Most of the time you offer some kind of weasel though.

But you are twisting what I'm saying. I know you are trying to understand whast Lessans is saying, but you're ruining it yourself because you are applying your knowledge as a standard to determine the truth of Lessans' words. I am not mad at you. I am just upset.

[LadyShea]

Well of course I am applying knowledge. That's how knowledge works, it builds on itself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well of course I am applying knowledge. That's how knowledge works, it builds on itself.

Absolutely, until you derail it.

[LadyShea]

Knowledge can't be "derailed".

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Extremely, because you twist everything I say.

peacegirl, most of everything you say is mentally twisted. People, in trying to understand what you are saying, ask questions that when answered make your twisted tourtured logic obvious.

You need to get help.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely, until you derail it.

All she is derailing is the indoctrination. I suspect that you are presenting Lessans material to us pretty much the same way Lessans presented it to you. It worked in your case because you don't appear to have a critical thinking ability.
Your best target audience will be children.

[LadyShea]

Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

False dichotomy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

All she is derailing is the indoctrination. I suspect that you are presenting Lessans material to us pretty much the same way Lessans presented it to you. It worked in your case because you don't appear to have a critical thinking ability.
Your best target audience will be children.

Don't tell her that, do you want young kids growing up believing this stuff. Next thing you know she'll be off somewhere trying to find young kids to read to. Shit, did I post that out loud?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you call me paranoid? PROJECT much? (which was what the picture of the projector was about, in case you were still confused)

I am not twisting a thing, peacegirl. I am doing my best to understand your answers, when you bother to offer straight answers. Most of the time you offer some kind of weasel though.

Anybody who was sincerely interested in what he had to say would not keep calling his discovery an assertion when they didn't understand something. They would simply ask for further clarification.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

False dichotomy.

Of course you would say that. That's what I call an "educated" person. That's also why you, as an "educated person", tell me that I can be both dead and alive at the same time.

[LadyShea]

Of course you would say that. That's what I call an "educated" person. That's also why you, as an "educated person", tell me that I can be both dead and alive at the same time.

Well, that depends on how one defines dead and alive, doesn't it?

I am not going to apologize for my not being ignorant and illiterate just because nuance makes it difficult for you.

Anyway, you don't have to be "educated" to understand false dichotomy

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anybody who was sincerely interested in what he had to say would not keep calling his discovery an assertion when they didn't understand something. They would simply ask for further clarification.

You mean like Spacemonkey asked you for a simple definition for 3 days before you answered?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, that depends on how one defines dead and alive, doesn't it?

I am not going to apologize for my not being ignorant and illiterate just because nuance makes it difficult for you.

I addressed your non-response a long time ago, which stopped me from moving forward. Why can't you admit you're wrong LadyShea. This is not about nuances. Either you're dead or alive. If you're in between, you're not dead.

Death is the permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.

Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, you don't have to be "educated" to understand false dichotomy

There are no additional options between DEAD and ALIVE. There is no FALSE DICHOTOMY. This is exactly what I was alluding to when I said the more "educated" someone thinks he is, the more ignorant he becomes.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you're not listening. I was giving you the beginning paragraph where he explains his proof. Obviously, you didn't read it. I'm not going to continue if all I get are naysayers ready to pounce with no real interest. I'm beating a dead horse. It's just too hard.

Obviously you were not listening. As others have pointed out, I was not asking for his proof. I was asking for a definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He defined "greater" satisfaction as moving in a direction that is away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position. Greater satisfaction is not an end point LadyShea, which is what you seem to be defining it as.

This is no good. I wasn't asking for a definition of "greater" satisfaction. I know what "greater" means. I was asking for a definition of "greater satisfaction". You've answered simply "the direction which is more satisfying". As a definition that is circular - you've explained satisfaction in terms of satisfaction. I want to know what that term means. That's why I asked you to define it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anybody who was sincerely interested in what he had to say would not keep calling his discovery an assertion when they didn't understand something. They would simply ask for further clarification.

And anybody who was not mentally ill would know that when people call something an assertion they had better provide something other than more assertions.