A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That simply cannot be known. It is not testable. The very most you could ever say is that there is a consensus amongst many people or whatever. This is no different than saying that God exists.

There are many things we cannot know, peacegirl. If they cannot be known and tested they cannot be called laws without exception.

No, this is very testable LadyShea. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions and it can be empirically proven. That's what this discovery is about; showing that when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, we can prevent man from desiring to move in the direction of hurting others with a first blow in order to derive greater satisfaction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that I haven't been answering them; it's that you have a confrontational style which prevents the conversation from moving forward. As I keep repeating, you don't ask, you tell. You're not being receptive, which will prevent you from understanding these concepts. And as a result you'll continue to call them assertions.

That's a crackpot red flag, right there. If it takes some special mindset to understand or accept, then it's probably woo.

It shouldn't matter what I do or don't do, the ideas should stand on their merits, and they do not stand up to the slightest criticism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that I haven't been answering them; it's that you have a confrontational style which prevents the conversation from moving forward. As I keep repeating, you don't ask, you tell. You're not being receptive, which will prevent you from understanding these concepts. And as a result you'll continue to call them assertions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a crackpot red flag, right there.

It shouldn't matter what I do or don't do, the ideas should stand on their merits, and they do not stand up to the slightest criticism.

They do stand for themselves, but if you're unwilling to hear him out without rushing to judgment, which you are doing, you will never grasp these principles. You just now did the exact thing that I was calling you out on. You said that these ideas don't stand up to the slightest criticism, which is a ridiculous statement.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is very testable LadyShea. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions and it can be empirically proven.

Oh? Please tell me any possible test that could prove that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, given that satisfaction cannot be empirically observed or objectively measured.

Any kind of test at all provided it has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

While you're at it, devise a test for the proposition "God exists"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Please tell me any possible test that could prove that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, given that satisfaction cannot be empirically observed or objectively measured.

Any kind of test at all provided it has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

There are methods that could prove that what Lessans is demonstrating is valid, but more importantly people need to understand the veracity of these two principles which lead to his discovery. It really doesn't require data collection, but it can be tested empirically if scientists want to go that route. I have no doubt that not only will his discovery be confirmed valid, but that it won't require that much to get this transition off the ground. Right now, you still don't have a basic foundation of what this discovery is about, so you are skeptical. But your skepticism will lessen once you understand these principles in depth.

[LadyShea]

there are definite ways to prove that man can only move in one direction

Weasel, you need to know NOW what kinds of tests could possibly be conducted if you are going to assert it is testable NOW. So what ways are there?

So, please tell me any possible test that could prove that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, given that satisfaction cannot be empirically observed or objectively measured.

Any kind of test at all provided it has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

While you're at it, devise a test for the proposition "God exists"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Please tell me any possible test that could prove that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, given that satisfaction cannot be empirically observed or objectively measured.

Any kind of test at all provided it has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

While you're at it, devise a test for the proposition "God exists"

This can only be tested indirectly. It can be shown that under changed environmental conditions people will be unable to move in the direction of greater satisfaction in hurting others when all justification has been removed. It would be the worst possible choice, and we can't move in the direction of what is least satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is available, remember? I can't wait for the day that this is proven true, for then you won't have a bad word to say and that in itself will be an accomplishment.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My demeaning attitude is a reaction to your demeaning attitude, but you only see mine, not yours. Eventually, this attitude would get most people upset, even the most serene among us. So you'll have to excuse me for being human.

Is there some particular reason why you can never answer a direct question?

Do you think everyone should stop responding to your posts or answering your questions due to your demeaning attitude? [Y/N]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This can only be tested indirectly.

Then the proposition "man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is NOT empirically provable as you claimed, nor can you even think of a possible scientifically valid test of this proposition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then the proposition "man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is NOT empirically provable as you claimed, nor can you even think of a possible scientifically valid test of this proposition.

I just told you that you can't test people moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can determine this indirectly. I feel like you don't even hear a word I say. You just react.

[LadyShea]

I just told you that you can't test people moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can determine this indirectly. I feel like you don't even hear a word I say.

I read it just fine, but what you said is incorrect, as I pointed out in my response

Determination through indirect means is not empirical proof, nor a scientifically valid test

This means, of course, the proposition cannot be empirically proven as you claimed and is, instead, ultimately not scientifically testable as I said. Just like the proposition "God exists"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an invariable law that has no exceptions and it can be empirically proven. That's what this discovery is about; showing that when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, we can prevent man from desiring to move in the direction of hurting others with a first blow in order to derive greater satisfaction.

This is 'bullshit', any 'Invariable law of nature' would be in force whether people believed it or not, whether people accepted it or not. That we need to accept it and the 'powers that be' must enforce it, means that it is a belief without proof, and not any kind of natural law. That it needs to be accepted by everyone for the benefits to be manifest indicates that it is a failable social norm that will only work if everyone accepts it. The smallest flaw in the population or the weakest member and the whole house of cards will come tumbeling down. Not surprising as the house would be built of all jokers.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already addressed Angakuk's question about choices that are equal in value. I don't think he understood that this makes no difference.

And I am pretty sure that peacegirl didn't understand why it does make a difference.

I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And I am pretty sure that peacegirl didn't understand why it does make a difference.

I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.

Actually, Lessans stated emphatically that anything done by others or to others doesn't even apply. You have created something to argue about that has nothing to do with these principles Angakuk, and because of this you refuse to listen with a sickening self-righteous attitude. Who are you to come off telling other people that you read the book? You're a liar and you know it. You have now committed yourself to rejecting this book or else be embarrassed. You are not a good representative of God himself. Am I being blasphemis? Oh well, I will state my truth knowing that Lessans was right all along. What do you have say to defend yourself Angakuk? This is so disturbing because you're now turning into a fraud, in God's name. How sick is that?

[LadyShea]

LOL, Angakuk has some criticisms of the book so he's committing fraud in God's name?

Wow, peacegirl....you just go for the most histrionic place you can think of don't you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read it just fine, but what you said is incorrect, as I pointed out in my response

Determination through indirect means is not empirical proof, nor a scientifically valid test

This means, of course, the proposition cannot be empirically proven as you claimed and is, instead, ultimately not scientifically testable as I said. Just like the proposition "God exists"

Oh really? So are you saying that when there is no more war as a direct result of this discovery, which proves conclusively that man can only move in one direction, which is not to hurt others with a first blow, that this will not be proof enough? What are you saying LadyShea, because I don't think you even know yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, Angakuk has some criticisms of the book so he's committing fraud in God's name?

Wow, peacegirl....you just go for the most histrionic place you can think of don't you?

He is acting as a representative of God, and he is not being truthful to me or to anyone by attacking Lessans the way he has. So yes, I am standing by my words that he is hiding behind his title. So go defend him LadyShea. You're all cronies, which is why group think will ruin any chances of me sharing this discovery with you in a fair discourse.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So are you saying that when there is no more war as a direct result of this discovery, which proves conclusively that man can only move in one direction, which is not to hurt others with a first blow, that this will not be proof enough? What are you saying LadyShea, because I don't think you even know yourself.

Predicting possible, not actual, future states of society that are contingent on people accepting the proposition as true without it being proven valid first, is not a scientifically valid nor empirical test of the proposition.

Simplified: What you believe, by faith, will happen at some point in the future is NOT a test that has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

You've moved it now. Instead of devising a possible test to prove or disprove the existence of God, you need to devise a possible test to prove or disprove the existence of Heaven.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is acting as a representative of God, and he is not being truthful to me or to anyone by attacking Lessans the way he has. So yes, I am standing by my words that he is hiding behind his title. So go defend him LadyShea. You're all cronies, which is why group think will ruin any chances of me sharing this discovery with you in a fair discourse.

His discussions here at FF are not conducted in his official capacity as a pastor. Additionally, there is no reason to believe at all he is not being truthful in expressing his opinions.

You're just lashing out in a histrionic way, as usual, because you can't defend Lessans ideas rationally.

You think we're the problem for all these imaginary readers you are worried about. You don't think they'll see your ravings as juvenile hissy fits?

[LadyShea]

It is widely held that man's greatest motivator is fear. I personally hold this idea as well (along with the idea that fear is the base source of all "evil"). We can see the fear principle at work in the consumer marketplace, in politics, and in daily living.

So, Lessans thought greater satisfaction is the dominant force in decision making, I think less fear is the dominant force in decision making.

Compare and contrast these two propositions, and devise a test to prove or disprove one over the other.

"People are compelled to choose that which is thought will move them in the direction of greater satisfaction"

"People are compelled to choose that which is thought will lead to the less feared outcome"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.

And this along with her willfull ignorance and other atributes that have been repetedly pointed out, would seem to lead away from mental illness, to the conclusion that she is only in it for the money. Lessans motivations, on the other hand are less discernible. If sales were sucessful he had no need of money, though it is possible that he just wanted more, and his Billard Championship gave him a claim to fame. That would leave the very real possibility that it was just a colossal joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And I am pretty sure that peacegirl didn't understand why it does make a difference.

I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.

I explained the fact that two things being the same in preference doesn't change the fact that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, regardless of which motion we make at any given moment, and I also explained the fact that when Lessans said "nothing can make man do anything against his will," he wasn't referring to what others do to him, because then it's not his will. He did mention this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is widely held that man's greatest motivator is fear. I personally hold this idea as well (along with the idea that fear is the base source of all "evil"). We can see the fear principle at work in the consumer marketplace, in politics, and in daily living.

I agree with you here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, Lessans thought greater satisfaction is the dominant force in decision making, I think less fear is the dominant force in decision making.

Where's the conflict? There are motivating forces, for certain, that compel us to stay away from things feared, or to move toward things preferred. Fear is a very strong emotion and we will do almost anything to avoid it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Compare and contrast these two propositions, and devise a test to prove or disprove one over the other.

"People are compelled to choose that which is thought will move them in the direction of greater satisfaction"

"People are compelled to choose that which is thought will lead to the less feared outcome"[/quote]

Devise a test? For what? These two thought systems are complementary. To move away from something feared is the lesser of two evils, and to move toward something that is desired is the greater of two goods, but both are in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[LadyShea]

Devise a test? For what?

Because you have asserted that Lessans' proposition is empirically provable and testable. Devise a test that can prove or disprove either of those or prove one is more true than the other.

I think "greater satisfaction" is faulty and "less fear" is not.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And this along with her willfull ignorance and other atributes that have been repetedly pointed out, would seem to lead away from mental illness, to the conclusion that she is only in it for the money. Lessans motivations, on the other hand are less discernible. If sales were sucessful he had no need of money, though it is possible that he just wanted more, and his Billard Championship gave him a claim to fame. That would leave the very real possibility that it was just a colossal joke.

After ten years of this nonsense only a mentally ill person would think there is money to be made.