Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #10601  
Old 12-13-2012, 03:05 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
LadyShea, forget the "satisfaction principle" if it disturbs you. Neuro-science is already establishing that we don't have free will.
As I've stated many times. I do not hold a free will position. I think the term is useless and obsolete.

From page 2 of this thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I think our "will" is constrained by our own unique neural makeup...the pathways our experiences and cognitive processes have created that makes us who we are and do what we do.

We can't make decisions against the decision our brain makes (tautology, I know) however we can feed the brain and add information- by thinking about something, reading something, discussing with others- which allows decisions to be changed right down to the time they are acted upon.

Is that some kind of determinism? I don't know. Does it matter to me whether this can be defined as free will or determinism? Pragmatically speaking, not a single bit.
Reply With Quote
  #10602  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:15 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And I've already explained why this is not falsification criteria specific to his satisfaction principle. That was the point of the post LadyShea bumped for you. In these circumstances you would know that his claim about not being able to hurt someone in his no-blame environment was wrong.
All that would have to be shown for his "satisfaction principle" to be be valid is to see that no one can move in the direction of hurting others as a possible option, for if they could that would mean they could choose freely to hurt people even with these new antecedent conditions. And I also said that all she has to do is follow the "no blame" principle and maybe she can accept that better because neuroscientists are leaning in this direction, and leave out "greater satisfaction" entirely. Then we could move forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But that wouldn't directly falsify his satisfaction principle, for it could well be some other part of his reasoning that was faulty. (The person could still be moving in his direction of greater satisfaction while harming despite the absence of blame. It is possible that in these circumstances it is his beliefs about conscience rather than those about satisfaction which are wrong, so his satisfaction principle would not be falsified.)
That's just the point. It can be tested that a person's conscience in a no blame environment would compel him to get greater satisfaction out of not harming anyone with a first blow. The two go hand in hand. In other words, without the raising of conscience due to a no blame environment, man would be able to hurt others because the justification to do so would not have been entirely removed from the environment.
What the hell? You still haven't provided any falsification criteria for his satisfaction principle, so you still haven't shown it not to be an unfalsifiable tautology.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-13-2012)
  #10603  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:33 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How can science go about recognizing something that cannot be scientifically verified?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
you really are actually impeding the scientific process by not giving him the benefit of the doubt
The scientific process doesn't include "benefit of the doubt". Scientists aren't going to give Lessans ideas the benefit of the doubt...so I hope you are not relying on that happening.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-13-2012), Spacemonkey (12-13-2012), Stephen Maturin (12-14-2012), thedoc (12-13-2012)
  #10604  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And I've already explained why this is not falsification criteria specific to his satisfaction principle. That was the point of the post LadyShea bumped for you. In these circumstances you would know that his claim about not being able to hurt someone in his no-blame environment was wrong.
All that would have to be shown for his "satisfaction principle" to be be valid is to see that no one can move in the direction of hurting others as a possible option, for if they could that would mean they could choose freely to hurt people even with these new antecedent conditions. And I also said that all she has to do is follow the "no blame" principle and maybe she can accept that better because neuroscientists are leaning in this direction, and leave out "greater satisfaction" entirely. Then we could move forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But that wouldn't directly falsify his satisfaction principle, for it could well be some other part of his reasoning that was faulty. (The person could still be moving in his direction of greater satisfaction while harming despite the absence of blame. It is possible that in these circumstances it is his beliefs about conscience rather than those about satisfaction which are wrong, so his satisfaction principle would not be falsified.)
That's just the point. It can be tested that a person's conscience in a no blame environment would compel him to get greater satisfaction out of not harming anyone with a first blow. The two go hand in hand. In other words, without the raising of conscience due to a no blame environment, man would be able to hurt others because the justification to do so would not have been entirely removed from the environment.
What the hell? You still haven't provided any falsification criteria for his satisfaction principle, so you still haven't shown it not to be an unfalsifiable tautology.
I don't know what you mean by proof Spacemonkey. We don't have to prove directly that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Determinism means that someone could not do otherwise; that he could only make one choice at a particular moment in time. If we see that no one in the world could do otherwise under the new antecedent conditions; in other words, if we see that no one in the world who has a working conscience could strike a first blow when there is no justification available --- or a price that can be paid for their actions, that is enough evidence that man's will is not free.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10605  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:55 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't know what you mean by proof Spacemonkey. We don't have to prove directly that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Determinism means that someone could not do otherwise; that he could only make one choice at a particular moment in time. If we see that no one in the world could do otherwise under the new antecedent conditions; in other words, if we see that no one in the world who has a working conscience could strike a first blow when there is no justification available --- or a price that can be paid for their actions, that is enough evidence that man's will is not free.
Can't you read? Where did I ask you for proof? I'm not asking you to prove his satisfaction principle. And I'm not asking anything about determinism, conscience, or justification. I'm only asking you to show that his satisfaction principle is falsifiable. To do that you need to provide falsification criteria specific to this principle. Aren't you even reading what you are replying to?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-13-2012)
  #10606  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:56 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
LadyShea, forget the "satisfaction principle" if it disturbs you. Neuro-science is already establishing that we don't have free will.
As I've stated many times. I do not hold a free will position. I think the term is useless and obsolete.

From page 2 of this thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I think our "will" is constrained by our own unique neural makeup...the pathways our experiences and cognitive processes have created that makes us who we are and do what we do.

We can't make decisions against the decision our brain makes (tautology, I know) however we can feed the brain and add information- by thinking about something, reading something, discussing with others- which allows decisions to be changed right down to the time they are acted upon.

Is that some kind of determinism? I don't know. Does it matter to me whether this can be defined as free will or determinism? Pragmatically speaking, not a single bit.
Of course it is some kind of determinism if we are constrained by our own unique neural makeup. Just because we can feed the brain and add information (and btw, feeding the brain isn't a free act either), does not change our brains to making free choices. Everything we do even up to the point of making a decision (including changing our minds a nanosecond before an actual choice is made) is not free either. That's what you're missing. You are only thinking in terms of the issue of choosing between alternatives (which we do a large part of the day), but every movement is a movement off of the spot called "here" to a more satisfying spot called "there", whether we are making a choice, or just moving through the day in general. Ironically, this is the most pragmatic discoveries that will ever be made because it actually has the power to change our world for the better (this is not just talk), and you again just handwaved it away without a second thought. No surprise to me.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10607  
Old 12-13-2012, 01:42 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Just because we can feed the brain and add information (and btw, feeding the brain isn't a free act either), does not change our brains to making free choices
And being determined doesn't eliminate agency. You are defining "free" in some crazy extreme way
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (12-13-2012)
  #10608  
Old 12-13-2012, 02:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't know what you mean by proof Spacemonkey. We don't have to prove directly that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Determinism means that someone could not do otherwise; that he could only make one choice at a particular moment in time. If we see that no one in the world could do otherwise under the new antecedent conditions; in other words, if we see that no one in the world who has a working conscience could strike a first blow when there is no justification available --- or a price that can be paid for their actions, that is enough evidence that man's will is not free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Can't you read? Where did I ask you for proof? I'm not asking you to prove his satisfaction principle. And I'm not asking anything about determinism, conscience, or justification. I'm only asking you to show that his satisfaction principle is falsifiable. To do that you need to provide falsification criteria specific to this principle. Aren't you even reading what you are replying to?
Spacemonkey, this is proof (whether you asked for it or not) that the satisfaction principle is falsifiable because if under all the conditions presented no one can hurt another means that any counterfactual example that tries to disprove it cannot be done. That is not just evidence or support for this idea, THIS IS PROOF that this discovery is not a theory. What more can I do to show you that this knowledge is falsifiable and cannot be proven wrong with your well-meaning counterfactual examples. It does no such thing. You are looking at this entire expose (ex po se) of yours with a myopic lens. :fuming:
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10609  
Old 12-13-2012, 02:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Just because we can feed the brain and add information (and btw, feeding the brain isn't a free act either), does not change our brains to making free choices
And being determined doesn't eliminate agency. You are defining "free" in some crazy extreme way
LadyShea, this is no offense to you, but you are miscontruing everything that I have said. I never said that this eliminates agency, but agency does not mean that will is free. Agency is part and parcel of a deterministic model and if this is true, you will be compelled in the direction of greater satisfaction (isn't this humorous) to see this whole thing as faulty. This is what makes it so difficult for me and I am willing to admit that I am getting to that point that my frustration in here is going to compel me to leave because I don't see anyone taking anything Lessans has to say seriously. He is not fodder for jokes, like koan thought. I also want to say that later on today I would appreciate if this discussion is off limits. I need a break. Everyone deserves this, and it just so happens that my birthday is on Saturday. So I want to make this special birthday a time of celebration for everyone's birth, not just mine, and let's just hang out and chill. Let's just talk about ourselves and what our goals and dreams are. I really would love to hear other people's wishes and hopes besides my own because you all have become part of my social network. Does anyone think my request for a time out is reasonable?
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10610  
Old 12-13-2012, 08:57 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Can't you read? Where did I ask you for proof? I'm not asking you to prove his satisfaction principle. And I'm not asking anything about determinism, conscience, or justification. I'm only asking you to show that his satisfaction principle is falsifiable. To do that you need to provide falsification criteria specific to this principle. Aren't you even reading what you are replying to?
Spacemonkey, this is proof (whether you asked for it or not) that the satisfaction principle is falsifiable because if under all the conditions presented no one can hurt another means that any counterfactual example that tries to disprove it cannot be done. That is not just evidence or support for this idea, THIS IS PROOF that this discovery is not a theory. What more can I do to show you that this knowledge is falsifiable and cannot be proven wrong with your well-meaning counterfactual examples. It does no such thing. You are looking at this entire expose (ex po se) of yours with a myopic lens. :fuming:
What you've just said would prove the exact opposite. Something that cannot be proven wrong by any conceivable counterfactual circumstances is NOT falsifiable. You are still confusing proving the principle true with proving it to be falsifiable. These are two entirely different questions. Proving it to be true does not show it to be falsifiable. A proposition can be both falsifiable and true, or falsifiable and false, or even true and unfalsifiable. I am not asking if it is true or false. I am only asking if it is falsifiable, i.e. something that (whether actually true or false) could potentially be shown to be false. If it is not, then it is an unfalsifiable tautology. If it is, then you need to be able to present the possible counterfactual circumstances that would show it to be false, and you still have not done so. You haven't even tried.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-13-2012), thedoc (12-13-2012)
  #10611  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:04 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I also want to say that later on today I would appreciate if this discussion is off limits. I need a break.
If you need a break then just take one. Stop reading or posting in the thread for a few days. You don't need anyone else's co-operation or assistance to do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Everyone deserves this, and it just so happens that my birthday is on Saturday. So I want to make this special birthday a time of celebration for everyone's birth, not just mine
Happy Birthday. :party:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
let's just hang out and chill. Let's just talk about ourselves and what our goals and dreams are. I really would love to hear other people's wishes and hopes besides my own because you all have become part of my social network.
I think that's a great idea. But don't try to do it here. This thread has its own topic. Start a new birthday/wishes/dreams thread. I think that would be a great idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Does anyone think my request for a time out is reasonable?
I think the request is unnecessary. If you want a time out, take one. If you would like to start a new discussion on a different topic, then do so.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10612  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:38 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
What you've just said would prove the exact opposite. Something that cannot be proven wrong by any conceivable counterfactual circumstances is NOT falsifiable. You are still confusing proving the principle true with proving it to be falsifiable. These are two entirely different questions. Proving it to be true does not show it to be falsifiable. A proposition can be both falsifiable and true, or falsifiable and false, or even true and unfalsifiable. I am not asking if it is true or false. I am only asking if it is falsifiable, i.e. something that (whether actually true or false) could potentially be shown to be false. If it is not, then it is an unfalsifiable tautology. If it is, then you need to be able to present the possible counterfactual circumstances that would show it to be false, and you still have not done so. You haven't even tried.
I am pretty sure she doesn't even understand what is being asked of her.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #10613  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Can't you read? Where did I ask you for proof? I'm not asking you to prove his satisfaction principle. And I'm not asking anything about determinism, conscience, or justification. I'm only asking you to show that his satisfaction principle is falsifiable. To do that you need to provide falsification criteria specific to this principle. Aren't you even reading what you are replying to?
Spacemonkey, this is proof (whether you asked for it or not) that the satisfaction principle is falsifiable because if under all the conditions presented no one can hurt another means that any counterfactual example that tries to disprove it cannot be done. That is not just evidence or support for this idea, THIS IS PROOF that this discovery is not a theory. What more can I do to show you that this knowledge is falsifiable and cannot be proven wrong with your well-meaning counterfactual examples. It does no such thing. You are looking at this entire expose (ex po se) of yours with a myopic lens. :fuming:
What you've just said would prove the exact opposite. Something that cannot be proven wrong by any conceivable counterfactual circumstances is NOT falsifiable. You are still confusing proving the principle true with proving it to be falsifiable. These are two entirely different questions. Proving it to be true does not show it to be falsifiable. A proposition can be both falsifiable and true, or falsifiable and false, or even true and unfalsifiable. I am not asking if it is true or false. I am only asking if it is falsifiable, i.e. something that (whether actually true or false) could potentially be shown to be false. If it is not, then it is an unfalsifiable tautology. If it is, then you need to be able to present the possible counterfactual circumstances that would show it to be false, and you still have not done so. You haven't even tried.
I've already given the counterfactual example. If someone is able to strike a first blow under the changed antecedent conditions of a no blame environment (this environment has to be set up correctly in order to work), then that would falsify this knowledge.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10614  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:46 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If we see that no one in the world could do otherwise under the new antecedent conditions; in other words, if we see that no one in the world who has a working conscience could strike a first blow when there is no justification available --- or a price that can be paid for their actions, that is enough evidence that man's will is not free.
What a convenient little escape clause. It allows you rule out every instance where someone does strike an unjustified first blow simply by claiming that they don't have a working conscience. How do we know that they don't have a working conscience, because they struck an unjustified first blow. How nice for you.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-13-2012)
  #10615  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:53 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
What you've just said would prove the exact opposite. Something that cannot be proven wrong by any conceivable counterfactual circumstances is NOT falsifiable. You are still confusing proving the principle true with proving it to be falsifiable. These are two entirely different questions. Proving it to be true does not show it to be falsifiable. A proposition can be both falsifiable and true, or falsifiable and false, or even true and unfalsifiable. I am not asking if it is true or false. I am only asking if it is falsifiable, i.e. something that (whether actually true or false) could potentially be shown to be false. If it is not, then it is an unfalsifiable tautology. If it is, then you need to be able to present the possible counterfactual circumstances that would show it to be false, and you still have not done so. You haven't even tried.
I am pretty sure she doesn't even understand what is being asked of her.

I am pretty sure she didn't understand what she was writing.
Reply With Quote
  #10616  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:54 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I also want to say that later on today I would appreciate if this discussion is off limits. I need a break.
If you need a break then just take one. Stop reading or posting in the thread for a few days. You don't need anyone else's co-operation or assistance to do this.
Thanks Spacemonkey! I may just do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Everyone deserves this, and it just so happens that my birthday is on Saturday. So I want to make this special birthday a time of celebration for everyone's birth, not just mine
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Happy Birthday. :party:
Thank you. It's a milestone birthday. My daughter is throwing me a dinner party. :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
let's just hang out and chill. Let's just talk about ourselves and what our goals and dreams are. I really would love to hear other people's wishes and hopes besides my own because you all have become part of my social network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I think that's a great idea. But don't try to do it here. This thread has its own topic. Start a new birthday/wishes/dreams thread. I think that would be a great idea.
That's a good idea too. But why not just have a moratorium on this topic and chill out with everyone here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Does anyone think my request for a time out is reasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I think the request is unnecessary. If you want a time out, take one. If you would like to start a new discussion on a different topic, then do so.
K
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10617  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:58 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I have offered to just chat, but Peacegirl seems hell bent on pursuing the concepts in the book, to the exclusion of everything else. We can chat here, I really don't see that it will make much difference where.
Reply With Quote
  #10618  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:01 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Happy Birthday. :party:
Thank you. It's a milestone birthday. My daughter is throwing me a dinner party. :D

What's for dinner?
Reply With Quote
  #10619  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:01 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
What you've just said would prove the exact opposite. Something that cannot be proven wrong by any conceivable counterfactual circumstances is NOT falsifiable. You are still confusing proving the principle true with proving it to be falsifiable. These are two entirely different questions. Proving it to be true does not show it to be falsifiable. A proposition can be both falsifiable and true, or falsifiable and false, or even true and unfalsifiable. I am not asking if it is true or false. I am only asking if it is falsifiable, i.e. something that (whether actually true or false) could potentially be shown to be false. If it is not, then it is an unfalsifiable tautology. If it is, then you need to be able to present the possible counterfactual circumstances that would show it to be false, and you still have not done so. You haven't even tried.
I've already given the counterfactual example. If someone is able to strike a first blow under the changed antecedent conditions of a no blame environment (this environment has to be set up correctly in order to work), then that would falsify this knowledge.
And as I've explained several times now, that would falsify his knowledge as a collective whole, but does not in any way show his satisfaction principle to be falsifiable.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-13-2012)
  #10620  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I have offered to just chat, but Peacegirl seems hell bent on pursuing the concepts in the book, to the exclusion of everything else. We can chat here, I really don't see that it will make much difference where.
I only want to chat informally during a social break which has not been designated.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10621  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:08 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Thank you. It's a milestone birthday. My daughter is throwing me a dinner party. :D
You're welcome. What's the milestone? I hope you have an enjoyable time with your family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's a good idea too. But why not just have a moratorium on this topic and chill out with everyone here?
Because it is unenforcable. People will inevitably post on the topic of Lessans and the book, and you will inevitably be drawn to reply, and then you won't get the break you want. It's your call, but I would recommend a new thread and a link in this one letting everyone know you're taking a week off Lessans to post only in the new Birthday thread.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10622  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
What you've just said would prove the exact opposite. Something that cannot be proven wrong by any conceivable counterfactual circumstances is NOT falsifiable. You are still confusing proving the principle true with proving it to be falsifiable. These are two entirely different questions. Proving it to be true does not show it to be falsifiable. A proposition can be both falsifiable and true, or falsifiable and false, or even true and unfalsifiable. I am not asking if it is true or false. I am only asking if it is falsifiable, i.e. something that (whether actually true or false) could potentially be shown to be false. If it is not, then it is an unfalsifiable tautology. If it is, then you need to be able to present the possible counterfactual circumstances that would show it to be false, and you still have not done so. You haven't even tried.
I've already given the counterfactual example. If someone is able to strike a first blow under the changed antecedent conditions of a no blame environment (this environment has to be set up correctly in order to work), then that would falsify this knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And as I've explained several times now, that would falsify his knowledge as a collective whole, but does not in any way show his satisfaction principle to be falsifiable.
I guess it can't be falsified then. This is an observed law where there is no condition in which it could be false. There are no exemptions. Does that mean it's wrong or can't be proven true? No it doesn't. And what does it matter if we cannot falsify it in this way when this is not necessary to see that Lessans' observations are accurate and, more importantly, if we get the desired results? If no one in the world can desire to hurt others under the changed conditions, isn't this proof enough that we can only move in one direction which is the only choice possible? Free will states that we can move in more than one direction; that we can choose bad as well as good, but if we can't choose that which is "bad", then this moral dilemma is solved.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10623  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Thank you. It's a milestone birthday. My daughter is throwing me a dinner party. :D
You're welcome. What's the milestone? I hope you have an enjoyable time with your family.
Thanks Spacemonkey. It's rare that we all get together for a special occasion so it will be fun. I'm reaching a new decade. You can take a guess which one. I can't believe how the time has flown by. That's life!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's a good idea too. But why not just have a moratorium on this topic and chill out with everyone here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Because it is unenforcable. People will inevitably post on the topic of Lessans and the book, and you will inevitably be drawn to reply, and then you won't get the break you want. It's your call, but I would recommend a new thread and a link in this one letting everyone know you're taking a week off Lessans to post only in the new Birthday thread.
Great idea! A whole week though? That would be like taking a vacation to a remote island. :yup:
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #10624  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:30 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And as I've explained several times now, that would falsify his knowledge as a collective whole, but does not in any way show his satisfaction principle to be falsifiable.
I guess it can't be falsified then. This is an observed law where there is no condition in which it could be false. There are no exemptions. Does that mean it's wrong or can't be proven true? No it doesn't. And what does it matter if we cannot falsify it in this way when this is not necessary to see that Lessans' observations are accurate and, more importantly, if we get the desired results? If no one in the world can desire to hurt others under the changed conditions, isn't this proof enough that we can only move in one direction which is the only choice possible? Free will states that we can move in more than one direction; that we can choose bad as well as good, but if we can't choose that which is "bad", then this moral dilemma is solved.
It means that it is an unfalsifiable tautology. It means it cannot be empirically proven true, as it is not empirically testable and has no empirical content. It means it is in the category of '1+1=2', 'All apples are apples', and 'Nothing can be both entirely red and partially green'. It also means it does not prove any form of determinism relevant to any kind of compulsion, either causal or psychological, for both causation and psychology are empirical domains and the unfalsifiable satisfaction principle has no empirical content.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10625  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Happy Birthday. :party:
Thank you. It's a milestone birthday. My daughter is throwing me a dinner party. :D

What's for dinner?
Sushi. :)
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 2.15510 seconds with 14 queries