A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

b) Whatever choice you make, it will always be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is a necessary truth, so now you're saying that necessary truths and contingent truths don't mix? Is that it?

Whu?

Let Me Google That for you

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

b) Whatever choice you make, it will always be in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is a necessary truth, so now you're saying that necessary truths and contingent truths don't mix? Is that it?

No, I'm saying that his principle being a tautology means there can be no compulsion involved, and makes it fallacious for him to infer a contingent conclusion from it.

A principle that rules out nothing doesn't rule out any particular choices, and therefore can't compel in the direction of any given choice. It is meaningless to say we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction if every conceivable choice counts as the direction of greater satisfaction if taken. And if this principle holds no matter what choice one could conceivably take, then it obviously doesn't show that there is only one conceivable choice that could have been chosen.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's all explained and it's all there Spacemonkey. He didn't talk about photons, and he didn't have to. He didn't define greater satisfaction; he didn't have to. We know what satisfaction means, I would hope. Greater is just added onto it, which means "more satisfied or content". It's not that difficult Spacemonkey, and you're making much ado about nothing for reasons that only you know. Moreover, he clearly shows how conscience functions under optimal conditions, and how it will not permit a person to hurt another for unjustified reasons. He did not presuppose anything.

Nothing I asked about is explained anywhere, and you haven't answered any of my questions here. He didn't show how efferent vision could be compatible with what we know about photons, and your attempts to resolve this have been flatly contradictory as you know all too well. Taken literally, it is simply false that we always choose what is most satisfying, or even what we expect to be most satisfying in every choice, yet he never bothered to clearly and explicitly define this key term in his argument. And his whole non-discovery rests upon this assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience which he provided zero support for, and which you keep failing to even recognize as a premise of his argument.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll never know whether I'm doing the same thing because you'll never find me. And I don't need your money. Deal or no deal? NO DEAL.

See? Even you know you're full of shit when you claim that you've actually learned what not to do again. We both know you'll be doing this all over again in exactly the same way just as soon as you find a new website, and that until then you'll continue doing exactly the same thing right here.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to discuss this. There are more important things on the table than this chapter, so let it be. When this knowledge is brought to light, there will be time enough to understand his reasoning based on observations (clues) while alive.

You were the one who brought up his alleged proof that we are born again and again. You introduced it in support of your claims regarding his superior reasoning ability. It is disingenuous in the extreme to introduce something as evidence and then subsequently refuse to defend its probative value.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is misleading, because the choice could not have been any different, and as long as you use your faulty logic to try to disprove this, you will continue to tell me he was wrong, just like your flawed faulty logic has tried to prove that efferent vision is a contradiction, and it is not. That is the difference between a logical account and a mathematical account. And I don't care whether you don't like his terms; there is a major difference.

There is indeed a difference between a logical account and Lessans' mathematical accounts (so-called). The principle difference being that logical accounts represent coherent, rational and defensible positions. Lessans' mathematical accounts are simply unsupported expressions of opinion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not paying attention to the infallibility of his premises.

It is notoriously difficult for people to pay attention to things that they are unable to perceive. No one here, so far, has managed to notice this alleged infallibility. Clearly it is our perceptual faculties that are at fault.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's amazing how moral responsibility is increased with the knowledge that we will not be blamed...

What is really amazing is your ability to describe hypothetical future conditions in the present tense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that it doesn't have to do with science, which is a synonym for undeniability. Please don't make the use of the term "scientific" a misnomer when he clarified how he was using it in the introduction. He didn't compile data because he didn't intend to make a discovery which was not his intention, but that in no way means his observations were inaccurate.

Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that his observations were inaccurate, only that they were not scientific, by any definition of the word.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that it doesn't have to do with science, which is a synonym for undeniability. Please don't make the use of the term "scientific" a misnomer when he clarified how he was using it in the introduction.

Peacegirl you have spent almost 1,400 pages claiming that current scientific knowledge is inaccurate and false, now you are claiming that science is undeniabile? Am I the only one who sees this as a contradiction?

[Angakuk]

Haven't you been paying attention? She is not talking about that kind of science.

[LadyShea]

Exactly Ang, she is only talking about the science that means undeniable, not the science that comes up with results she doesn't like

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm saying that his principle being a tautology means there can be no compulsion involved, and makes it fallacious for him to infer a contingent conclusion from it.

A principle that rules out nothing doesn't rule out any particular choices, and therefore can't compel in the direction of any given choice. It is meaningless to say we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction if every conceivable choice counts as the direction of greater satisfaction if taken. And if this principle holds no matter what choice one could conceivably take, then it obviously doesn't show that there is only one conceivable choice that could have been chosen.

This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choices or to compel in the direction of a particular choice. It's a descriptive statement; it doesn't have prescriptive power. Again, you're trying to negate the validity of this law by faulty logic. It is not meaningless to say we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. I've said this countless times that "greater satisfaction" means that we can only move in one direction which is not established until the choice is made. It is not the discovery, and doesn't prove anything at this point.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choices or to compel in the direction of a particular choice. It's a descriptive statement; it doesn't have prescriptive power. Again, you're trying to negate the validity of this law by faulty logic. It is not meaningless to say we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. I've said this countless times that "greater satisfaction" means that we can only move in one direction which is not established until the choice is made. It is not the discovery, and doesn't prove anything at this point.

I've highlighted the two contradictory parts here for you. If the principle doesn't rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, then it doesn't show that we can only move in one direction. I don't see how this point could be made any simpler for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to discuss this. There are more important things on the table than this chapter, so let it be. When this knowledge is brought to light, there will be time enough to understand his reasoning based on observations (clues) while alive.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You were the one who brought up his alleged proof that we are born again and again. You introduced it in support of your claims regarding his superior reasoning ability. It is disingenuous in the extreme to introduce something as evidence and then subsequently refuse to defend its probative value.

I discussed this chapter way back when, and I'm not discussing it again. I'm sorry that it appears disingenuous. I only brought it up to defend observation and reasoning as an important means of finding truth; just as important as empiricism, because we cannot get empirical proof of what happens after death after we are gone.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is misleading, because the choice could not have been any different, and as long as you use your faulty logic to try to disprove this, you will continue to tell me he was wrong, just like your flawed faulty logic has tried to prove that efferent vision is a contradiction, and it is not. That is the difference between a logical account and a mathematical account. And I don't care whether you don't like his terms; there is a major difference.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There is indeed a difference between a logical account and Lessans' mathematical accounts (so-called). The principle difference being that logical accounts represent coherent, rational and defensible positions. Lessans' mathematical accounts are simply unsupported expressions of opinion.

This has gotten to the point that I'm just going to ignore these type of remarks. They add nothing to the conversaton.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not paying attention to the infallibility of his premises.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is notoriously difficult for people to pay attention to things that they are unable to perceive. No one here, so far, has managed to notice this alleged infallibility. Clearly it is our perceptual faculties that are at fault.

Again, this is another remark that adds nothing to the conversation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's amazing how moral responsibility is increased with the knowledge that we will not be blamed...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What is really amazing is your ability to describe hypothetical future conditions in the present tense.

Yes, I can do this because the principles are valid. Just because we haven't created this world yet doesn't mean it can't be done.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that it doesn't have to do with science, which is a synonym for undeniability. Please don't make the use of the term "scientific" a misnomer when he clarified how he was using it in the introduction. He didn't compile data because he didn't intend to make a discovery which was not his intention, but that in no way means his observations were inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that his observations were inaccurate, only that they were not scientific, by any definition of the word.

However you want to define the word "scientific". If this is an immutable law of our nature, call it what you want. I don't care what term you use. It doesn't negate the soundness of his observations.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I discussed this chapter way back when, and I'm not discussing it again. I'm sorry that it appears disingenuous. I only brought it up to defend observation and reasoning as an important means of finding truth; just as important as empiricism, because we cannot get empirical proof of what happens after death after we are gone.

How do you think it accomplishes that (i.e. defending observation and reasoning as an important means of finding the truth) given that none of Lessans' claims about being born again and again are verified or verifiable?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nothing I asked about is explained anywhere, and you haven't answered any of my questions here. He didn't show how efferent vision could be compatible with what we know about photons, and your attempts to resolve this have been flatly contradictory as you know all too well. Taken literally, it is simply false that we always choose what is most satisfying, or even what we expect to be most satisfying in every choice, yet he never bothered to clearly and explicitly define this key term in his argument. And his whole non-discovery rests upon this assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience which he provided zero support for, and which you keep failing to even recognize as a premise of his argument.

We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, so if there is a choice between two alternatives, we are compelled in that direction even though it may appear to others as a less satisfying choice. We may choose to sacrifice our own life for someone else's. To another it may appear as the less satisfying choice, but to the individual making that choice it is the most preferable. This IS an immutable law Spacemonkey, whether you see it or not. And, yes, his discovery rests upon the knowledge of how conscience works, and under changed environmental conditions it will not permit certain actions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How do you think it accomplishes that (i.e. defending observation and reasoning as an important means of finding the truth) given that none of Lessans' claims about being born again and again are verified or verifiable?

Only by clues which lead to certain conclusions. These clues are facts and when these facts are put together, the conclusion is undeniable.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, so if there is a choice between two alternatives, we are compelled in that direction even though it may appear to others as a less satisfying choice. We may choose to sacrifice our own life for someone else's. To another it may appear as the less satisfying choice, but to the individual making that choice it is the most preferable. This IS an immutable law Spacemonkey, whether you see it or not.

It is an empty tautology from which he fallaciously infers the falsity of free will. There cannot be any kind of compulsion when the direction of greater satisfaction is being defined as whatever choice one happens to make.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And, yes, his discovery rests upon the knowledge of how conscience works, and under changed environmental conditions it will not permit certain actions.

And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.

[thedoc]

Oops, My apologizes, it seems that I was confusing R-science with L-science, and since everyone else here is useing R-science and only Peacegril is useing L-science, I was assuming that everyone was on the same page. I see that I must read the book again, and review all the threads again, to be sure that I am clear on everything, or will that just add to the confusion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've highlighted the two contradictory parts here for you. If the principle doesn't rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, then it doesn't show that we can only move in one direction. I don't see how this point could be made any simpler for you.

If you didn't follow your flawed reasoning you would see that these two parts are not contradictory at all. This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choice before IT IS CHOSEN, but that doesn't mean that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. NO CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, so if there is a choice between two alternatives, we are compelled in that direction even though it may appear to others as a less satisfying choice. We may choose to sacrifice our own life for someone else's. To another it may appear as the less satisfying choice, but to the individual making that choice it is the most preferable. This IS an immutable law Spacemonkey, whether you see it or not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is an empty tautology from which he fallaciously infers the falsity of free will. There cannot be any kind of compulsion when the direction of greater satisfaction is being defined as whatever choice one happens to make.

According to our logic it does, but your logic is much to be desired.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And, yes, his discovery rests upon the knowledge of how conscience works, and under changed environmental conditions it will not permit certain actions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.

It is so ironic that a person who is supposed to be well-versed in philosophy is the least well-versed person in here. Next to LadyShea, you are not all that. You cannot place yourself above others unless you hold yourself above others, but you cannot because you haven't proven yourself, and your logic doesn't prove anything either. It is completely and utterly mistaken Spacemonkey. I can't spend that much more time here. I know you feel compelled to argue your points but I am literally freeing you. Go your merry way and enjoy your life. I have nothing against you, but you are wrong on all counts. You will never allow me to show you where you are wrong in your logic because you think your logic proves you right. You have literally backed me against a wall of your own making. It takes a very unthreatened person to admit that he may not have all the answers. As a result, I'm totally burned out, done, finished, and needing to move on. I did enjoy my time here, however challenging. I learned a lot.

[But]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So then show me a proof. Lay it out in terms of premises, inferential steps, and a conclusion. For instance, you said he proved we are born again and again. Show me the proof. Show me any proof instead of just asserting it's there somewhere in his writings.

Okay. What kind of logic do you want in this proof? Computation tree logic?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you didn't follow your flawed reasoning you would see that these two parts are not contradictory at all. This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choice before IT IS CHOSEN, but that doesn't mean that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. NO CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER.

If you could follow my reasoning you'd see that it is not flawed. But instead of even trying to understand, you just assert - AND IN CAPS THIS TIME - that I'm wrong and that your contradictions aren't really contradictory. You are still confusing epistemic and causal/metaphysical points, for it is only the epistemic possibilities that change from before to after the choice. Epistemic possibilities are not what I'm discussing. And despite your unreasoned denials, it remains contradictory to claim that a principle which rules out nothing also rules out all but one possible choice.

[But]

I repeat, what kind of logic should I use in constructing the proof?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to our logic it does, but your logic is much to be desired.

Why thank you. I suppose it probably is, lol.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so ironic that a person who is supposed to be well-versed in philosophy is the least well-versed person in here. Next to LadyShea, you are not all that. You cannot place yourself above others unless you hold yourself above others, but you cannot because you haven't proven yourself, and your logic doesn't prove anything either. It is completely and utterly mistaken Spacemonkey. I can't spend that much more time here. I know you feel compelled to argue your points but I am literally freeing you. Go your merry way and enjoy your life. I have nothing against you, but you are wrong on all counts. You will never allow me to show you where you are wrong in your logic because you think your logic proves you right. You have literally backed me against a wall of your own making. It takes a very unthreatened person to admit that he may not have all the answers. As a result, I'm totally burned out, done, finished, and needing to move on. I did enjoy my time here, however challenging. I learned a lot.

Another weaseling ad hominem personal attack in place of any rational response. Lessans failed, and so have you. You are obviously wasting your time here, and you haven't learned a thing.

[But]

Don't change the topic. What kind of logic should I use to construct the proof?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

Don't change the topic. What kind of logic should I use to construct the proof?

Who are you talking to? Who asked you to prove anything?

[But]

I'm talking to you, for example. Or Angakuk. Don't change the topic. You asked for a proof. I'm going to construct it for you in a language you understand.