A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

But I don't think we need any specific account of either decision-making or satisfaction to know that people often move in the direction of lesser actual satisfaction.

Lessans' premise concerns only greater expected satisfaction. Which is also either false or circularly defined, and thereby compatible even with libertarian free will.

[LadyShea]

Good point. So to truly give peacegirl a fair chance, can we agree that the premise is more accurately stated:

Humans always attempt to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Good point. So to truly give peacegirl a fair chance, can we agree that the premise is more accurately stated:

Humans always attempt to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

Exactly. So the next question is how this is supposed to be known or supported. Is it meant as an analytic truth, true by definition? Or is it a synthetic contingent truth known by empirical observation?

[LadyShea]

I cannot think of any possible way it could be directly observed (at this time, anyway). Can you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I cannot think of any possible way it could be directly observed (at this time, anyway). Can you?

Nope. Peacegirl will no doubt think that it is known from empirically observing specific cases, but without any specific explanation of what "expected satisfaction" is or how it can be objectively measured or determined, it seems any certainty derived from considering such examples comes only from taking the priniciple as an analytic truth.

[LadyShea]

I am not familiar with the term analytic truth. 'Splain please

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not familiar with the term analytic truth. 'Splain please

Analytic/synthetic distinction

[LadyShea]

Thankee sai

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not familiar with the term analytic truth. 'Splain please

It's a common term in philosophy, taken from Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. The former are those where the predicate is contained within the very meaning of the subject term, for example: "All bachelors are unmarried".

This is analytic because being unmarried is a part of what "bachelor" is defined to mean.

Similarly, "We always move in the direction of greatest expected satisfaction" would be an analytic truth if "greatest expected satisfaction" is defined in terms of the direction in which one eventually decides to move.

If it is not defined in this way as an analytic truth, then it remains to be explained how the truth of the principle is being observed to be true in any given specific case of observation.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Analytic/synthetic distinction

Takes me back to the first time I read W.V.O. Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Now that was a religious experience!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay I'll start

Premise: Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction

Since I can't conceive of any way to directly observe satisfaction in other people, nor any way to objectively measure greater or lesser degrees of an unobservable mental state, I don't think the premise can be proven or disproven.

Only subjective self reporting allows one to even detect such a thing in another human being.

This would require that each person be totally objective and honest in their evaluation of each decision thay make, but Peacegirl has stated that this is unreliable because scientists (some of the most objective of all of us) will bias their observation to suit the prevaling or popular theory. So Peacegirl herself has negated any possable proof of this premise by direct observation and interigation of subjects. According to Peacegirl the test subjects or the people conduction the test will bias the results to prove what ever they want to prove.

[davidm]

It is not even clear -- and I feel sure that neither peacegirl knows, nor Lessans knew -- whether this claim is intended to be the premise of an argument, or the conclusion of an argument. peacegirl does not know. She has no clue! I doubt she even knows what a premise or a conclusion is, in formal logic. I am sure she does not know what either a valid argument or a sound argument is.

Clearly, this claim is no analytic truth. Is it an empirical truth? Of course not. How could it possibly be verified empirically?

So what is it?

An unsupported assertion, which are a dime a dozen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Good point. So to truly give peacegirl a fair chance, can we agree that the premise is more accurately stated:

Humans always attempt to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

That may be a more accurate statement of a possable premise, but I believe that Lessans wrote that "People are compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction." Cutting Lessans slack may help our discussion, but does a disservice to peasegirl by watering down his writing.

[LadyShea]

It seemed to definitely be a premise, maybe even refining it more to:

Humans are compelled to always attempt to move in the direction of greater satisfaction

The conclusion was "therefore, man's will is not free".

[LadyShea]

Spooky the doc, I was posting that very thing at the same time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. So the next question is how this is supposed to be known or supported. Is it meant as an analytic truth, true by definition? Or is it a synthetic contingent truth known by empirical observation?

If I remember correctly Lessans claim would be an analytic truth, 'Truth by definition' as I remember no examples in the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Spooky the doc, I was posting that very thing at the same time.

Yes but I do not remember 'Attempt' in the book.

BTW I like your new avatar.

[davidm]

Apropos of the much more interesting (to me) discussion of QM, below is the link to the Tegmark paper in which he clarifies this "splitting" business in MWI, and many other issues besides.

Many Worlds in Context

[LadyShea]

I am following both discussions...though I can't contribute to the QM it is interesting and informative, please continue davidm et al

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes but I do not remember 'Attempt' in the book.

True, but it solves the immediate problem of people not being actually satisfied by a decision made with the expectation of satisfaction

BTW I like your new avatar.

Thanks. When liv posts the SS sign up, I pull out Christmas Tink

[thedoc]

I think we should clarify something right now, are we going to discuss Lessans ideas in his book, or are we going to divert to some of the concepts in the book but limiting Lessans to a peripheral role in the dialogue. I believe Davidm would favor the latter but the former would require accurate access to the book for reference.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My choice not to answer any of your posts is giving me greater satisfaction. So you'll have to get your "plain English" responses from somewhere else.

I think we are all in agreement on this.

[LadyShea]

I have a copy of the book if needed

[erimir]

I was interested in this thread til peacegirl started posting in it again

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will lay out the premises (which I already did in the other thread) only after people have actually read the first two chapters.

If there are some who have not yet read those chapters, then they are necessarily excluded from participating unless you post the chapters. Which you have not done yet.

Originally Posted by davidm

Clearly, this claim is no analytic truth. Is it an empirical truth? Of course not. How could it possibly be verified empirically?

So what is it?

A natural law. You haven't been paying attention david.