A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please note that below I use Lessans terms and definitions and arguments to make points and demonstrate unsound reasoning, that doesn't mean I am stating my own beliefs or opinions.

Oh my goodness, it has everything to do with your beliefs and opinions.

Originally Posted by Lessans

Since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is too simplified. The line between alive and dead is fuzzy at best, and has moved considerably over the years. We can keep a brain dead person's cells and organs alive and functioning artificially for transplant purposes. Is that person alive or dead or both? It depends on the definition you are using.

We are not talking about some sort of in-between. We are talking about true life and death. Answer me this: If you are truly dead (the confirmation that comes from the autopsy report), please don't tell me you are still alive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can even now keep living, beating hearts alive in a box (self contained organ care system). So we may say the "person" the heart was taken from is dead, but a part of that person, their heart, never died. So is brain death the demarcation between alive and dead? Is a beating heart the demarcation between alive and dead? Is the body being whole and together and ALL parts functioning at the same time the definition of alive? If so, what about people on life support, who's hearts are not functioning on their own, even if their brains are?

That isn't even what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Lessans

...and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, I think this is a gross over-simplification, but we can use it to analyze Lessans reasoning.

Please do so.

Originally Posted by Lessans

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anthropomorphizing biological processes by ascribing human mental states to them.

No one is ascribing anthropomorphizing biological processes to true life and death situations. Please explain.

Originally Posted by Lessans

I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can define here and now as all current states of matter, but as "now" is constantly moving, (and relative) there must be a next moment we are moving into. If there is a next moment we are moving into, that means the future already exists and we enter it, which is eternalism, which you do not accept as a description of reality.

No, because once we enter into it, it is the now. It is not the future or the past. It is right now, today, this moment.

Originally Posted by Lessans

You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here and you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair's breadth by committing suicide.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This a straight up false dilemma fallacy.

Also, this is Lessans contradicting himself.

Tell me where.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Committing suicide is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction as it is an action. If, as Lessans claimed, people commit suicide because they are "dissatisfied" with "here" it must be because they want to move to "there". There can be defined as any place/time that isn't here, just as easily as it can be defined as "the next moment".

Who cares what someone defines the next best moment to be. This is individual. The next moment for them is to commit suicide because in their eyes it is the lesser of two evils. That is their personal movement in the direction of greater satisfaction, and you can't judge them based on what would give you greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To someone dissatisfied enough with here, there may be Heaven or a new life cycle or oblivion or any of many sorts of possible theres.

Yes, they are willing to give up their next "here, in this world" for the possibility of a better life "there" (in a world to come), because they are miserable in this life and they are willing to take a chance.

Originally Posted by Lessans

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position,

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

Again suicide is an action, a movement. It demonstrates dissatisfaction with staying in one position.

It is a movement toward that which we consider better for ourselves. It is a movement away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, which is the direction life always takes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To truly "stay in one position" one would do nothing at all, no action whatsoever. The next moment comes whether one acts or not, because time passes without our input.

That's true, but as long as our heart is beating, we cannot stay in one position for always. We must move from one spot to another just to stay alive.

Just remember this: We are constantly moving in the direction that we believe is better for ourselves, even if it's to commit suicide, not because we want to die but because we don't see a better alternative.

[LadyShea]

I was clarifying that my use of examples and terms below does not necessarily reflect my actual beliefs about the topics at hand. For example, I did not state my personal belief or definitions regarding the words dead or alive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, we are not talking abut the in-between.

Of course we are. Because Lessans definitions of dead/alive may not match mine, which may not match someone else's. That's why I said it is oversimplified.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are talking about true death and true life.

And my entire point is there is no such thing as "true" death and life, because the terms are too broad and subjective definitions and opinions do in fact, exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer me this LadyShea: If you are truly dead (the confirmation that comes from the autopsy report), can you be alive?

And I ask you, "How are you defining dead"?

One may have their heart alive in a box while the rest of their body is on the autopsy table.

I would personally call that dead, but some may consider that the existence of a living, beating heart is alive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't tell me you can, or I will know that this thread has been a total waste of time, and I'm forced to move on.

Suit yourself

Those were Lessans words, not yours, so don't you mean "This isn't even what Lessans was talking about"?

Anyway, moving on, Lessans created a false dilemma by using absolutist terms. These terms are not absolute. This is an example of poor reasoning and argument.

If it's not what you are talking about, then use your own terms instead of copying and pasting Lessans.

"Satisfaction" is a human mental state. The psychological experience of need/desire fulfillment. Beating hearts, reflexes and, and "life" do not experience satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because once we enter into it, it is now.

Then it also "here", so really there is no "there" as Lessans claimed. Is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not the future, but if this contradicts your worldview, you are entitled to reject Lessans. I would never inerfere with your belief system.

I am not talking about my worldview, I am showing where Lessans reasoning and terminology made for unsound arguments.

He defined "there" as the next moment. Is the next moment not correctly defined as the future?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, it has been stated that it takes only one case to disprove an absolute statement. There are many cases where a person chooses to die, where there is no indication that they are in any way unhappy or dissatisfied with life. WWII is full of examples of men who have sacrificed everything for others. However I will relate a story, (perhaps someone else can verify it), of a french scientists who volunteered to go the the guillotine for an experiment. They were trying to determine how long a person was conscious (alive) after the neck was severed. I read it somewhere, but I don't know if it is true? These were in fact examples of people who ended their lives (commited suicide) and were not dissatisfied with their life.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

nothing causes people to do what they do, which implies that something other than the person is responsible for their actions.

This is simply wrong, people are influenced by a multitude of causes all the time, there is nothing that a person does that is not caused by something, and many times something outside themselves. The citation relating to a person 'not doing something they do not want to do', is based on an extreme example and does not reflect ordinary everyday experience where people are often forced to do something they do not want to do. The extremes do not prove the mundane.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but the next moment for them was to commit suicide. That is the spot they moved to because no other "there" was satisfactory,

But Lessans insisted that suicide was a way of staying "here" of not moving one whit....he said "or remain where you are without moving a hair's breadth by committing suicide". So you just contradicted him as he contradicted himself.

Poor argumentation on Lessans part, and poor defense on yours due to contradictions.

Which means you disagree with Lessans statement that committing suicide is "remaining where you are"

[LadyShea]

From your edit:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans entire argument was that committing suicide is NON MOVEMENT. You now agree with me that it is movement. This is the contradiction.

Originally Posted by Lessans

"or remain where you are without moving a hair's breadth by committing suicide"

Originally Posted by Lessans

the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position

ETA: It seems to me you didn't understand Lessans argument to begin with, as you never noticed the contradiction.

[Clutch Munny]

Holy fucking shit.

[LadyShea]

What are you holy fucking shitting about, Munny?

[thedoc]

I thought he said that about everything?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I thought he said that about everything?

Maybe, it's just that with Clutch "Holy Fucking Shit" is a condensed version of many thoughts and opinions. I want to hear the unabridged version.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Lessans

You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here and you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair's breadth by committing suicide.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This a straight up false dilemma fallacy.

Oh really? Try to remain where you are and not move a hair's breadth. You can't do it for long. It's not a false dilemma. What other choice is there?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, this is Lessans contradicting himself. Committing suicide is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction as it is an action. If, as Lessans claimed, people commit suicide because they are "dissatisfied" with "here" it must be because they want to move to "there". There can be defined as any place/time that isn't here, just as easily as it can be defined as "the next moment".

It can, but everyone knows what he was referring to. It doesn't need more explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but the next moment for them was to commit suicide. That is the spot they moved to because no other "there" was satisfactory,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But Lessans insisted that suicide was a way of staying "here" of not moving one whit....he said "or remain where you are without moving a hair's breadth by committing suicide". So you just contradicted him as he contradicted himself.

Because committing suicide in this world is not having to move to there.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Poor argumentation on Lessans part, and poor defense on yours due to contradictions.

There are no contradictions. Anyone would understand what he meant, but you are splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To someone dissatisfied enough with here, there may be Heaven or a new life cycle or oblivion or any of many sorts of possible theres.

Yes, that's true, and maybe that's part of the motivation to commit suicide, but we're talking about the body remaining where it is and never again having to move or breath or talk or think. I call that death.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, and they are willing to die (or stop moving from here to there) for the possibility of a better life, even if they aren't sure what is to come.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which means you disagree with Lessans statement that committing suicide is "remaining where you are"

There is no disagreement. Peoples' bodies remain in the exact spot they died. I've never seen a dead person get up and move, have you?

Originally Posted by Lessans

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again suicide is an action, a movement. It demonstrates dissatisfaction with staying in one position.

Of course it's a movement. It's a movement to get off of the spot of life forever, as the lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To truly "stay in one position" one would do nothing at all, no action whatsoever. The next moment comes whether one acts or not, because time passes without our input.

That's true, but we can't stay "here" for long without doing something. Try staying on one spot for more than a few minutes and see what happens.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to give him more credit as someone who was extremely insightful and precise in his observations, which makes his premises accurate. That doesn't prove that his observations were accurate but it should give you pause in order not jump to premature conclusions, which is exactly what you're doing. I've said this before and I'll say it again. This is not what a good scientist does.

Giving Lessans credit for being someone "who was extremely insightful and precise in his observations" is an excellant example of a "premature conclusion". We have no reason to believe that he was extremely insightful or that his observations were precise. Giving him credit for something before we have a reason to believe it is true would be extremely premature.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Try to remain where you are and not move a hair's breadth. You can't do it for long. It's not a false dilemma. What other choice is there?

Define "where you are" in a meaningful way. If everything from scratching an itch to breathing is defined as "movement" -which is considered the only alternative to suicide- then the term movement is completely meaningless and vapid, and creates a self referential (circular) definition. That is piss poor reasoning.

I am not looking for a new job, new home, new husband, new wardrobe, etc. because I am content (satisfied) with "where I am" for the time being. I do not consider this movement...however under Lessans definition it is movement. Which again, totally vapid.

His definition of "there" being the next moment sets up a false dilemma, because one need not act or choose at all to move into the next moment. So Lessans was defining everything that isn't suicide as movement (although you said suicide is movement) which makes the whole thing meaningless.

His "proof" is nothing more than defining things in a way that they refer back to themselves and that is circular.

This is not sound reasoning.

LOL, you can't even hope to backpedal away from this one or move this goalpost.

You agreed that suicide is not remaining where you are, you agreed that committing suicide is movement toward greater satisfaction in direct contradiction of Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no contradictions. Anyone would understand what he meant, but you are nitpicking.

You agreed that suicide is not remaining where you are, you agreed that committing suicide is movement toward greater satisfaction in direct contradiction of Lessans.

Are you telling me that Lessans did not explicitly state that committing suicide is remaining where you are? Are you telling me there is ambiguity in his statement and that it is open to interpretation?

What other meaning is there to understand in that statement? If he meant something else why didn't he say something else?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's true, and maybe that's part of the motivation to commit suicide, but we're talking about the body remaining where it is and never again having to move to "there" again.

Backpedal

I'm not in disagreement. Remaining "here" by committing suicide is a way to get to "there" (if they believe there's a better place). It is a desire to not have to move to "there" ever again on an Eartly realm. Never mind.

What do you mean never mind? You wonder why we can't give Lessans the benefit of the doubt. You wonder why we say he was a poor writer. You wonder why we think his reasoning was not sound.

I gave you a clear example of poor writing and poor reasoning and you agreed with ME, in direct contradiction of Lessans, and NOW you want to say "never mind"?

You got some big ass cajones, girl.

Lessans said it was not movement.

[LadyShea]

If everything is movement in the direction of greater satisfaction then that means the definition of movement in the direction of greater is everything. That is circular. And utterly meaningless.

The only exception to "everything" Lessans gave was committing suicide, but then you decided that it too is included in everything.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Try to remain where you are and not move a hair's breadth. You can't do it for long.

If you were to ask my wife she would be glad to tell you that I am a master at remaining in one place, for extraordinarly long periods of time, with nary a hair's breadth of movement.

It has just occured to me that when she complains of my being such a couch potato she is striking a first blow. Would I be fully justified in giving her a poke in the nose when she does that?

[The Lone Ranger]

What's so fascinating about peacegirl is that despite her claims to the contrary, her entire argument is a great big appeal to faith.

peacegirl: "Lessans made lots of astute observations which prove his point."
Sane person: "What observations? When and where were they conducted? Under what conditions? How did he control for bias? Etc., etc., etc."
peacegirl: "Trust me. He made lots of observations. And they were really astute observations."


Sane person: "Lessans' logic is faulty. Here's a detailed explanation of why."
peacegirl: "Trust me. Lessans was really, really smart, and if he'd made any errors in logic he would have been the first to have noticed, and he would have corrected them. Trust me."


Sane person: "Several of Lessans' claims conflict with observed reality."
peacegirl: "I have faith that there's some way to reconcile reality with Lessans' claims, even though I don't have a clue as to how this could be possible."

Rinse and repeat as necessary.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you holy fucking shitting about, Munny?

Page 60. Of Part Two.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Page 60. Of Part Two.

But we're just getting started, surely it isn't a "holy fucking shit" moment yet?

[davidm]

What's on Page 60 of Part 2 of the Big Book of Drivel? I don't recall, my "holy fucking shit" moment was Seymour prating on about God turning on the sun, etc. Many moments of "holy shit" coupled with hilarity followed, though.

[Stephen Maturin]

I was partial to the stuff about how there will be very few fat chicks and gays in the Golden Age, and how the Jews should quit whining about the Holocaust because of the 100% nonreligious fact that it was all part of God's Sacred Plan to prepare humankind for the Great Transformation. Besides, Hitler & Pals were just following the path of greater satisfaction, as their free will compelled them to do, and thus aren't blameworthy.

That's the wondrous thing about the Big Book of Bombastic Bunkum and Butthurt -- there's something to send everyone into facepalming "holy fucking shit" mode.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

What's on Page 60 of Part 2 of the Big Book of Drivel? I don't recall, my "holy fucking shit" moment was Seymour prating on about God turning on the sun, etc. Many moments of "holy shit" coupled with hilarity followed, though.

What do you mean part 2, are you telling me Lessans wrote a second book of drivel that I need to wade through. The first book was bad enough, I don't know if my eyes will hold out, read too much Lessans and you'll go blind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Giving Lessans credit for being someone "who was extremely insightful and precise in his observations" is an excellant example of a "premature conclusion". We have no reason to believe that he was extremely insightful or that his observations were precise. Giving him credit for something before we have a reason to believe it is true would be extremely premature.

That's very true. It's premature to give him credit before you know for sure he was right, and it's premature to jump to the conclusion that he was wrong. Just don't rush to judgment, that's all.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I ask you to refrain from judgment until you understand what he means. You are trying to understand what you cannot because of the reasons I spelled out. If you don't understand the reasons, let's go over them again. I also want to say that I'm sorry for my outburst. I hope you forgive me.

I think everybody except you peacegirl understands what Lessans is saying, we just think it is profoundly stupid and ignorant. A sane person would have figured this out 10,000 posts ago. Just more evidence peacegirl, that you are profoundly mentally sick. Get help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I was partial to the stuff about how there will be very few fat chicks and gays in the Golden Age, and how the Jews should quit whining about the Holocaust because of the 100% nonreligious fact that it was all part of God's Sacred Plan to prepare humankind for the Great Transformation. Besides, Hitler & Pals were just following the path of greater satisfaction, as their free will compelled them to do, and thus aren't blameworthy.

That's the wondrous thing about the Big Book of Bombastic Bunkum and Butthurt -- there's something to send everyone into facepalming "holy fucking shit" mode.

What the hell are you talking about Stephen? Your nasty side is coming out again. Better keep it under wraps. Yes, it's true that we are moving toward a world of peace and brotherhood, and if it bothers you stay in the world you're in. We're not suppose to be talking about Hitler, remember? But since you started it, I'll finish. Hitler was a sick man. This knowledge doesn't excuse what happened to the Jews.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction pp. 1-2

Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the
20th century. Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery
has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading
scientists]. When first hearing this prophesy, shortly after Hitler had
slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing
appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years
(8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction
with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind
compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis,
and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two
years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind
and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others
could comprehend.

It is the purpose of this book to reveal this
finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life,
as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be
completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit bringing about
a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the
changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why
these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently
to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it
possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relation)
must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly
understood.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind
system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible
truths that no wonder it wasn’t found until now. But by
demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced which
compels this fantastic change in the direction our nature has been
traveling, performing what will be called miracles though they do not
transcend the laws of nature.

The same nature that allowed Hitler to
slaughter six million Jews, that permits the most heinous crimes and
all the other evils of human relation is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. Laugh if you
will but your smile of incredulity will be wiped from your face once
you begin to read the text chapter by chapter of which the first two are
most fundamental.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What's so fascinating about peacegirl is that despite her claims to the contrary, her entire argument is a great big appeal to faith.

peacegirl: "Lessans made lots of astute observations which prove his point."
Sane person: "What observations? When and where were they conducted? Under what conditions? How did he control for bias? Etc., etc., etc."
peacegirl: "Trust me. He made lots of observations. And they were really astute observations."


Sane person: "Lessans' logic is faulty. Here's a detailed explanation of why."
peacegirl: "Trust me. Lessans was really, really smart, and if he'd made any errors in logic he would have been the first to have noticed, and he would have corrected them. Trust me."


Sane person: "Several of Lessans' claims conflict with observed reality."
peacegirl: "I have faith that there's some way to reconcile reality with Lessans' claims, even though I don't have a clue as to how this could be possible."

Rinse and repeat as necessary.

That was really funny TLR. Thanks for the comic relief because you can't be serious that this is what I sound like.