A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Stuff on determinism for you to address

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, not absolutely necessary at all, except in theology...which is the only field where the term free will is defended and probably originated.

As I have stated, I personally don't think "free will" even has any use or meaning outside of a theological context

Nonsense. The complex interplay between emotions, thought processes, desires, and needs cause (motivate) people to do the things they do.

So this compulsion cannot also be correctly called the cause (reason or motivation)? This seems to contradict his point that people are not caused to do what they do.

Adding knowledge gained from experiences of course informs the motivational factors, the reasons, that people do things. This learning is also part of the antecedent state of affairs that can be correctly termed as causal.

No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort

No incompatibility here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The previous events, circumstances, environment, genetics etc. (antecedent states of affairs) are the cause (reason for, motivation for, producer of) the desire to NOT do something, just as they are the cause of desires to do something.

So again, I don't see how Lessans ideas are incompatible with various other forms of determinism

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are multiple definitions of and schools of thought on determinism, and you are focusing on only one and concluding that all are incompatible with Lessans.

That's fallacious and unsound reasoning, and irrational argumentation.

Is this, or is this not a standard definition?

Determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

This definitions allows for going off the fixed course because the state of affairs are in a constant state of flux.

[LadyShea]

Question you need to answer

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If not your imagination, then where and in what context are you seeing these principles work?

[LadyShea]

Still not addressed

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No? Then why have you not refuted my summary using any form of rational argument in multiple responses to it?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously skeptic, do you think your answer added to the conversation in any real way? I hope this is not some kind of joke on me.

Sure it did - it expressed my distain for the author of that page full of butthurt.

Even in the unlikely event Lessans' book had anything to contribute to the betterment of the human race, the presentation is such crap, so full of red flags like that whole quote, that no one can possibly take it seriously.

I'm sorry, but neither Lessans nor especially you have any right to criticize skeptical thinking. A rebuke from either is enough to cause me to laugh. Where have you proven your scholarship to be adequate to tutor me?

I accept criticism and advice from people I respect.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Does anyone even want to be part of this 'Golden Age' as described by Lessans?

No. Like all versions of Utopia it sounds colorless and vapid.

[Vivisectus]

Even if it worked I would not enjoy a world where there are no more personalities, only loads of Lessanses pontificating at each other without having the slightest clue what they are talking about.

I bet they'd start fighting in a matter of minutes, actually. I don't see Lessans accepting someone else's "astute observations" and "underlying principles".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No. Like all versions of Utopia it sounds colorless and vapid.

Then why, (other than for entertainment), are we debating the details of something we don't even want. That's a bit like going to a flea market or yard sale and negotiating the price of an item you don't even want, it's a waste of time. I go to 'Train Meets' (like a flea market for toy trains), and many times I will be looking at a table and the person there will start making offers on some of the items on the table, many times I'm not even looking at that particular item. If no-one here, wants to be part of the 'Golden age' there is little point in debating the means of getting there, except to show that both are ridiculous and impossable. In the end though, carry on, but I can only imagine how frustrated you and others must be, trying to hammer some little bit of rationality into Peacegirls head. I get tired just reading the thread.

[LadyShea]

I have my reasons, what are yours thedoc? IIRC you came to specifically to continue discussions with peacegirl (though, unlike her, you have branched out and joined other threads ). Something about it must hold your interest.

[Vivisectus]

I am fascinated by the sheer transparent arrogance of this grown man trying to play professor. The way he tries to make the book sound important, and just makes himself sound like a muppet. The way he blames any disagreement squarely on the reader, never even entertaining the notion that he may have missed something. It is all made enjoyable by the fact that at the same time he was such an enormous bumbler, blissfully unaware of how dumb he was making himself look. Like inspector Clouseau, only without the luck.

All that defended by someone who is about as intelligent as the author, the only person in the entire world who really believes he was anything else than a self-important crackpot.

Whats not to like?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I know. Existing lawmakers won't be displaced because they can serve the useful purpose of analyzing every sort of hurt and "making it known." The end product isn't "laws" at all, but that's okay; we'll call them lawmakers anyway.

I actually love this idea. If the Golden Age were to begin today, people like, oh, I dunno, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul will get to decide what qualifies as a genuine hurt. Also participating will be Rep. Joe Walsh, so we can pretty much guarantee that being a deadbeat parent won't qualify as a true hurt.

And what about former lawmakers? Dr. Bill "videotape diagnosis" Frist is a must, not to mention everyone's favorite frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex.

But the one we really want is former Florida state rep. Bob Allen, the guy who offered twenty bucks to blow an undercover cop in a public bathroom a few years back. If anyone knows a true hurt, it's him.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about Stephen?

I was talking about the scientists in the International Bureau of Welfare, part of whose job will be determining and recommending the ideal number of offspring a couple should produce. I thought that was rather obvious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There will no lawyers to serve as defender or prosecutor because there will be no lawsuits. But they can serve other functions.

This is non-canonical heresy, and I'll have no more of it. I prefer my Lessanetics pure and unvarnished, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, how confused can someone get.

As you've demonstrated abundantly, the answer is "pretty damned confused."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't worry Stephen, you will be not be displaced. I will personally pick you to serve in the new role of analyzer.

Much obliged, but I'm taking the free money.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No imaginary conversant super secret hidden writings here.

.............

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's true Vivisecus, all in good time my sweet, all in good time.

She is channeling the wicked witch of the west.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I agree that the only way to accept this book is to drastically lower your standards for what you consider credible.

From whence comest this quotation?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

.

I would like to point out that to call people quacks is to put them into a minus category, and that it to implies that there are non-quacks who are more trustworthy and whose advice should be treated as more valuable. Surely this is depriving them of the respect they are due, and also a great hurt!

Vivisectus, you still don't get it. Quack is a description of someone who is lying because he is misrepresenting his product or service. Beauty and ugliness are in a whole different category because they actually condition people to being attracted or repulsed by the very features that are being described by the words themselves.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1010723]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I agree that the only way to accept this book is to drastically lower your standards for what you consider credible.

No, it's to remove the standards that are standing in the way of your understanding.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From whence comest this quotation?

Whence did it come you ask? Give me time to think about this most difficult question, me lord.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have my reasons, what are yours thedoc? IIRC you came to specifically to continue discussions with peacegirl (though, unlike her, you have branched out and joined other threads ). Something about it must hold your interest.

First and least important is the entertainment value, there is the "What Did She Say?" amazement at many of the convoluted posts by Peacegirl. It's much the same as reading the book, and you are left trying to figure out what he just said and how he got from here to there. Peacegirls replies to posts are like that. And I do appreciate the other contributors explinations of the book, it helped to clarify what I had read. Honestly the most interesting are the posts by others, you LadyShea especially, due to the things I am learning. On the other thread there was much about vision and optics even though it was familiar from past studies for me it is nice to have a refresher. At one time I had a Hobby Shop and sold astronomical telescopes so I am familiar with that and I had some knowledge of the optics on the eye and brain. I read about, and study science in a strictly self educated way, but apparently I don't know as much as Lessans thought he did. I had a course on Logic but did not cover what is being discussed here on the various fallacies and errors in dialogue. There is also the dogged determination on both sides that is an amazing display of stamina. All that and I am, at times, still surprised at the things Peasegirl invents to support the book and her father.

[LadyShea]

Vivisectus, you still don't get it. Quack is a description of someone who is lying because he is misrepresenting his product or service. Beauty and ugliness are in a whole different category because they actually condition people to being attracted or repulsed by the very features that are being described by the words themselves.

As has already been pointed out, Quacks often believe wholeheartedly they are disseminating truth or beneficial products. Frauds misrepresent products or services.

Some frauds use quackery, and some quacks use fraudulent marketing, but they are not synonyms.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1010728]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's to remove the standards that are standing in the way of your understanding.

Whence did it come you ask? Give me time to think about this most difficult question, me lord.

You must have edited that line, because I cannot find the sentence "I beseech you not to use the standards you hold so dear, to judge this work."

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1010728]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's to remove the standards that are standing in the way of your understanding.

Translation, you must approach the book completely 'Tabula Rasa', with a completely blank mind because anything you have ever learned before will contradict the knowledge in the book and cause untold confusion. Just like 'oil and water', 'fiction and reality' do not mix.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yes, I know. Existing lawmakers won't be displaced because they can serve the useful purpose of analyzing every sort of hurt and "making it known." The end product isn't "laws" at all, but that's okay; we'll call them lawmakers anyway.

No, you missed it. Because lawmakers are already in the business of analyzing right from wrong and creating laws, they would be the most likely candidates to move into this new job.

Originally Posted by StephenMaturin

I actually love this idea. If the Golden Age were to begin today, people like, oh, I dunno, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul will get to decide what qualifies as a genuine hurt. Also participating will be Rep. Joe Walsh, so we can pretty much guarantee that being a deadbeat parent won't qualify as a true hurt.

There are standards that will be used to determine what is a hurt and what isn't. That's why Lessans distinguished those hurts that are only imaginary and those that are not. There will be no deadbeat parents because there will be no divorcees. Please get with the program.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And what about former lawmakers? Dr. Bill "videotape diagnosis" Frist is a must, not to mention everyone's favorite frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex.

But the one we really want is former Florida state rep. Bob Allen, the guy who offered twenty bucks to blow an undercover cop in a public bathroom a few years back. If anyone knows a true hurt, it's him.

Like I said, it's impossible to judge the behaviors that we will see in new world with the behaviors we see in this world. It's a 180 degree turnaround which means it's an entire about face.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about Stephen?

Originally Posted by StephenMaturin

I was talking about the scientists in the International Bureau of Welfare, part of whose job will be determining and recommending the ideal number of offspring a couple should produce. I thought that was rather obvious.

But Stephen, this will all be mathematically calculated by the resources that are available, the size of the earth, and how populated it is. Come on now, don't make up things just so you can win the debate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There will no lawyers to serve as defender or prosecutor because there will be no lawsuits. But they can serve other functions.

Originally Posted by StephenMaturin

This is non-canonical heresy, and I'll have no more of it. I prefer my Lessanetics pure and unvarnished, thank you very much.

I know you do because you love to poke fun, but this is serious business. Of all people why are you complaining. You'll be the first to be picked for this new job. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, how confused can someone get.

Originally Posted by StephenMaturin

As you've demonstrated abundantly, the answer is "pretty damned confused."

You said it honey, not me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't worry Stephen, you will be not be displaced. I will personally pick you to serve in the new role of analyzer.

Originally Posted by StephenMaturin

Much obliged, but I'm taking the free money.

You can if you want to because it will be the easiest thing to steal in the new world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No imaginary conversant super secret hidden writings here.

.............


There is no blaspheme here. I am a pure child of God.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As has already been pointed out, Quacks often believe wholeheartedly they are disseminating truth or beneficial products. Frauds misrepresent products or services.

Some frauds use quackery, and some quacks use fraudulent marketing, but they are not synonyms.

'Figures don't lie, but liers can sure figure.'

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Provide the chapter and page for this passage, please, peacegirl. Remember, I have a copy of the book (sans the death chapter called Our Posterity) so will be checking.

Who's answers are related to chapter six? How is this an answer to my question?

I asked you to cite the passage above, which you stated was not from the final chapter on death, and which I said was from the final chapter on death, which Maturin had found "large swaths of" on Google Books back in June and from which he quoted that passage.

Did you lie when you said "it was not from the death chapter. Stephen didn't read or know anything about that chapter".?

What would I question him about?

Maturin hasn't actually misquoted Lessans. You may not like his interpretations, but that doesn't make what he says false.

Bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You must have edited that line, because I cannot find the sentence "I beseech you not to use the standards you hold so dear, to judge this work."

Maybe I changed it. It sounded too old fashion.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1010677]Provide the chapter and page for this passage, please, peacegirl. Remember, I have a copy of the book (sans the death chapter called Our Posterity) so will be checking.

"Do you mean that I lived through every period of history?"

"Yes you did, only, of course, you don't know who you were or whether you were a male or a female."

"This is just too fantastic. In other words, once it is understood that man's will is not free and what this means, our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead?"

This is not written in the book. He did not say that "our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor did he say "we can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead."

"You must remember that anybody living who lost someone loved in this carnage will never get over it."

Lessans did not say this either. Stephen is adding his own words.

Originally Posted by Lessans

However, when he fully realizes that all evil came into existence because God needed it to develop mankind, and now that we are developed it will be forthwith removed, he won't ever be able to blame another because there won't be anything left to blame. It might take 2000 years for this knowledge to come to light because it may blind those who have been looking for a different type of solution, something in accordance with their own opinion. It was the same thing that gave Mendel posthumous recognition. In our Golden Age, the inception of which will take place as soon as this discovery is confirmed valid by our world leaders, we will fall mutually in love, raise our families in complete health, security, wealth and happiness, live to a ripe old age without overpopulating the earth, and die only to be born for the same happiness again and again. Well, isn't this the most wonderful knowledge to behold? God has the whole world in His hands, and what wonderful hands they are! Is God a reality and is He good? You bet your life He is."

That was Lessans, although I added this: God has the whole world in His hands, and what wonderful hands they are.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

"It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."

"So will all mankind, once everything sinks in."

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You're right, everything here was from Chapter Ten but there were other excerpts he posted that were not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His answers were directly related to Chapter Six.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who's answers are related to chapter six? How is this an answer to my question?

I asked you to cite the passage above, which you stated was not from the final chapter on death, and which I said was from the final chapter on death, which Maturin had found "large swaths of" on Google Books back in June and from which he quoted that passage.

Did you lie when you said "it was not from the death chapter. Stephen didn't read or know anything about that chapter".?

What would be the point of lying? I have no reason to lie. I was responding to what he had written about lawmakers. That was in Chapter Six.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He constantly quotes from this chapter (6) without understanding the context in which it was written....

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But do you question Stephen? Of course not because he is on your side, and therefore is above reproach.

How can you say he's on my side?

I would question him if he was interested in the book, but he seems only interested in cracking jokes and being a sidekick.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maturin hasn't actually misquoted Lessans. You may not like his interpretations, but that doesn't make what he says false.

Then where did that extra sentence come from since it was not in the book?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not written in the book. He did not say that "our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor did he say "we can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead."

"You must remember that anybody living who lost someone loved in this carnage will never get over it."

Lessans did not say this either. Stephen is adding his own words.

And since you removed the Google Books exerpts and have not offered the Chapter on death, you can call Maturin a liar and we can't check...you think you're being clever I'll bet. I think you are flat out lying.

As support for my assumption that you are lying to protect Lessans, I offer that at the time he originally quoted the passage, stating it was from the final chapter found on Google Books, you did not claim it was a misquote or made up quote at all, nor did you deny it was written in the book.

You did call him a big meanie though for laughing at the passage

[LadyShea]

Why would you respond about the lawmakers, which was not even remotely related to the passage I quoted which was from the chapter on death and which you told me was not from that chapter?

LOL, you mislabeled YOURSELF. You asked me that question, I didn't as it of you.

I think it is in the book and you are lying because you know I can't check that chapter.