A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 303

thedoc · #**7551** 02-04-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to sell the actual CD, not just have it as a download.

Must be a better profit margin?

LadyShea · #**7552** 02-04-2012, 01:55 PM

Instead of pasting it yet again, why not just find one of your previous copy/paste posts and link to it? How about one of your previous forums where you pasted the first two chapters?

Seriously you can't use simple forum and internet tools but we should think you capable of explaining physics and the human mind?

peacegirl · #**7553** 02-04-2012, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Instead of pasting it yet again, why not just find one of your previous copy/paste posts and link to it? How about one of your previous forums where you pasted the first two chapters?

Seriously you can't use simple forum and internet tools but we should think you capable of explaining physics and the human mind?

WHAT A JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS LADYSHEA. I THINK YOU NEED TO RETHINK YOUR PREMISES.

LadyShea · #**7554** 02-04-2012, 02:27 PM

What conclusions? You said:

Quote:

I will have a question and answer period, but not before I cut and paste.

I know for a fact you have pasted this several times right here at :ff:

and also at other forums. Instead of cutting and pasting yet again, why not just link to those posts? You can use the search tools and/or scroll through your own posts and search Google to find them and link to them.

How is that unbelievable to you?

peacegirl · #**7555** 02-04-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What conclusions? You said:

Quote:

I will have a question and answer period, but not before I cut and paste.

I know for a fact you have pasted this several times right here at :ff:

and also at other forums. Instead of cutting and pasting yet again, why not just link to those posts?

What difference does it make whether I link it to another thread, or post it myself? It's six of one and a half dozen of the other. Who the hell cares how I post this knowledge? I seriously don't get you Ladyshea.

LadyShea · #**7556** 02-04-2012, 02:30 PM

Because it makes you look incompetent and stupid and not like someone who knows the answer to evil. But do what you want.

thedoc · #**7557** 02-04-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

WOWWWWWWWWWW, WHAT A JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS LADYSHEA. I THINK YOU NEED TO RETHINK YOUR PREMISES. I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

- '5' -

LadyShea · #**7558** 02-04-2012, 02:39 PM

LOL, anyway, do you think yet another copy paste of the same information you've pasted here several times previously will somehow lead to a different discussion than the one we've had multiple times over the last 10 months? You were unable to answer objections the last however many times. Can you suddenly do it today?

LadyShea · #**7559** 02-04-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST. To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.

Here you go, first premise refuted

peacegirl · #**7560** 02-04-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST.

Thank you for this refutation but I have to disagree. We cannot DO if we don't move in this direction naturally. We cannot LadyShea. We can only DO what our desire is telling us to DO. Desire is the impetus here. I am trying to come from your position in order to show you where you're confused, so don't give up, okay?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

That's an assertion that keeps your worldview safe. I can't fight someone who sets up a premise that cannot be disputed, which is what you're doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted

There is no modal fallacy.

LadyShea · #**7561** 02-04-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST.

Thank you for this refutation but I have to disagree. We cannot DO if we don't move in this direction naturally. We cannot LadyShea. We can only DO what our desire is telling us to DO. Desire is the impetus here. I am trying to come from your position in order to show you where you're confused, so don't give up, okay?

We can do all sorts of things. Your challenge is to show that we must do them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's an assertion that keeps your worldview safe. I can't fight someone who sets up a premise that cannot be disputed, which is what you're doing.

All you have to do is demonstrate where the "must" comes from. You need to differentiate between actual truths and necessary truths and show, through sound and solid reasoning, that this movement towards greater satisfaction is necessary rather than merely actual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So wrong, my heart is broken.

Your heart is irrelevant, this isn't about emotions remember? Put your head in it.

If you can't show this foundational premise to be sound, the rest falls apart.

peacegirl · #**7562** 02-04-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST.

Thank you for this refutation but I have to disagree. We cannot DO if we don't move in this direction naturally. We cannot LadyShea. We can only DO what our desire is telling us to DO. Desire is the impetus here. I am trying to come from your position in order to show you where you're confused, so don't give up, okay?

We can do all sorts of things. Your challenge is to show that we must do them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's an assertion that keeps your worldview safe. I can't fight someone who sets up a premise that cannot be disputed, which is what you're doing.

All you have to do is demonstrate where the "must" comes from. You need to differentiate between actual truths and necessary truths and show, through sound and solid reasoning, that this movement towards greater satisfaction is necessary rather than merely actual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So wrong, my heart is broken.

Your heart is irrelevant, this isn't about emotions remember? Put your head in it.

If you can't show this foundational premise to be sound, the rest falls apart.

I agree with you LadyShea. I am not in opposition with science. There is a disconnect here that has nothing to do with the validity of Lessans' claims and I hope you eventually see that. I just hope I'm still here because I'm freaked out at the anger and vitriol that I am getting.

LadyShea · #**7563** 02-04-2012, 03:38 PM

You need to stop whining, complaining, blaming everyone else for your failures and expressing butthurt and start answering refutations reasonably and rationally. Or you need to leave.

Simple.

naturalist.atheist · #**7564** 02-04-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am asking everyone to transfer their unanswered questions to the other thread.

Why? What was wrong with posting only in this newer thread?

I'd like to stick with one or the other, not both. This thread was meant to discuss his first discovery anyway.

Then discuss his first idea here, you stated that you didn't want to dicuss vision here but here we are.

I politely asked people to discuss his first discovery in this thread, but that didn't happen. Maybe with two threads it will work out. So let's keep this thread for his first discovery, and the other thread for his second, which was my intention all along when I started this second thread.

It doesn't matter where you post nonsense, it's still nonsense.

naturalist.atheist · #**7565** 02-04-2012, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST.

Thank you for this refutation but I have to disagree. We cannot DO if we don't move in this direction naturally. We cannot LadyShea. We can only DO what our desire is telling us to DO. Desire is the impetus here. I am trying to come from your position in order to show you where you're confused, so don't give up, okay?

We can do all sorts of things. Your challenge is to show that we must do them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's an assertion that keeps your worldview safe. I can't fight someone who sets up a premise that cannot be disputed, which is what you're doing.

All you have to do is demonstrate where the "must" comes from. You need to differentiate between actual truths and necessary truths and show, through sound and solid reasoning, that this movement towards greater satisfaction is necessary rather than merely actual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So wrong, my heart is broken.

Your heart is irrelevant, this isn't about emotions remember? Put your head in it.

If you can't show this foundational premise to be sound, the rest falls apart.

I agree with you LadyShea. I am not in opposition with science at all. There is a disconnect here that has nothing to do with the validity of Lessans' claims and I hope you eventually see that. I just hope I'm still here because I'm freaked out at the anger and vitriol that I am getting, and it hurts.

peacegirl, I agree, there's a disconnect, but it's in your brain. Get help.

naturalist.atheist · #**7566** 02-04-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST.

Thank you for this refutation but I have to disagree. We cannot DO if we don't move in this direction naturally. We cannot LadyShea. We can only DO what our desire is telling us to DO. Desire is the impetus here. I am trying to come from your position in order to show you where you're confused, so don't give up, okay?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.

That's an assertion that keeps your worldview safe. I can't fight someone who sets up a premise that cannot be disputed, which is what you're doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted

So wrong, my heart is broken.

It's not your heart that's broken.

naturalist.atheist · #**7567** 02-04-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Save yourself the grief and move on. You will accomplish nothing more here than making people think you are crazy and that Lessans was a grade A crackpot.

Is there anyone besides peacegirl that doesn't think Lessans was a grade A crackpot?

The best thing I can say about him is that he didn't seem to be as dysfunctional as peacegirl.

I think if he was alive today and on this forum his "model" would be finished in, say, less than a hundred pages. His problem was that he got his information from dictionaries and an encyclopedia, didn't quite understand it and made up his own.

Peacegirl, on the other hand, is trapped. She doesn't understand enough about science to understand where she's wrong, she has this strong attachment to her father's words and writings, and had it driven into her head that there will be this great age of world peace, if only she can convince the world of the truth of these words, which express a load of nonsense and which she doesn't even understand herself. She's doomed to carry on with this nonsensical quest forever. If she got distracted by the foolish theories of these scientists that were so fantastically wrong, she alone would be responsible for mankind's missing out on everlasting peace and happiness.

But, I think you've nailed the essence of her delusion.

LadyShea · #**7568** 02-04-2012, 06:22 PM

I agree that BUT (not Dragar) found the exact issue.

peacegirl, any anger or vitriol you are perceiving is frustration with your constant weaseling and histrionics.

Spacemonkey · #**7569** 02-04-2012, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you not to use the term non-discovery if you want to converse with me. Don't test me Spacemonkey or you'll be the loser.

You haven't offered me any alternative neutral term to use instead. I'm not going to call it a 'discovery' before you've actually shown it to be correct. That would be putting the cart before the horse.

Spacemonkey · #**7570** 02-04-2012, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A presupposition is an assumption. He made no assumptions. You can use the term to mean that in order for his premises to be true they must meet the following requirements:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't ask you to repeat the claims back to me. I asked you to show me where in his book he offered any support for any of these points. You can't do it, can you?

You can't point to one or two sentences, Spacemonkey. The entire chapter is necessary to read for a clear understanding, and I'm not jeopardizing a chance for people to understand this work. So don't keep asking me to show where he offered support for these claims. Believe me, they are there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not saying these were assumptions for him. For all I know he might have had fantastically good reasons for believing these things. But if so, he never shared them. He might have made tons of accurate empirical observations from which he was able to soundly infer the above points. But if so, he never shared them.

What the hell are you talking about? You are acting very ignorant right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That means that in the context of his book, these things are presuppositions - things which have to be true for his argument to work, and yet which he gave nobody any reason at all to accept or agree with (and in most cases didn't even himself identify and openly state as premises). They are things which the arguments of his book presuppose without ever arguing for or supporting. If you think otherwise, then you need to show me exactly where he argues for or supports them.

I will say this one last time, he supported his premises and they are undeniable. I will present this book in the way I feel is appropriate. Take it or leave it, but don't tell me how to do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what Chapter Two is all about. I refuse to condense it and confuse everyone. This discovery is too important to discuss it nilly-willy. This is about content and the best way it can be explained is the way I'm going to explain it. I'm not going to blow my chance to get people to understand this knowledge just because you demand quick answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you actually going to explain it? Or are you just going to try (and likely fail) to copypaste the entire chapter for a third time? Do you understand the difference between simply presenting the chapter and actually explaining it? Which do you intend to do? And when are you actually going to start doing either?

I will have a question and answer period, but not before I cut and paste. It's been so long since discussing his first discovery, I might have to start from the very beginning because there are new people here and I want them to understand his definition of determinism so they can follow Chapter Two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The best way to explain something is to identify the key necessary premises and explain why they should be accepted as true. We've already done the first part for you. His necessary premises are those presuppositions I've listed for you above. If you can't give anyone any reason to accept them as true then any further discussion or explanation will be a completely pointless waste of time. So what reasons did Lessans give for believing these things, and where specifically did he give them?

Forget it Spacemonkey. You're not going to win here. I will not let you corrupt this book because you want a quick answer. He supported every single one of his premises. There are no presuppositions. I will do it my way, or no way. I can't be any more clear than that.

I'm not asking you to point to one or two sentences to summarize his whole first (non-)discovery. Summarizing or explaining that is wholly distinct from what I am asking for, which is for you to specifically show me the support he gives for the specific points I listed. You can't do that because there is no such support to be found anywhere in his chapter. If you feel you have to copypaste the entire chapter before answering my question then stop stalling and get on with it already. What are you waiting for? My questions about his presuppositions will be waiting for you when you are done.

peacegirl · #**7571** 02-04-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because it makes you look incompetent and stupid and not like someone who knows the answer to evil. But do what you want.

I know I'm being overly defensive, but there you go again making a leap that if I don't do this or that, I'm incompetent and stupid.

peacegirl · #**7572** 02-04-2012, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, I was just listening to the epilogue of my dad's audio book, and I can't believe how clear it is. I feel like he's in the room. Amazing!

It must be quite emotional for you. I'm sure you miss him a great deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really excited about this new mp3. On the CD I'm going to tell people to please not copy, cite, or reproduce the audio book except for personal use. I have worked so hard on this that I deserve to be compensated, but that's not the reason I'm doing this, as thedoc is always insinuating. I'm not going to create digital protections, number one because it's too expensive, and number two, I want to sell the actual CD, not just have it as a download.

From a purely marketing point of view, that's just a really really bad idea. No-one is going to buy a hardcopy MP3 file that has to be shipped to them. It just won't sell. At all. If you want people to purchase it then you'll need host it somewhere where it can be purchased and downloaded online. It's really the only way you could expect to have any kind of success with this.

You're probably right, but I like to have the hard copies on hand just in case I meet someone who wants to buy it. I can't believe that in Chapter One he talks about the letter he wrote to Nixon and Carter and the frustration he felt.

peacegirl · #**7573** 02-04-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, I was just listening to the epilogue of my dad's audio book, and I can't believe how clear it is. I feel like he's in the room. Amazing!

It must be quite emotional for you. I'm sure you miss him a great deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really excited about this new mp3. On the CD I'm going to tell people to please not copy, cite, or reproduce the audio book except for personal use. I have worked so hard on this that I deserve to be compensated, but that's not the reason I'm doing this, as thedoc is always insinuating. I'm not going to create digital protections, number one because it's too expensive, and number two, I want to sell the actual CD, not just have it as a download.

From a purely marketing point of view, that's just a really really bad idea. No-one is going to buy a hardcopy MP3 file that has to be shipped to them. It just won't sell. At all. If you want people to purchase it then you'll need host it somewhere where it can be purchased and downloaded online. It's really the only way you could expect to have any kind of success with this.

But Peacegirl had better have her refund policy spelled out in Iron clad terms because there are going to be a lot of people who, on listening to it or even part of it, are going to want their money back.

I'm not having a refund policy. POD books don't either.

LadyShea · #**7574** 02-04-2012, 08:01 PM

as Spacemonkey said, get on with it. Do whatever it is you plan to do. Paste what you're going to paste. Then Spacemonkey will post his questions yet again and you can yet again avoid answering them with more of your weaseling.

peacegirl · #**7575** 02-04-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

So did we ever actually get a way to refer to the text? I am still curious about what it says, but I haven't been able to find it.

I had the .pdf online, but I took it off. If you want to buy a copy of Lessans reading his book "Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought", it will be available for $11.95 plus shipping & handling. A great price for what you're getting. I have to set up my website so people can download the book online.