A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you actually think you understand this knowledge?

Yes, I do. You clearly don't, as evidenced by the fact you keep referring to it as 'knowledge'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no clue. If you don't want to open your mind and actually hear what Lessans has to say, then go somewhere else because you are not listening.

I've already read all Lessans had to say. All you are offering is your weaseling and evasion in place of any actual defense or support of his claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have not understood the principles at all, not even a smigeon, but you are so against it. And I will say again, DO NOT CALL THIS A NON-DISCOVERY AGAIN OR I WILL SKIP OVER YOUR POSTS.

You are already skipping over most of my posts. Do you have any other neutral term for describing his ideas? It is not fair for you to expect us to refer to them as 'discoveries'. We do not believe he made any actual discoveries.

[peacegirl]

Hey, that's not a bad thing. Maybe penguins have something to teach us humans.

Of course I do, but you can't compare this world to the new world. You can't even begin to envision the changes that are going to take place. So stop right there, and listen for a change instead of projecting what you think it will be like which is just a bunch of false imaginings.

How can there be a bad relationship when no one will do those things that hurt each other and cause the unhappiness that make a relationship bad? That is a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer it; just think about it because you have a tendency to give knee-jerk answers.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How can there not? Bad relationships happen when one of the people in the relationship has to not do what they want to do and do what they do not want to do in order to be in that relationship, beyond what makes that relationship worthwhile to them.

Who is telling anyone not to do what they want to do? It's the exact opposite. You are so confused from that conversation, I am at a loss for words.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This can happen in a million ways. Some of them are simple and plain (your dad liked those. Possibly because they resembled him) and many are insidious and complicated (your dad had no time for those).

Seriously, what are you conjuring up now? Your logic has gotten so far off track that you are thinking all kinds of weird scenarios that are based on fabrication.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You and I have been around the block, PG. Can you really blame all that on "the free will environment"?

Yes, and more.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I do. You clearly don't, as evidenced by the fact you keep referring to it as 'knowledge'.

It is knowledge, and I'm getting really tired of your insults.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no clue. If you don't want to open your mind and actually hear what Lessans has to say, then go somewhere else because you are not listening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've already read all Lessans had to say. All you are offering is your weaseling and evasion in place of any actual defense or support of his claims.

Oh, stop it Spacemonkey. The fact that you think people will have a clear conscience in a world of no blame, and you say you read the book? You're a liar Spacemonkey, so stop the pretense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have not understood the principles at all, not even a smigeon, but you are so against it. And I will say again, DO NOT CALL THIS A NON-DISCOVERY AGAIN OR I WILL SKIP OVER YOUR POSTS.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are already skipping over most of my posts. Do you have any other neutral term for describing his ideas? It is not fair for you to expect us to refer to them as 'discoveries'. We do not believe he made any actual discoveries.

Then call it an alleged discovery, but not a non-discovery. You do not know anything about this discovery Spacemonkey, so don't claim you do. I have answered as many posts as I can. I don't want to get into a discussion on the eyes. If there is any post I have not answered, bump it, and I'll try to get to it, but there are other people who also want their questions answered, and I can only answer so many in one day.

[thedoc]

Unbelieveable!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not working any harder than you LadyShea. You have done nothing to understand the discovery, so for me to cowtow to one person (i.e., YOU) on this forum is counterproductive because it's a waste of valuable energy.

Weasel.

What's unfair? You've had two years to present your information and support your positions without threat of being censored, banned, or having your threads locked. I've done nothing but speak my mind. My responses and refutations stand or fall in the eyes of other "people" on their own merits, as do yours.

Speaking of people, what people are you talking about? I mentioned the only new participant we've had in a long while, koan, and you referred to her as "someone who happened to stumble on this thread". You talk about all these "people" as if they are too stupid to read and draw their own conclusions.
So besides me, Spacemonkey, thedoc, Vivisectus, Stephen Maturin, Angukuk, and specious_reasons...who are these "people" you are referring to and even addressing?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I determine what is true and false based on the available evidence. If there is no direct evidence due to being theoretical, then I evaluate supporting arguments to see if the claim is well grounded. This is the very best way to determine the truth.

There you go, back to your comfort zone. I will not discuss this book with you any further until you open your mind to a different way of thinking.

Okay. You mentioned epistemology earlier. Shall we go that route? I don't know much about this branch of study, but it seems to be concerned with the justification of a belief to warrant calling it knowledge. There are several methods to explore...which do you think I should use, other than empiricism and rationalism, the two I mentioned I already use, to analyze Lessans ideas?

What "way of thinking" do I need to adopt?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk to you about photons that haven't arrived, or modal fallacies that are non-existent.

Of course you don't want talk about two very big problems in the book that you can't rationally respond to.

LOL, way to prove my point! Throw a histrionic little tantrum without responding to the actual point made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Koan? How dare you compare my two year stay with someone who happened to stumble on this thread.

Who is comparing anyone? You asked me where my data came from to support my statement that it was too late for you to make a good impression here at

She was a newcomer and you showed her your ass, as you are wont to do. So it's too late for you here because you keep proving yourself irrational.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did, and I will talk to Spacemonkey. You are completely egocentric which gives me no hope talking to you.

And you are weaseling, as usual

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not going to bring this thread down because of bias or plain old skepticism. I hope you can handle it when this knowledge is proved true, and you are left at the back door with only your ego to deal with.

You prove my point every time you type!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is knowledge, and I'm getting really tired of your insults.

No, it is not knowledge. And I did not insult you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh, stop it Spacemonkey. The fact that you think people will have a clear conscience in a world of no blame, and you say you read the book? You're a liar Spacemonkey, so stop the pretense.

I have read the book. I am not lying to you at all. And I never said that people will have a clear conscience in a world of no blame. I said they would do if they knew they were not responsible for their choices.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then call it an alleged discovery, but not a non-discovery. You do not know anything about this discovery Spacemonkey, so don't claim you do. I have answered as many posts as I can. I don't want to get into a discussion on the eyes. If there is any post I have not answered, bump it, and I'll try to get to it, but there are other people who also want their questions answered, and I can only answer so many in one day.

Okay, I'll call it an alleged discovery if you will do the same. But if you get to call it a discovery (because you believe it is one) then I get to call it a non-discovery (because I am convinced that it is not one). If you expect me to keep an open mind then it is only fair that you do the same. I will now bump the posts you have not answered.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I haven't been trying to define causal determination. I have been clarifying the kind of compulsion compatibilism requires us to be free from. If you don't understand what I've been explaining, then try reading the posts where I have explained it and asking about any parts you don't follow. That would be more constructive than merely dogmatically asserting and repeating that our choices cannot be both caused and free. Compatibilism shows this to be false.

As an empirical claim it is obviously false. We do not always experience any psychological compulsion to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Often considerations of satisfaction don't enter into our decision-making at all, and many choices are made without any experience of compulsion. When you acknowledge this to be true, his satisfaction principle ceases to be an empirical claim.

There is no contradiction. Stop weaseling and address post #21988 where I explained in detail the difference between compatibilist freedom and contra-causal freedom, along with the kind of compulsion compatibilism is talking about. You have no actual argument against compatibilism at all.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can use your words in any way that you like, but if you insist on defining a term differently to how it is being used by those you are arguing against, then you will be arguing against a strawman instead of the view they are actually expressing.

Here you make a valid point. "Non-causal compulsion" was a very poor choice of words on my part. Obviously all compulsion will be causal. The point of the distinction I was making is that some (of what you wish to call) compulsion is merely causal, while there is also a stronger form of compulsion which involves a strong and experienced psychological impulse towards a certain action that one feels unable to act against. Consider a drug addict choosing to inject himself (or you choosing to continue posting here). There is a strong and experienced psychological compulsion which involves more than merely being caused to choose as one does. It is a causal influence which overrides all other causal factors, rendering the final choice largely immune from influence by changes in any other antecedent circumstances.

A causally determined choice need not involve any such experienced psychological compulsion. I can be caused to choose toast over cereal for breakfast without feeling compelled to choose one over the other. The choice is still rigid in the sense that given those exact antecedent circumstances I would always have chosen the same. But it is not rigid in the stronger sense involved in the kind of compulsion compatibilists speak of. In this case the choice is rigid across not only the actual antecedent circumstances, but also a wide range of counterfactually differing circumstances. The drug addict will still inject himself even if offered a great deal not to do so, or if the consequences are known to be very bad. Differing antecedent circumstances will not be likely to result in a different choice given this kind of compulsion.

Compatibilism says that freedom from coercion and this stronger sense of compulsion is all that is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. It says that merely being caused to choose as one does (regardless of whether or not you wish to also call this 'compulsion') does not prevent us from being morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions.

There is a compatibilist notion of freedom which differs from the contra-causal variety. I have defined it for you, and will do so again. And contra-causal/libertarian free will is not the 'standard usage'. Plus you are still equivocating between different senses of compulsion.

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without the kind of experienced psychological compulsion which renders a choice highly resistant to variation in antecent causal conditions (i.e. no 'compulsion' beyond mere causal determination), and without coercion, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices, i.e. such that with exactly the same antecedent causal conditions, one could have chosen otherwise.

Compatibilism says that the former is sufficient, and the latter is unnecessary, for making us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you still have no argument or rational objection against it.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. If the underlying proposition is correct, the definition will reflect that accuracy.

What the hell are you talking about? This makes no sense as a response to what I said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course you can use a common definition. It's a universal law. Universal laws can be explained no matter what part of the world you live in.

Again what? You didn't address the point at all. Are you drunk?

[LadyShea]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it is not assumed. It is directly observed. You can see it for yourself. Simply shine a flashlight off a mirror in a darkened room. You will see the light that is not absorbed bounce off the mirror and hit the wall. Put some red colored paint or cellophane on the mirror, and you will see that the mirror now absorbs the non-red light from your torch while the non-absorbed red light from the flashlight bounces off and hits the wall. And worse, you have absolutely no explanation for where the non-absorbed light goes if it doesn't bounce off and travel away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not denying the properties of absorption and non-absorption.

Yes, you were, when you said Non-absorbed photons DO NOT get reflected. White light travels, not non-absorbed photons.

But to say that non-absorbed photons travel forever and ever no matter how old the universe is

They do, unless or until they are absorbed

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never will I take the time to explain anything to you. You'll have to get it on your own.

LOL, I already got it. Lessans was a dirty old horndog who wanted to have relationships with vaginas rather than people.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

instead of projecting what you think it will be like which is just a bunch of false imaginings

Isn't this the exact test you have told us to conduct on ourselves regarding conscience in the New World...to imagine ourselves in it? Why is the imagination a valid test for conscience but not a valid test for relationships?

ETA:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can test yourself by imagining how you would feel. Picture that the new world is here, and no one is going to ever again judge you, blame you, criticize you, or punish you for anything you might do. If you hurt someone, they are not going to come after you and ask you why you did this because they already know that it was a compulsion beyond your control. Just thinking about hurting someone, under these conditions, makes me extremely uncomfortable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Isn't this the exact test you have told us to conduct on ourselves regarding conscience in the New World...to imagine ourselves in it? Why is the imagination a valid test for conscience but not a valid test for relationships?

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, isn't it?

[Vivisectus]

Hey, that's not a bad thing. Maybe penguins have something to teach us humans.

Marriage must have been pretty rough on you.

Of course I do, but you can't compare this world to the new world. You can't even begin to envision the changes that are going to take place. So stop right there, and listen for a change instead of projecting what you think it will be like which is just a bunch of false imaginings.

In the new world, teenagers will no longer be clueless? Truly it is an age of wonder!

Who is telling anyone not to do what they want to do? It's the exact opposite. You are so confused from that conversation, I am at a loss for words.

That is because you have cut my answer in half. You say "How can there be bad relationships when people do not want to hurt one another" and I say "many ways: some simple, some complex".

I have been in relationships where hurting the other person was the last thing I wanted to do, but it was either leave or stay in a loveless relationship that was not doing either of us any favours.

Funnily enough, we never had any issues in the bedroom by the way, so there you have a piece of anecdotal evidence against your fathers rather grey and bloodless ideas about relationships.

Seriously, what are you conjuring up now? Your logic has gotten so far off track that you are thinking all kinds of weird scenarios that are based on fabrication.

There are many, many ways in which a relationship can simply not work, is what I mean. People are quite complex. I was once in one where the other person thought I was too nice all the time, so she tried different ways to get a rise out of me. She was one of those people who are born troublemakers, mischievous and mercurial, and while she loved me, she felt stifled by my much calmer approach to life.

Neither of us wanted to hurt the other, and we really did love one another, but we drove each mad because we had such different approaches to life.

You can wave your little magic wand again and say "free will environment" but unless people are going to turn in to personality-free drones, this will always be an issue.

Yes, and more.

How convenient for you! Do you use that for everything that you do not like? I suppose it saves you from having to assume responsibility for your own life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not working any harder than you LadyShea. You have done nothing to understand the discovery, so for me to cowtow to one person (i.e., YOU) on this forum is counterproductive because it's a waste of valuable energy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel.

No, it's not a weasel. You are not giving this man the benefit of the doubt. You are extremely confrontative and you do not have a grasp of this knowledge at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not weaseling bullshit, okay?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have pointed out every weasel and explained why it was a weasel. That you spew weaseling bullshit is heavily exampled throughout the thread and apparent for anyone who reads it.

And I have pointed out how difficult it is to get across a discovery on a forum type venue. That was my mistake in using the internet to try to explain a discovery of this magnitude, without people having read the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People will see that you are trying to corner me and make it appear like a weasel. I told you that more empirical studies have to be done. You have a certain mindset that refuses to give Lessans a chance, therefore anything that I say will be dismissed outright. It will be proof in your eyes (i.e., there is no proof according to you so I am condemned before I start), that I'm a weasel. It's totally unfair and I hope people see that.

I don't care if you are involved or not, but I do care how people perceive your responses. Your refutation is a NOT a true negation of these principles and I want people to know that this is based on a lack of true understanding.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's unfair? You've had two years to present your information and support your positions without threat of being censored, banned, or having your threads locked. I've done nothing but speak my mind. My responses and refutations stand or fall in the eyes of other "people" on their own merits, as do yours.

That is a red herring if I ever saw one: to blame me for the time I've been here when half of the posts have been an attempt to degrade and sidetrack. How in the world can I explain a discovery in a room full of people who are making fun of my presentation and not allowing me to continue with my presentation. Now it's too late because I'm too tired to go on and on trying to explain the book when people are snubbing their noses at me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Speaking of people, what people are you talking about? I mentioned the only new participant we've had in a long while, koan, and you referred to her as "someone who happened to stumble on this thread". You talk about all these "people" as if they are too stupid to read and draw their own conclusions.

Koan knows absolutely nothing about this book, and she comes on here and makes all kinds of accusations about who Lessans was. That is true ignorance. Is this the kind of person you are using to support you in your quest to bring Lessans down? You two should go have tea together because you're two peas in a pod, but don't bring her up as if she has read the book and been an attentive listener. Dang, she just got here and look what she concluded? This woman is clueless.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So besides me, Spacemonkey, thedoc, Vivisectus, Stephen Maturin, Angukuk, and specious_reasons...who are these "people" you are referring to and even addressing?

There are lurkers out there who may be unsure about this discovery and want to understand more about it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I determine what is true and false based on the available evidence. If there is no direct evidence due to being theoretical, then I evaluate supporting arguments to see if the claim is well grounded. This is the very best way to determine the truth.

For you to tell me that the free will/determinism debate can never be resolved because it's immaterial and therefore it will always remain an opinion, is completely erroneous. This claim is well grounded but your method of determining whether it is well grounded is inaccurate because you believe that the only way to prove something true is through empirical testing and hypotheses. That is why you are snubbing this major work, and I'm not going to let people believe that your analysis, which would throw this work in a slush pile as being a mere assertion, is lacking in true analytical and investigative authority.

There you go, back to your comfort zone. I will not discuss this book with you any further until you open your mind to a different way of thinking.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay. You mentioned epistemology earlier. Shall we go that route? I don't know much about this branch of study, but it seems to be concerned with the justification of a belief to warrant calling it knowledge. There are several methods to explore...which do you think I should use, other than empiricism and rationalism, the two I mentioned I already use, to analyze Lessans ideas?

Rationalism. His reasoning is spot on, and it's based on astute empirical observation, therefore it can be tested empirically. But you aren't giving him a chance in hell. No one with a discovery could win in here the way people react. There are so many things taken out of context that it's no wonder you would miss a treasure right in front of you. What is the two-sided equation LadyShea. You say you know so much. Without reading the .pdf, what is the discovery?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What "way of thinking" do I need to adopt?

A way of thinking that does not jump to conclusions, and has a greater capacity to truly listen and hear. You have not done that, even though you think you have. No one has given him an opportunity to share his demonstration. You say I've had a chance for two years, and guess what? I have never gotten past page 50 (except for a few people who read a little bit of Chapter Two, and of course, Chapter Four, Words, Not Reality which I'm not referring to).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk to you about photons that haven't arrived, or modal fallacies that are non-existent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you don't want talk about two very big problems in the book that you can't rationally respond to.

I told you that this issue is not going to be resolved in here, and it's not the most important discovery. I don't want to spend time on that, when people are dying across the world due to war. I think most people would say that's reasonable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know it's too late for this forum? Have you asked everyone here? Do you have a basis for that claim?

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

"Everyone" here has already spoken for themselves, and has been dealing with your weaseling via avoidance, histrionics, lies, and assertions for almost 2 years.

LadyShea, you cannot speak for everyone in here. You have no data on this. You have no evidence. So stop being hypocritical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, now you're trying to save face. You just can't handle that you don't have all the answers so now you are coming back with attacks that have no true rationale other than LadyShea said it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, way to prove my point! Throw a histrionic little tantrum without responding to the actual point made.

I am responding to the point you just made. You don't know what people are thinking. Yes, people can think for themselves but group think is alive and well, and in order to know what people are actually thinking you need to take a survey and come back and report the results. That is empirical testing at work, which you value so highly. At least you would be able to back up your assertions that no one is interested and they've all been spoken for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is your statistical analysis that backs this up?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The posts in this thread. koan is the most recent.

That is not good statistical analysis.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Koan? How dare you compare my two year stay with someone who happened to stumble on this thread.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who is comparing anyone? You asked me where my data came from to support my statement that it was too late for you to make a good impression here at

I don't think anyone who has been here for the length of time that I have would use Koan as statistical support. The conclusion you drew because of this one person is a rush to have your statistics match up with your assumptions. You don't know what impression I am making on everyone in here. You don't have the complete data to make such a statement. Admit that you're wrong and now trying to weasel your way out of a stupid comment and save face.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She was a newcomer and you showed her your ass, as you are wont to do. So it's too late for you here because you keep proving yourself irrational.

And you think that comment is rational? This is what I have to deal with people. Come to your own conclusions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you have no idea what you're talking about when you say that the free will/determinism issue can never be proven one way or the other because it's immaterial

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please offer any test that could prove whether free will exists or doesn't exist.

How many times did I say that this knowledge is falsifiable, even if it was necessary to create a small society based on these principles. But that's not necessary once people see that these principles are undeniable. Lessans proves in an undeniable fashion that man can't hurt another under the changed conditions. That in itself proves man's will is not free because it's impossible for him to desire striking a first blow when not to becomes the preferable choice. You don't get it at all LadyShea, and it's frustrating me to no end for you to constantly say "Prove it!" Trust me, the proof is there. If you cannot understand the proof (which lays the foundation for the two-sided equation), you are going to have to trust that it's there, and allow me to move on.

I did, and I will talk to Spacemonkey. You are completely egocentric which gives me no hope talking to you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you are weaseling, as usual

Anything you don't like you call weaseling, which is weaseling. So you are a bigger weasel than I am, which isn't surprising because it takes one to know one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not going to bring this thread down because of bias or plain old skepticism. I hope you can handle it when this knowledge is proved true, and you are left at the back door with only your ego to deal with.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You prove my point every time you type!

I don't know what else to say to you. I don't think you want this knowledge to be right. You are insistent that he is wrong based on your false analysis, which you won't admit, so ego is playing a role in my opinion.

[LadyShea]

Okay Rationalism it is. Can you tell me your thoughts on these excerpts (or the whole piece if you wish to read it.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Intuition is a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition, we just "see" it to be true in such a way as to form a true, warranted belief in it. Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments, ones in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. We intuit, for example, that the number three is prime and that it is greater than two. We then deduce from this knowledge that there is a prime number greater than two. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori, which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense experience.

We can generate different versions of the Intuition/Deduction thesis by substituting different subject areas for the variable ‘S’. Some rationalists take mathematics to be knowable by intuition and deduction. Some place ethical truths in this category. Some include metaphysical claims, such as that God exists, we have free will, and our mind and body are distinct substances. The more propositions rationalists include within the range of intuition and deduction, and the more controversial the truth of those propositions, the more radical their rationalism.

Most forms of rationalism involve notable commitments to other philosophical positions. One is a commitment to the denial of scepticism for at least some area of knowledge. If we claim to know some truths by intuition or deduction or to have some innate knowledge, we obviously reject scepticism with regard to those truths. Rationalism in the form of the Intuition/Deduction thesis is also committed to epistemic foundationalism, the view that we know some truths without basing our belief in them on any others and that we then use this foundational knowledge to know more truths.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, I already got it. Lessans was a dirty old horndog who wanted to have relationships with vaginas rather than people.

Everyone, here is a perfect example of someone who wants to make fun of something that is so very serious. There are so many teenagers committing suicide because of unrequited love, or feelings of no self worth. That is what this chapter is about. Do you think LadyShea read it? Of course she didn't. She wouldn't say these things if she had. She is displaying her ignorance in neon lights. This ignorance is what I have to deal with. Does anyone have compassion for what I'm faced with?

[LadyShea]

I gave my summary of the two sided equation over a year ago

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Two sided equation
* Man's will is not free, as he is compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction

* No person can be forced or compelled to do anything they do not want to do

*Because everyone understands points 1 and 2, nobody will ever blame, punish, criticize or question another person for any action even it results in an unintentional hurt

*Therefore it is not possible to commit a hurtful action, because one cannot derive satisfaction from hurting another knowing they will never be held responsible in any way by another person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay Rationalism it is. Can you tell me your thoughts on these excerpts (or the whole piece if you wish to read it.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This is not metaphysical in the sense that this is somehow supernatural or beyond our ability to use the scientific method. This is a claim based on the natural world, through empirical observation. Just because "greater satisfaction" can't be empirically tested by observing individual people, it can be discovered through empirical observation on a larger scale. As Lessans said in Chapter Ten: Your reasoning doesn’t reveal a deeper truth. Does matter itself reveal atomic energy? Do the individual planets, moon and sun reveal the solar system? Do individual people reveal the mankind system unless we observe certain undeniable laws? Does all of it together reveal the reality of God (I.E., THE LAWS OF OUR NATURE), unless certain mathematical relations are perceived?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I gave my summary of the two sided equation over a year ago

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

And do you actually think this tiny summary is enough to really truly grasp why this is an undeniable observation? Do you not see how limited you are in your understanding because you did not read the book in its entirety, which no one seems to care about? Do you not see why this has been so difficult for me? You aren't meeting me half way. You're not even meeting me a tenth of the way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please offer any test that could prove whether free will exists or doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that this knowledge can be empirically proven.

And how many times has it been explained to you that asserting things are so does not make them so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The new world will prove that man can't hurt another under these changed conditions.

Appeal to non-existent evidence that you merely hope and believe will come to exist in a hoped for, but not certain to come to pass, future.

That in itself proves man's will is not free because it's impossible for him to desire striking a first blow when not to becomes the preferable choice.

That's the proposition under dispute.

You cannot claim this is proof when you just stated the proof does not yet exist, and can't exist unless this proposition is accepted without evidence first.

That's circular.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1097939]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay Rationalism it is. Can you tell me your thoughts on these excerpts (or the whole piece if you wish to read it.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This is not metaphysical in the sense that this is somehow supernatural or beyond our ability to use the scientific method. This is a claim based on the natural world, through empirical observation.

Neither free will nor determinism, nor greater satisfaction can be empirically observed.

Metaphysical: b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience

Just because "greater satisfaction" can't be empirically tested by observing individual people, it can be discovered through empirical observation on a larger scale.

It can't be empirically observed, so how can it be discovered through empirical observation?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And do you actually think this tiny summary is enough to really truly grasp why this is an undeniable observation?

You asked me what the two sided equation was and I told you, in a summary yes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone, here is a perfect example of someone who wants to make fun of something that is so very serious. There are so many teenagers committing suicide because of unrequited love, or feelings of no self worth. That is what this chapter is about. Do you think LadyShea read it? Of course she didn't. She wouldn't say these things if she had. She is displaying her ignorance in neon lights. This ignorance is what I have to deal with. Does anyone have compassion for what I'm faced with?

LOL, according to Lessans being loved for their genitals is so much better than being loved for their mind.

[LadyShea]

I don't think anyone who has been here for the length of time that I have would use Koan as statistical support. The conclusion you drew because of this one person is a rush to have your statistics match up with your assumptions. You don't know what impression I am making on everyone in here. You don't have the complete data to make such a statement. Admit that you're wrong and now trying to weasel your way out of a stupid comment and save face.

LadyShea, you cannot speak for everyone in here. You have no data on this. You have no evidence

My statistical support, and evidence for my claim is the posts in this thread by everyone who has participated in this thread, because that's the only data at hand. koan was simply the most recent additional person adding data, I drew no conclusion from only koan.

So yes, I know the impression you are making on the people who post, because they have said what their impression is.

I know you imagine hoardes of lurkers, but all the "guests" are web bots and spiders, not real people.