A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[But]

PS: That was a live demonstration of arrogance. Next time I'll deconstruct every one of your arguments and then fire up the barrel device. Over and out for today.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way did this man make any assumptions...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course he did. He assumed the innate potential perfection of conscience.

That was not an assumption; he proves it because we are finally getting to understand ourselves, as Socrates once said.

p. 62 Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature.

Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did? To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that
controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we
are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well
as the solar system, just follow this:

Here is versatile man — writer,
composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and
lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to
blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of
necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to
why will is not free and what this means for the entire world which
perception was utterly impossible without the development and
absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of
history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and the only time you will see this is when it is confirmed valid by those who are able to recognize the validity of these principles.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What validity? The only person on the planet who thinks his reasoning is valid is her own deluded daughter who couldn't reason her way out of a paper bag (or an internet discussion forum).

I'm not deluded at all, and even if I was the only one that believes he is right, that doesn't prove that he's wrong. What terrible logic!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These principles are not based on logic. They are based on accurate observations and sound reasoning...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sound reasoning is logic, Peacegirl.

Sorry, it is not. I can't continue on this way because all you do is go right back to your faulty logic that this is an empty tautology and that he's wrong in his observations about conscience. You are ruining it for yourself because you actually believe you're right and you're cutting yourself off from wanting to hear anything more. If you can't give him the benefit of the doubt, it's the end of the discussion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We will never get to his discovery because you have dismissed the premises on which his discovery is based.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And we will continue to dismiss them until you can support them.

No, we're done.

Originally Posted by Lessans

If you are coming along on this journey you will need to put on your thinking caps and try to understand the mathematical relations soon to be revealed which permit you to see this miracle.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans' problem was that he only ever wore his red and green thinking hats, and never learned to wear his black thinking hat.

Lessans said you need to let go of any preconceived ideas because it's going to get in the way. And that's exactly what is happening. Your logic is causing a barrier to any further understanding.

p. 5 The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not an assumption; he proves it because we are finally getting to understand ourselves, as Socrates once said.

Socrates didn't say that, and Lessans did nothing to prove or even support his assumption about conscience. If he had you'd be showing us his proof and/or support instead of whining and complaining.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not deluded at all, and even if I was the only one that believes he is right, that doesn't prove that he's wrong. What terrible logic!

I've never said that's what makes him wrong. You spoke of the alleged validity of his principles, and I'm pointing out that this supposed validity has yet to be demonstrated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, it is not.

Yes, it is. Logic is the study of inference, i.e. sound reasoning. You're only trying to distinguish between logic and sound reasoning because you've inherited and adopted your father's misconceptions about what logic and mathematics actually are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't continue on this way because all you do is go right back to your faulty logic that this is an empty tautology and that he's wrong in his observations about conscience. You are ruining it for yourself because you actually believe you're right and you're cutting yourself off from wanting to hear anything more. If you can't give him the benefit of the doubt, it's the end of the discussion.

If his reasoning were sound no-one would have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You'd be able to provide his supposed proofs and support for his claims instead of insisting these exist but never being able to show us where they are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we're done.

Again? I don't think we'll be done until you stop replying, and I doubt that is about to happen anytime soon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans said you need to let go of any preconceived ideas because it's going to get in the way. And that's exactly what is happening. Your logic is causing a barrier to any further understanding.

Yes, Lessans' ideas require us to let go of our preconceived ideas that photons can't come from somewhere they never were, that limitations must rule something out, and that there is a difference between merely reporting an alleged observation and actually supporting it. Unfortunately for him, the preconceived ideas he requires us to reject all happen to be both true and well-supported. The only barrier here is your and your father's ignorance of basic science, philosophy, psychology, and epistemology.

[But]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it is. Logic is the study of inference, i.e. sound reasoning. You're only trying to distinguish between logic and sound reasoning because you've inherited and adopted your father's misconceptions about what logic and mathematics actually are.

LOL. I'm back. Have you figured out by now what this "ND proof" is that you seemed to try talking about? Lambda calculus? Binding of identifiers? Inference rules? Computation trees? Interference? Quantum computation? How you can go around a corner in two directions at once? Stuff like that?

I guess, NO

[But]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Socrates didn't say that

You sure? How can you tell?

Lessans did nothing to prove or even support his assumption about conscience.

What should he have done instead to describe the principle?

If he had you'd be showing us his proof and/or support instead of whining and complaining.

If constructing "ND proofs" would have been sufficient, she wouldn't have to carry on whining and complaining, which is a different method.

The only person on the planet who thinks his reasoning is valid is her own deluded daughter who couldn't reason her way out of a paper bag (or an internet discussion forum).

You can't explain to me what form of logic you want in proofs and tell other people stuff about paper bags to insult them as a from of self-gratification.

I've never said that's what makes him wrong. You spoke of the alleged validity of his principles, and I'm pointing out that this supposed validity has yet to be demonstrated.

Do you know what the principles are?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sound reasoning is logic, Peacegirl.

Put that into the form of CTL* modal logic statements, don't assume one linear time dimension, and post your construction.

You're only trying to distinguish between logic and sound reasoning because you've inherited and adopted your father's misconceptions about what logic and mathematics actually are.

Doesn't follow. Not consistent.

Again? I don't think we'll be done until you stop replying, and I doubt that is about to happen anytime soon.

Then what are you doing here?

Yes, Lessans' ideas require us to let go of our preconceived ideas that photons can't come from somewhere they never were

Some news for you: they go anywhere. Every one of them is everywhere. There is only one of "them". A photon can go forwards in "time", backwards, loop around paths, even come from somewhere it never was. If you don't understand what I mean, please carry on.

that limitations must rule something out

That's what they do by definition.

and that there is a difference between merely reporting an alleged observation and actually supporting it.

No, there is no difference. Do you know what observation is?

Unfortunately for him, the preconceived ideas he requires us to reject all happen to be both true and well-supported.

You don't know that.

The only barrier here is your and your father's ignorance of basic science, philosophy, psychology, and epistemology.

LOL. Have you figured out what a photon is, by now?

[But]

p. 62 Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit.

Well, at least it's not going to shock me.

This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature.

Right.

Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way;

That's a selection effect. Preselection and postselection. Conditioning of probabilities.

an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?

Another selection effect.

To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that
controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we
are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well
as the solar system, just follow this:

Even the invariable laws are variable.

Getting to be understood.

Here is versatile man — writer,
composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and
lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to
blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of
necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to
why will is not free and what this means for the entire world which
perception was utterly impossible without the development and
absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of
history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

I have not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Compatibilism is not some obscure viewpoint that can just be dismissed from a discussion of free will and determinism. By arbitrarily excluding compatibilism from his argument, he created a false dichotomy and that is fallacious reasoning. That is not sound reasoning. I have every right to point out poor reasoning in a book that is supposed to demonstrate exceptional reasoning.

Oh look, the majority of Philosophers are compatbilists. Do you think it's reasonable to simply ignore the majority viewpoint on an issue under discussion?

Bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Compatibilism is not some obscure viewpoint that can just be dismissed from a discussion of free will and determinism. By arbitrarily excluding compatibilism from his argument, he created a false dichotomy and that is fallacious reasoning. That is not sound reasoning. I have every right to point out poor reasoning in a book that is supposed to demonstrate exceptional reasoning.

Oh look, the majority of Philosophers are compatbilists. Do you think it's reasonable to simply ignore the majority viewpoint on an issue under discussion?

He did not leave out anything arbitrarily LadyShea. He proved that free will is an illusion, therefore compatibilism is a flawed concept. Of course it's reasonable to ignore the majority viewpoint; 98% of the world believes in some form of free will. Does that mean Lessans is wrong just because he doesn't agree with the majority position? It doesn't matter how many philosophers hold the compatibilist view; it doesn't make them any more right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not leave out anything arbitrarily LadyShea.

He left out compatibilism. Never even mentioned it, not even to refute the position such as say "Some people mistakenly try to make them compatible..." or something. I searched the text and he never said the word compatibilism or compatibilist. It's like he had never even heard of it. How could that be if he read lots and lots of philosophy?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

98% of the world believes in some form of free will.

Do you have a citation for that statistic?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does that mean Lessans is wrong just because he doesn't agree with the majority position? It doesn't matter how many philosophers hold the compatibilist view; it doesn't make them any more right.

I wasn't addressing whether he agreed or disagreed with the majority, or whether the majority are correct or incorrect, only that Lessans failed to mention the majority view completely, which is weird. It's like discussing natural childbirth methods and philosophies and eliminating Lamaze from the discussion.

My point is still, of course, that by arbitrarily excluding compatibilism from his argument, Lessans created a false dichotomy and that is fallacious reasoning. That is not sound reasoning.

[Vivisectus]

Do you have a citation for that statistic?

She probably astutely observed that this is so. That counts as research, as long as you agree with what Lessans says, but not if you disagree.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He left out compatibilism. Never even mentioned it, not even to refute the position such as say "Some people mistakenly try to make them compatible..." or something. I searched the text and he never said the word compatibilism or compatibilist. It's like he had never even heard of it. How could that be if he read lots and lots of philosophy?

He didn't have to. You can judge him all you want, but you weren't in his shoes and you are falsely accusing him of leaving out something when he didn't. He proved free will false, so any form of worldview that holds free will as being valid must be false.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

98% of the world believes in some form of free will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you have a citation for that statistic?

No LadyShea, I don't. I refuse to get distracted by your trivial questions, which have no bearing on this discovery. I don't care whether 98% of people believe in some form of free will, or 60% of people believe in some form of free will, it doesn't change the soundness of his observations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does that mean Lessans is wrong just because he doesn't agree with the majority position? It doesn't matter how many philosophers hold the compatibilist view; it doesn't make them any more right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't addressing whether he agreed or disagreed with the majority, or whether the majority are correct or incorrect, only that Lessans failed to mention the majority view completely, which is weird. It's like discussing natural childbirth methods and philosophies and eliminating Lamaze from the discussion.

My point is still, of course, that by arbitrarily excluding compatibilism from his argument, Lessans created a false dichotomy and that is fallacious reasoning. That is not sound reasoning.

He was making no false dichotomy LadyShea. Free will and determinism are not compatible. You are so completely off base in your thinking, it's just too hard to even talk to you. I'm just totally frustrated by your comments. You keep talking about what he didn't say, as if this disproves his observations. Don't you see what you're doing just because you want to find some flaw? If you think that just because he didn't mention compatibilism that this discredits him, you've lost your ability to be objective. He mentioned free will throughout his book and the necessity of this belief as part of our development. The compatibilists version of free will is false because we do not have free will even when, from all appearances, it looks like we have a choice. That's the realistic mirage that Lessans' talks about. The definition they use to justify blame and punishment is useful in our society because it helps to deter some people from doing bad things (things considered wrong by society), but in actuality their definition does not prove free will true in any sense whatsoever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

She probably astutely observed that this is so. That counts as research, as long as you agree with what Lessans says, but not if you disagree.

Oh be quiet Vivisectus. This kind of comment was okay early on, but it's getting old already. This group is so bent on having fun putting me down rather than learning something, that you're not even paying attention to anything I've discussed, and believe me my words have merit. It's no wonder we've made no progress.

[LadyShea]

He was making no false dichotomy LadyShea. Free will and determinism are not compatible.

That is the assertion you are supposed to be supporting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so completely off base in your thinking, it's just too hard to even talk to you. I'm just totally frustrated by your comments.

So?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about what he didn't say, as if this disproves his observations.

I said it demonstrates poor reasoning skills. I never said it disproves his observations. He may have been 100% correct, but leaving out compatibilitism in his explanation and argument still set up a false dichotomy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see what you're doing just because you want to find some flaw?

I am offering my criticisms of a piece of writing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think that just because he didn't mention compatibilism that this discredits him, you've lost your ability to be objective.

I am offering my opinion that presenting a false dichotomy demonstrates poor reasoning , poor argumentation and sloppy scholarship. If that "discredits" him, then it does...but I don't think that word means what you think it means, because I don't think I have the power to do that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He mentioned free will throughout his book and the necessity of this belief as part of our development. The compatibilists version of free will is false because we do not have free will even when, from all appearances, it looks like we have a choice.

He was only arguing against a specific understanding of free will...his narrow idea of what free will would entail. I think excluding other conceptions of free will displays poor reasoning.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh be quiet Vivisectus. This kind of comment was okay early on, but it's getting old already. This group is so bent on having fun putting me down rather than learning something, that you're not even paying attention to anything I've discussed, and believe me my words have merit. It's no wonder we've made no progress.

Au Contraire, darling. I always pay keen attention to anything you say, as it is frequently very entertaining. And in your view, things really do work like I have just described, by the way. If your father said something, that is good enough for you. It is only when someone disagrees that you require the kinds of proof that we currently do not even posess for the theory of sexual reproduction.

[peacegirl]

He was making no false dichotomy LadyShea. Free will and determinism are not compatible.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is the assertion you are supposed to be supporting.

That's what I've been doing LadyShea. Where have you been? I don't think you've understood a thing I have explained.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so completely off base in your thinking, it's just too hard to even talk to you. I'm just totally frustrated by your comments.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So?

If you don't care to change your tone, then I don't care either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about what he didn't say, as if this disproves his observations.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said it demonstrates poor reasoning skills. I never said it disproves his observations. He may have been 100% correct, but leaving out compatibilitism in his explanation and argument still set up a false dichotomy.

There is no false dichotomy. Your reasoning is getting more and more confused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see what you're doing just because you want to find some flaw?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am offering my criticisms of a piece of writing.

Your criticisms are unfounded.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think that just because he didn't mention compatibilism that this discredits him, you've lost your ability to be objective.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am offering my opinion that presenting a false dichotomy demonstrates poor reasoning , poor argumentation and sloppy scholarship. If that "discredits" him, then it does...but I don't think that word means what you think it means, because I don't think I have the power to do that.

I don't care about your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they don't mean anything. There is nothing sloppy about his scholarship. You are making stuff up again. If there is no such thing as free will, and he proves it, he doesn't have to address the different positions that try to support free will when he has proven conclusively that there is no such thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He mentioned free will throughout his book and the necessity of this belief as part of our development. The compatibilists version of free will is false because we do not have free will even when, from all appearances, it looks like we have a choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was only arguing against a specific understanding of free will...his narrow idea of what free will would entail. I think excluding other conceptions of free will displays poor reasoning.

No LadyShea, this is poor reasoning on your part. Being able to choose without compulsion or necessity is what free will has been defined as. Any other definition is just an offshoot. Just like the analogy I gave earlier; you can be locked up in prison, and just because you leave your cell to go to the commissary doesn't mean you're any less locked up. By the same token, just because a person doesn't have a strong compulsion to do something doesn't make a choice that does not contain this degree of compulsion any more free.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This group is so bent on having fun putting me down rather than learning something, that you're not even paying attention to anything I've discussed, and believe me my words have merit. It's no wonder we've made no progress.

Ahh, progress, - Translation, agree with everything Lessans wrote without question and especially without thinking.

Anyone who is able to think and reason at all, is not the target audience for Lessans book.

People make a big deal of anyone with more than a 7th grade education knowing more than Lessans, but I would suggest that Lessans slept through the last 6 years of his education, as many children with only a few years of school could see the error of his thinking.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He proved that free will is an illusion...

He did no such thing. What he did was present an argument (of sorts) for why he thought that free will was an illusion. That hardly constitutes proof.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...believe me my words have merit.

Why should we believe that?

[But]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

He did no such thing. What he did was present an argument (of sorts) for why he thought that free will was an illusion. That hardly constitutes proof.

Oh yes it does.

Why should we believe that?

What would Jesus believe?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by But

Oh yes it does.

Does not!

Originally Posted by But

What would Jesus believe?

Ask him. Report your results.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: All I can say is WOW! I think you're going to like this.

The Final Epic Act Of The Departing Commander Of The International Space Station Truly Rocked

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by But

Okay, I'll try again.

(1) You, I, we, everything is some system in some state, described in the usual way by a state vector (I don't think you know what that is, but fuck it)

(2) Every change is accurately described by a unitary time evolution operator acting on that state, there is no objective collapse of this state function except in the subjective perception of an observer

and (3) that is the usual definition or description of what rebirth is in established texts of, say, Buddhist, Hindu or other theories.

(4) If I have to explain to you what a theory is in terms of ternary relations, I'll just give you the easy task of putting all the above in the "natural deduction" form of "reasoning", and then tell you to shove it.

I think you have to be really careful with (3). I mean, you can twist it around and interpret it that way, but there's the danger of running up against the rocky shores of philosophy of mind, qualia, consciousness etc.

Quantum mechanics predicts definite, correlated perceptions that are consistent with our everyday life, even without a wavefunction collapse ever happening (which it never formally predicts to happen). How you interpret that (many worlds? a bubbly foam of 'events of perception'? Buddhist-esque rebirth?) is a bit tricky, and there seem to be many flavours you can pick.

[But]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I think you have to be really careful with (3). I mean, you can twist it around and interpret it that way, but there's the danger of running up against the rocky shores of philosophy of mind, qualia, consciousness etc.

Quantum mechanics predicts definite, correlated perceptions that are consistent with our everyday life, even without a wavefunction collapse ever happening (which it never formally predicts to happen). How you interpret that (many worlds? a bubbly foam of 'events of perception'? Buddhist-esque rebirth?) is a bit tricky, and there seem to be many flavours you can pick.

Correlation entropy is a useful concept. See the long version of the doctoral thesis of one Mr. Hugh Everett III, esp. page 29.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by But

Correlation entropy is a useful concept. See the long version of the doctoral thesis of one Mr. Hugh Everett III, esp. page 29.

I'll have to take a look. I remember a throwaway line from Sidney Coleman, along the lines that Everett had opened the door to non-wavefunction collapse interpretations, but everyone else had taken that horse and galloped off in different directions (whee, mixed metaphors!). It would be interesting to see Everett's original thoughts.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh be quiet Vivisectus. This kind of comment was okay early on, but it's getting old already. This group is so bent on having fun putting me down rather than learning something, that you're not even paying attention to anything I've discussed, and believe me my words have merit. It's no wonder we've made no progress.

peacegirl, he is paying attention, it is you that is not paying attention. Vivisectus and I, and others expect actual recorded observations, actual data, actual experimentation in order to even begin to consider your fathers claims.

Below is an example of just a tiny amount that was recorded in an experiment that clearly shows that visual neurons are afferent and react to external stimuli coming into the brain. That is science, what your dad did is crackpottery.

Hubel and Wiesel Cat Experiment - YouTube

Hubel & Wiesel - Cortical Neuron - V1 -...