A revolution in thought - Page 1355

peacegirl · #**33851** 11-25-2013, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You think you think you think you think you think you think. Your thinking is lacking understanding, so whatever you think doesn't come to much in the way of improving people's lives globally. All you do is state your wishes, with no way to achieve it. Yes, we are achieving living conditions but not to the extent that this knowledge provides

And whatever Lessans said doesn't come to much in the way of improving lives either. You have yet to convince anyone he was right.

I haven't even started my campaign. You have no idea who, or how many, are going to be convinced, now that the freewill/determinism debate is beginning to take front seat in many philosophy, psychology, and neurology discussions around the world. The trend is on my side. :cool:

I have a pretty good idea, based on your presentation and debate "skills". But have fun trying. I look forward to seeing book reviews...the more the better.

You really have no idea how this book is going to be received based on my presentation and debate skills in this thread. The book will speak for itself, and the people who are familiar with this topic and lean toward determinism are going to be amazed, and desire to pass it on. It will spread like wildfire. :yup:

I hope so.

I know so; it's just a matter of finding the right connections.

Vivisectus · #**33852** 11-25-2013, 12:52 PM

Quote:

It doesn't, but people love to argue because this was the beginning of his proof of determinism. Here is where it all started:

p. 45 In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for
man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

LOL he really never thought anything through did he? Such as the person who commits suicide whilst still enjoying life to the full despite having a slowly advancing disease, because he knows his country forbids euthanasia and will not help him die once life becomes unlivable.

But hey! Everything becomes lovely and simple if you just break it down into these simpletonian read-made chunks, ad then shoe-horn reality into it with various hand-waving or special pleading techniques.

thedoc · #**33853** 11-25-2013, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are free to act in accordance with our will, as you agree. That is free will, in a nutshell. You simply can't bring yourself to admit it, because that would be disagreeing with Lessans.

That is not free will LadyShea just because I can choose without constraint. The whole purpose of this book is to show why it's not; that being able to do what one chooses to do does not mean will is free, and he goes about proving it.

Lessans said there is no free will so any example given by anyone of free will must be wrong and not free will. Lessans said so.

That was easy.

peacegirl · #**33854** 11-25-2013, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

It doesn't, but people love to argue because this was the beginning of his proof of determinism. Here is where it all started:

p. 45 In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for
man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

LOL he really never thought anything through did he?

He was the most thorough thinker of all. You will not disgrace him just because you don't like what he has to say, for whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Such as the person who commits suicide whilst still enjoying life to the full despite having a slowly advancing disease, because he knows his country forbids euthanasia and will not help him die once life becomes unlivable.

What the *#($( hell are you talking about Vivisectus? Have you lost your objectivity altogether?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hey! Everything becomes lovely and simple if you just break it down into these simpletonian read-made chunks, ad then shoe-horn reality into it with various hand-waving or special pleading techniques.

There is nothing simple about this discovery. There are no simpletonian read-made chunks of anything, nor are there shoe-horn realities into it with various hand-waving or special pleading techniques. You are completely out the door.

Spacemonkey · #**33855** 11-25-2013, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really have no idea how this book is going to be received based on my presentation and debate skills in this thread. The book will speak for itself, and the people who are familiar with this topic and lean toward determinism are going to be amazed, and desire to pass it on. It will spread like wildfire. :yup:

Then how come everyone who has read it thinks it is worthless garbage?

That's just not true Spacemonkey...

Of course it's true. Other than yourself, who has read it and doesn't think it is worthless garbage?

peacegirl · #**33856** 11-25-2013, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really have no idea how this book is going to be received based on my presentation and debate skills in this thread. The book will speak for itself, and the people who are familiar with this topic and lean toward determinism are going to be amazed, and desire to pass it on. It will spread like wildfire. :yup:

Then how come everyone who has read it thinks it is worthless garbage?

That's just not true Spacemonkey...

Of course it's true. Other than yourself, who has read it and doesn't think it is worthless garbage?

You'll have to find out for yourself.

thedoc · #**33857** 11-25-2013, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then how come everyone who has read it thinks it is worthless garbage?

That's just not true Spacemonkey...

Of course it's true. Other than yourself, who has read it and doesn't think it is worthless garbage?

Well I will have to say that I don't find it completely 'worthless garbage', Most of it was quite amusing in the way Lessans tried to tie unrelated ideas into a coherent thread of reasoning. Of course he failed, but that is what is so amusing to read his flailing about thinking he's putting related ideas together. If and when I ever read it again, I'm sure I'll find it just as funny then, as it was before. I certainly hope Peacegirls edits, didn't take out the really funny bits.

Spacemonkey · #**33858** 11-25-2013, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really have no idea how this book is going to be received based on my presentation and debate skills in this thread. The book will speak for itself, and the people who are familiar with this topic and lean toward determinism are going to be amazed, and desire to pass it on. It will spread like wildfire. :yup:

Then how come everyone who has read it thinks it is worthless garbage?

That's just not true Spacemonkey...

Of course it's true. Other than yourself, who has read it and doesn't think it is worthless garbage?

You'll have to find out for yourself.

You mean you were lying again.

Vivisectus · #**33859** 11-26-2013, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

It doesn't, but people love to argue because this was the beginning of his proof of determinism. Here is where it all started:

p. 45 In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for
man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

LOL he really never thought anything through did he?

He was the most thorough thinker of all. You will not disgrace him just because you don't like what he has to say, for whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Such as the person who commits suicide whilst still enjoying life to the full despite having a slowly advancing disease, because he knows his country forbids euthanasia and will not help him die once life becomes unlivable.

What the *#($( hell are you talking about Vivisectus? Have you lost your objectivity altogether?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hey! Everything becomes lovely and simple if you just break it down into these simpletonian read-made chunks, ad then shoe-horn reality into it with various hand-waving or special pleading techniques.

There is nothing simple about this discovery. There are no simpletonian read-made chunks of anything, nor are there shoe-horn realities into it with various hand-waving or special pleading techniques. You are completely out the door.

Hey, we will let the public decide

oh wait, that deadlines already passed: by at least 13 years. Ok then, we will give it a second chance and let the public decide the moment you start to actually do anything about getting this book out there. Which will happen... any... day... now...

wait for it.

Definitely. Any day.

peacegirl · #**33860** 11-26-2013, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

It doesn't, but people love to argue because this was the beginning of his proof of determinism. Here is where it all started:

p. 45 In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for
man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

LOL he really never thought anything through did he?

He was the most thorough thinker of all. You will not disgrace him just because you don't like what he has to say, for whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Such as the person who commits suicide whilst still enjoying life to the full despite having a slowly advancing disease, because he knows his country forbids euthanasia and will not help him die once life becomes unlivable.

What the *#($( hell are you talking about Vivisectus? Have you lost your objectivity altogether?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hey! Everything becomes lovely and simple if you just break it down into these simpletonian read-made chunks, ad then shoe-horn reality into it with various hand-waving or special pleading techniques.

There is nothing simple about this discovery. There are no simpletonian read-made chunks of anything, nor are there shoe-horn realities into it with various hand-waving or special pleading techniques. You are completely out the door.

Hey, we will let the public decide

oh wait, that deadlines already passed: by at least 13 years.

If you want to get technical, the deadline's passed by at least 50 years, but who's counting? Only God's timetable matters and this new world's arrival time will not be one minute late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok then, we will give it a second chance and let the public decide the moment you start to actually do anything about getting this book out there. Which will happen... any... day... now...

wait for it.

Definitely. Any day.

Actuslly, people are already reading it. I have no worries. :wink:

LadyShea · #**33861** 11-26-2013, 01:05 PM

Impersonal laws that govern the Universe keep a tight schedule!

thedoc · #**33862** 11-26-2013, 02:00 PM

[quote=peacegirl;1168043]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to get technical, the deadline's passed by at least 50 years, but who's counting? Only God's timetable matters and this new world's arrival time will not be one minute late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok then, we will give it a second chance and let the public decide the moment you start to actually do anything about getting this book out there. Which will happen... any... day... now...

wait for it.

Definitely. Any day.

Actuslly, people are already reading it. I have no worries. :wink:

I've read the book, and I really don't think Peacegirl needs to worry about being able to handle the response to the book. Solitaire is a good way to while away the hours waiting for the overwhelming response, there might be at least one?

thedoc · #**33863** 11-26-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Impersonal laws that govern the Universe keep a tight schedule!

I would think that an 'Impersonal law that governs the Universe' would have been in place when the Universe began, and would not need human approval to go into effect. And humans certainly would not need to know about it and accept it. That sounds more like a personal law that only governs those who accept it, just like the ones we have now.

peacegirl · #**33864** 11-26-2013, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Impersonal laws that govern the Universe keep a tight schedule!

Yes they do. When the time is right a seed turns into a flower. The laws that control every aspect of nature keep a very tight schedule indeed.

thedoc · #**33865** 11-27-2013, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Impersonal laws that govern the Universe keep a tight schedule!

Yes they do. When the time is right a seed turns into a flower. The laws that control every aspect of nature keep a very tight schedule indeed.

So your father found the switch to turn this law on, but all of humanity must accept the law to actually turn it on?

LadyShea · #**33866** 11-27-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Impersonal laws that govern the Universe keep a tight schedule!

Yes they do. When the time is right a seed turns into a flower. The laws that control every aspect of nature keep a very tight schedule indeed.

You mean, of course, that if the various conditions are right, a seed will turn into a plant. The laws of the Universe don't schedule such things, because they don't actually care. Once again you demonstrate that Lessans God is a personal deity, not simply the laws of physics.

Angakuk · #**33867** 11-29-2013, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be like a billiard ball suddenly causing itself to change direction when the trajectory toward the left pocket has already been set in motion.

I hate it when that happens. Damn all free-willed billiard balls. :glare:

Angakuk · #**33868** 11-29-2013, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our entire civilization is based on the premise of free will and all that entails; blame, punishment, revenge, retribution, etc.

I suggest that you do some reading about taboo cultures. In such cultures the mere violation of a taboo (even if the violation was accidental) suffices to trigger predetermined penalties. Why the offender violated the taboo is irrelevant and plays no role in justifying the imposition of penalties. Just take a look at the purity laws in the Old Testament.

Angakuk · #**33869** 11-29-2013, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But what about the mean time? Let us imagine an experimental defrosting procedure. If the experiment works, we can re-animate the person. If it fails we cannot. Chances of the procedure working is 50-50.

Is that person dead or alive?

That person is Schrödinger's cat.

Angakuk · #**33870** 11-29-2013, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The scratching of one's nose comes from an itch that came right before the scratch.

I scratched my nose when I read this, even though it wasn't itching.

LadyShea · #**33871** 11-29-2013, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is we cannot separate ourselves from the chain of events that we call our lives. It would be like a billiard ball suddenly causing itself to change direction when the trajectory toward the left pocket has already been set in motion.

I hate it when that happens. Damn all free-willed billiard balls. :glare:

If the billiard ball had a brain that could learn and choose how to respond to various stimuli, it could change directions. So set trajectories in inanimate objects don't apply.

Brain in a Dish Flies Plane : Discovery News
Georgia Tech researchers use lab cultures to control robotic device

Quote:

"Learning is often defined as a lasting change in behavior, resulting from experience," Potter said. "In order for a cultured network to learn, it must be able to behave. By using multi-electrode arrays as a two-way interface to cultured mammalian cortical networks, we have given these networks an artificial body with which to behave."

Postcognitive Topics: The Big Cheese in Robotics

Quote:

Nevertheless, all actions taken by a hybrot are in direct response to neuron-to-neuron interactions. Hybrots are even capable of interpreting input from the external environment and adjusting their behavior accordingly, as seen in this video

I suppose rat neuron networks in petri dishes also follow the greater satisfaction principle, peacegirl?

thedoc · #**33872** 11-29-2013, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be like a billiard ball suddenly causing itself to change direction when the trajectory toward the left pocket has already been set in motion.

I hate it when that happens. Damn all free-willed billiard balls. :glare:

Are you implying that this is not the way billiard balls are supposed to work? Cause the ones I used never seemed to go where I was aiming them?

peacegirl · #**33873** 11-29-2013, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is we cannot separate ourselves from the chain of events that we call our lives. It would be like a billiard ball suddenly causing itself to change direction when the trajectory toward the left pocket has already been set in motion.

I hate it when that happens. Damn all free-willed billiard balls. :glare:

If the billiard ball had a brain that could learn and choose how to respond to various stimuli, it could change directions. So set trajectories in inanimate objects don't apply.

Brain in a Dish Flies Plane : Discovery News
Georgia Tech researchers use lab cultures to control robotic device

Quote:

"Learning is often defined as a lasting change in behavior, resulting from experience," Potter said. "In order for a cultured network to learn, it must be able to behave. By using multi-electrode arrays as a two-way interface to cultured mammalian cortical networks, we have given these networks an artificial body with which to behave."

Postcognitive Topics: The Big Cheese in Robotics

Quote:

Nevertheless, all actions taken by a hybrot are in direct response to neuron-to-neuron interactions. Hybrots are even capable of interpreting input from the external environment and adjusting their behavior accordingly, as seen in this video

I suppose rat neuron networks in petri dishes also follow the greater satisfaction principle, peacegirl?

The rat neurons networks are able to form a rudimentary brain; they are creating neuron-to-neuron interactions which allow them to interpret input from the external environment. This leads to a specific outout. If there is enough circuitry in this hybrot brain from previous input, it will eventually be able to adjust its behavior. I wouldn't use the term "greater satisfaction" when talking about neurons and computers because this term is reserved for conscious agents. I wouldn't say a computer chose a response in the direction of greater satisfaction, although if it was given two or more options, it would analyze the known benefits and liabilities of each option and choose accordingly, which is exactly what humans do.

LadyShea · #**33874** 12-01-2013, 01:17 AM

Are you of the opinion that behavior is merely "specific output"? How do you think the hybrots choose between left, right, back, or stopping when they meet with an obstacle?

peacegirl · #**33875** 12-01-2013, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you of the opinion that behavior is merely "specific output"? How do you think the hybrots choose between left, right, back, or stopping when they meet with an obstacle?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/E8l3_kAUe0w?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's all in the programming. If a computer has been programmed to calculate which choice is better based on the input given to it, it will be able to choose which way to go, right or left, back, or stopping, but the hybrot a lot less sophisticated than a human brain so this kind of data is not in the program, at least not yet. The circuitry is primitive with 10 thousand neurons next to 10 trillion neurons in the human brain.