A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know? I haven't even gotten into that part. If you still disagree after his observations are discussed, it doesn't mean he's wrong LadyShea. Did you read this section on your own? Can you explain it? Since it's not satisfactory to you, then please show me where it's not.

I have been explaining my objections regarding his free will argument for several posts, are you paying attention?

He used circular reasoning and asserted "proof" based on alleged observations that are undocumented. That is unsatisfactory to me.

Of course it doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means I can find no reason at all to think it's even remotely correct.

PS: Fallacious reasoning is fallacious even if syllogisms are not being employed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by erimir

You got an explanation.

Which then led into you questioning the explanation,
.[/QUOTE]

I was asking for the source, I didn't get that.

But now I understand the thread, 'Thou Shalt not Question the OP'.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

lol hey guys, should I tell them about multiquote?

No.

Some gnosis they are not meant to perceive.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

lol hey guys, should I tell them about multiquote?

Would I care?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

No.

Some gnosis they are not meant to perceive.

--J.D.

Thankyou, I appreciate that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Have you ever noticed how much you write in vapid clichés and platitudes?

I have pointed it out to her quite a bit. Lessans did the same thing, and peacegirl uses many of the same platitudes he did..like "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" is some kind of argument.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Is that why you all have such a difficult time using the quote function ?
.

I'm not having any problems with the quote function, are you?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have pointed it out to her quite a bit. Lessans did the same thing, and peacegirl uses many of the same platitudes he did..like "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" is some kind of argument.

Probably because she doesn't have anything to say. Really not that much out of place.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

No.
Some gnosis they are not meant to perceive.
--J.D.

I've read about this kind of thing before, in the 'Secret Societies' and 'Mystery Religions', the really 'Advanced Knowledge' was not revealed to the newbies, just advanced members.

I also ran into this in reference to handguns, motercycles, and RC airplanes, I thought it was all kind of silly, but not when it comes to knowledge, there you must build from the begining.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I've read about this kind of thing before, in the 'Secret Societies' and 'Mystery Religions', the really 'Advanced Knowledge' was not revealed to the newbies, just advanced members.

To ChuckF has been given the secret of the Grand Duchy of Luxemborough, but for you outside in parables the all happens so that you may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest you should turn and be forgiven.

But I am poor, for I am a river to my people.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you consider "proof" and/or "evidence" and what Lessans offered is not satisfactory to me.

How do you know? I haven't even gotten into that part. If you still disagree after his observations are discussed, it doesn't mean he's wrong LadyShea. Did you read this section on your own? Can you explain it? Since it's not satisfactory to you, then please show me where it's not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have been explaining my objections regarding his free will argument for several posts, are you paying attention?

I am paying attention, but you have not even read the part where he explains his observations, have you?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He used circular reasoning and asserted "proof" based on alleged observations that are undocumented. That is unsatisfactory to me.

They don't have to be documented LadyShea, they need to be demonstrated. If you don't think he's right, then so be it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means I can find no reason at all to think it's even remotely correct.

I know he's not wrong, but it's understandable why you think he is. You believe he couldn't have a discovery without collecting data. You fight me tooth and nail, and keep coming back with the same refrain: Where's the data?

Originally Posted by LadyShe

PS: Fallacious reasoning is fallacious even if syllogisms are not being employed.

Fallacious reasoning is fallacious if it's invalid or unsound. His observations and reasoning are neither.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Probably because she doesn't have anything to say. Really not that much out of place.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating means that only if there is success does the knowledge actually count.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof of the pudding is in the eating means that only if there is success does the knowledge actually count.

And just how much success have you had in 8 years?

[thedoc]

Sort of a quiet party so far?

[Demimonde]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Seriously though. Is it this one with the crap phpBB implementation? Is that why you all have such a difficult time using the quote function and also posting things that are not shit? You're not the first shitposting newbs to set up shop here. Sometimes lulz but mostly it sucks.

[Quote Vanya]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

[Quote Vanya]

Wouldn't be very much recently, Natalia has had slightly more of a presence, mostly as a bitch.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is only one answer to certain questions Angakuk.

This is may be true. It just happens to be the case that the question you asked is not the sort of question that can have only one answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not trying to trap you.

Even if you were, it would not matter. I am not the least concerned about the possibility that you might be trying to trap me. You, on the other, have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you are afraid of being trapped (this, I suppose, explains why you are projecting that fear on me). That suggests, rather strongly, that you believe yourself to be the sort of person who is likely to get trapped in an argument. This also helps to explain why your responses to direct questions are so often non-responsive to the actual questions that you have been asked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My hope for you is that you hold on and don't prematurely reject these principles.

I doubt that it is even possible to prematurely reject Lessans' principles.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be like you not seeing the relation that 2 + 2 = 4, and telling me I'm wrong for not agreeing with you that 2 + 2 = 5.

It is more like you (i.e. Lessans) are claiming that 2+2=5 and then telling us that we are wrong for claiming that 2+2=4. Actually, it is not like that, it is precisely that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[B]ut the truth is we are under a compulsion that results in us having to choose what gives us greater satisfaction

So you say. You have yet to demonstrate that this claim is true, or even truthy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here's what Lessans says:

As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as a
matter of positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore
because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is a
very unique two-sided equation for it reveals that while you know you
are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I know
you are not responsible.

1. It is not a law that man's will is not free. It is a philosophical position.

2. Since it is not a law it follows that it is also not an undeniable law.

3. Since it is not an undeniable law, or even a demonstrable fact, that man's will is not free, it follows that Lessans cannot have the positve knowledge that he claims to have.

4. There is no equation, two-sided or otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you are able to see his proof. I'm not sure if anyone will be able to.

I am pretty sure they won't. It is notoriously difficult to see that which does not exist. Kind of like the invisible hand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the pillars upon which this discovery is based are correct...

That is one honking big if.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you still disagree after his observations are discussed, it doesn't mean he's wrong LadyShea.

It also does not mean that he's right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't have to be documented LadyShea, they need to be demonstrated.

Another thing that both you and Lessans have failed to do.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

Lessans and Rafael aren't well-known philosophers, are they?

Who is this Rafael person? Is it the artist or the archangel?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The proof of the pudding is in the eating means that only if there is success does the knowledge actually count.

You should have said so right from the start! We could have sorted this right there and then. The revolution never happened despite being predicted as a mathematical certainty. Pudding-time has been and gone.

But even apart from that this is a wonderful piece of circle-reasoning. You are saying that the proof of this system can be found by implementing it and making it work - only if there is success does the knowledge count, or work.

That means that what you are really saying is that once we solve the problem of evil, the problem of evil will be solved. If any of the book seems ludicrous, or simply doesn't work, that is because the problem of evil has not been solved yet - you have said as much by saying that things will be different in "the new environment"

So we are to implement all this on the off-chance that your father was right - we won't get proof until we have done it.

And you still say this is not a religion? You have to have faith, all will be revealed in the Kingdom Come?

[Vivisectus]

just because it made me think of it - Pudding Time Children!

YouTube - ‪Pudding...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And just how much success have you had in 8 years?

What a false and misleading way to judge this book doc, and you know it. You're just being vindictive.

[Doctor X]

Yet another link peacegirl will ignore [Stolen from grayman--Ed.]

Evolution of the Eye

since it dashes "efferent vision" yet again.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is only one answer to certain questions Angakuk.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is may be true. It just happens to be the case that the question you asked is not the sort of question that can have only one answer.

Not true. To ask if we have any other choice but to live or to die, is a one answer question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not trying to trap you.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Even if you were, it would not matter. I am not the least concerned about the possibility that you might be trying to trap me. You, on the other, have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you are afraid of being trapped (this, I suppose, explains why you are projecting that fear on me). That suggests, rather strongly, that you believe yourself to be the sort of person who is likely to get trapped in an argument. This also helps to explain why your responses to direct questions are so often non-responsive to the actual questions that you have been asked.

That sounds very familiar. I ask you one question that requires only one response, and I get 10 different answers. I'm not afraid of being trapped; I'm afraid of Lessans' knowledge being misunderstood.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My hope for you is that you hold on and don't prematurely reject these principles.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I doubt that it is even possible to prematurely reject Lessans' principles.

Why not? It would be easy to say that these principles failed and walk away prematurely.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be like you not seeing the relation that 2 + 2 = 4, and telling me I'm wrong for not agreeing with you that 2 + 2 = 5.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is more like you (i.e. Lessans) are claiming that 2+2=5 and then telling us that we are wrong for claiming that 2+2=4. Actually, it is not like that, it is precisely that.

Whatever Angakuk. Once again we are making no progress.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[B]ut the truth is we are under a compulsion that results in us having to choose what gives us greater satisfaction

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So you say. You have yet to demonstrate that this claim is true, or even truthy.

I have a feeling that it won't matter. Your mind is made up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here's what Lessans says:

As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as a
matter of positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore
because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is a
very unique two-sided equation for it reveals that while you know you
are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I know
you are not responsible.

1. It is not a law that man's will is not free. It is a philosophical position.

Because you don't see the proof of determinism. Your answer is not surprising.

2. Since it is not a law it follows that it is also not an undeniable law.

Same thing.

3. Since it is not an undeniable law, or even a demonstrable fact, that man's will is not free, it follows that Lessans cannot have the positve knowledge that he claims to have.

That would be true if he was wrong, but he isn't wrong.

4. There is no equation, two-sided or otherwise.

It's right there on page 77.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you are able to see his proof. I'm not sure if anyone will be able to.

I am pretty sure they won't. It is notoriously difficult to see that which does not exist. Kind of like the invisible hand.

Have you actually read the first two chapters? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the pillars upon which this discovery is based are correct...

That is one honking big if.

Right, but if it's true, then his discovery holds up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you still disagree after his observations are discussed, it doesn't mean he's wrong LadyShea.

It also does not mean that he's right.

An accurate demonstration means he's right. Nothing else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't have to be documented LadyShea, they need to be demonstrated.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another thing that both you and Lessans have failed to do.

I gave everyone the exact page numbers to read. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[Doctor X]

. . . because the suprachiasmatic nucleus projects light to the Sun, apparently. . . .

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Anagakuk

3. Since it is not an undeniable law, or even a demonstrable fact, that man's will is not free, it follows that Lessans cannot have the positve knowledge that he claims to have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would be true if he was wrong, but he isn't wrong.

...and to see that you must believe it

Once you believe it is true, it will all make sense, because you will see that it is true. You will no longer require any proof and will be able to not have quite large amounts of evidence change your mind about it. Once you believe it is true, all these objections will just drop away. You will believe it is true, because you will believe it is true.