A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Actually I would say I am very good at analysing his work.

If you can't agree even on definitions there's no point in even discussing anything.

I am smart its one of the few things I have going for me, that and trolling retards. And by that no I don't mean you, unless you are a troll in which case fine.

I can tell you most assuredly that you are not good at analyzing this work. Why can't you try to understand the definition he has put forth, even temporarily so we can move forward? You can always reject it later on. He was not trying to make something fit that did not. It just so happens that the standard definition of determinism is not completely accurate. Why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truly interested means temporarily putting aside any preconditioned ideas everything you think you know and replacing it with the things that Lessans thought he knew. Everybody has them, and it Knowledge is a big stumbling block in the ability to grasp this knowledge blindly accepting Lessans' unsupported claims as undeniable/scientific/mathematical truths.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

QFT.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can tell you most assuredly that you are not good at analyzing this work. Why can't you try to understand the definition he has put forth, even temporarily so we can move forward? You can always reject it later on. He was not trying to make something fit that did not. It just so happens that the standard definition of determinism is not completely accurate. Why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt?

Look its a basic tenant of philosophy that if you cannot agree on definitions there is no point discussing anything. So case is closed.

Your dad: determinism is x

Me: I disagree it is merely a leading to b in all cases, I would make the case that y is determinism and x is a canard.

Your dad: I disagree

Me: then there is nothing further we can discuss.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Look its a basic tenant of philosophy that if you cannot agree on definitions there is no point discussing anything. So case is closed.

Your dad: determinism is x

Me: I disagree it is merely a leading to b in all cases, I would make the case that y is determinism and x is a canard.

Your dad: I disagree

Me: then there is nothing further we can discuss.

Whatever. You can make up any definition you want, and you can also deny that one plus one is two because you fail to see the relation. This isn't a made up definition to meet his cause. It's a definition that is accurate because it reflects reality. Your lack of desire to discuss anything further doesn't change anything. It just prevents our ability to communicate.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

a basic tenant of philosophy...

...lives in the basement of the arts faculty, and can only be got rid of when he (it is almost always a he) retires, dies or turns out to be a paedophile, for he has tenure.

This message is prompted by an alarming slowdown in this thread's growth. Only 469 posts to go to make it to 10,000, people! Don't flag now!

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Seraph

...lives in the basement of the arts faculty, and can only be got rid of when he (it is almost always a he) retires, dies or turns out to be a paedophile, for he has tenure.

This message is prompted by an alarming slowdown in this thread's growth. Only 469 posts to go to make it to 10,000, people! Don't flag now!

Lol that should of been tenet, brain fart.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Nobody is telling you to blindly accept Lessans' claims. But the only way this knowledge is going to be understood (which would allow a person to be in the position to agree or disagree), is to put aside any prepackaged definitions because they will cause confusion. This knowledge is well supported and undeniable, but as Lessans said in the foreword,

"Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late."

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nobody is telling you to blindly accept Lessans' claims. But the only way this knowledge is going to be understood (which would allow a person to be in the position to agree or disagree), is to put aside any prepackaged definitions because they will cause confusion. This knowledge is well supported and undeniable, but as Lessans said in the foreword,

"Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late."

You can't put aside the definitions that the philosophical consensus has forged though. That's the problem.

Let's say I want to convince you the sky is green right, now you will say that is absurd its clearly not except in very polar occurrences. What if I changed the definition mid argument of blue to green. Just how far do you think the argument would get before you realised it was pointless?

[peacegirl]

[quote=Sidhe;974269]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nobody is telling you to blindly accept Lessans' claims. But the only way this knowledge is going to be understood (which would allow a person to be in the position to agree or disagree), is to put aside any prepackaged definitions because they will cause confusion. This knowledge is well supported and undeniable, but as Lessans said in the foreword,

"Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late."

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You can't put aside the definitions that the philosophical consensus has forged though. That's the problem.

Let's say I want to convince you the sky is green right, now you will say that is absurd its clearly not except in very polar occurrences. What if I changed the definition mid argument of blue to green. Just how far do you think the argument would get before you realised it was pointless?

Right now philosophy is trying to convince you that the sky is green when it comes to their futile definition of determinism. Do you not get it? It's a futile definition, and because it was here before anyone else, you don't question it. According to you, first come first serve. It is a phony definition. It's totally inaccurate. Do you not hear me???? It's WRONG SIDHE!!

[Sidhe]

[quote=peacegirl;974387]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Right now philosophy is trying to convince you that the sky is green when it comes to their futile definition of determinism. Do you not get it? It's a futile definition, and because it was here you don't question it. It is a phoney definition. It's totally inaccurate. It's WRONG SIDHE.

Philosophy is looking for common ground in terms so as to make an argument on firm grounding and logically robust, it most certainly does not make redundant definitions that no one would agree to then arm wave: that would be what Lessans seems to be doing.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nobody is telling you to blindly accept Lessans' claims. But the only way this knowledge is going to be understood (which would allow a person to be in the position to agree or disagree), is to put aside any prepackaged definitions because they will cause confusion. This knowledge is well supported and undeniable, but as Lessans said in the foreword,

"Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late."

There are four options with regard to Lessans' claims (or any claims). Ignore them, reject them out of hand, test them or accept them.

If we ignore his claims, end of story, no further discussion.

Rejecting his claims out of hand is functionally equivalent to ignoring them.

We test his claims by subjecting them to rational inquiry. If they hold up under such inquiry then, and only then, are we justified in granting them provisional acceptance. You object to this approach on the grounds that it does not give Lessans' a chance. In fact, it is the very definition of giving him a chance, a chance to convince us by means of rational argument.

If we accept his claims, even provisionally, without having tested them, then we are blindly accepting them. This is your criterion for being truly interested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nobody is telling you to blindly accept Lessans' claims. But the only way this knowledge is going to be understood (which would allow a person to be in the position to agree or disagree), is to put aside any prepackaged definitions because they will cause confusion. This knowledge is well supported and undeniable, but as Lessans said in the foreword,

"Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late."

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You can't put aside the definitions that the philosophical consensus has forged though. That's the problem.

It's really not a problem unless you make it one.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Let's say I want to convince you the sky is green right, now you will say that is absurd its clearly not except in very polar occurrences. What if I changed the definition mid argument of blue to green. Just how far do you think the argument would get before you realised it was pointless?

That's not what he is doing. He is just clarifying certain words, but you are so stuck on the prepackaged definition that you will not even entertain the possibility that he could be right. Please read this more carefully. Maybe it will sink in, but I won't hold my breath. You might just have too big of a block to overcome.

Determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions.

The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is
free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding
this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must
always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when
the former is offered as an alternative.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an
improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and
have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression
‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from
previous experience.

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and
during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do
because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was
caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause’, like choice
and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than
man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two
plus two, it is that already.

As long as history has been recorded,
these two opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The
amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies,
and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There are four options with regard to Lessans' claims (or any claims). Ignore them, reject them out of hand, test them or accept them.

If we ignore his claims, end of story, no further discussion.

Rejecting his claims out of hand is functionally equivalent to ignoring them.

We test his claims by subjecting them to rational inquiry. If they hold up under such inquiry then, and only then, are we justified in granting them provisional acceptance. You object to this approach on the grounds that it does not give Lessans' a chance. In fact, it is the very definition of giving him a chance, a chance to convince us by means of rational argument.

If we accept his claims, even provisionally, without having tested them, then we are blindly accepting them. This is your criterion for being truly interested.

That is not true. I have adequately answered all of the rebuttals. If there is still confusion I don't mind trying to pinpoint what the problem is, but to throw this knowledge out for no other reason than you believe he can't be right, or to reject the claims because you don't like the idea of determinism, is not rational thinking in any sense of the word.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Philosophy is looking for common ground in terms so as to make an argument on firm grounding and logically robust, it most certainly does not make redundant definitions that no one would agree to then arm wave: that would be what Lessans seems to be doing.

There are no redundant definitions here. Can't say the same thing for this thread.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. I have adequately answered all of the rebuttals.

Just keep telling yourself that. No doubt it makes you feel better about the time you have wasted here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is still confusion I don't mind trying to pinpoint what the problem is, but to throw this knowledge out for no other reason than you believe he can't be right, or to reject the claims because you don't like the idea of determinism, is not rational thinking in any sense of the word.

If I am rejecting Lessans' claims it is because they have been inadequately supported and defended. It has nothing to do with believing that he can't be right. It certainly has nothing to do with how I might feel about determinism. I am pretty sure that I have never even mentioned determinism at any point in our discussion. Others have, but not me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Just keep telling yourself that. No doubt it makes you feel better about the time you have wasted here.

If I am rejecting Lessans' claims it is because they have been inadequately supported and defended.

It is very well supported. You are not understanding that there always has to be a preference in order to break a tie between two or more choices, even if it's to do nothing, or do something completely different.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It has nothing to do with believing that he can't be right. It certainly has nothing to do with how I might feel about determinism. I am pretty sure that I have never even mentioned determinism at any point in our discussion. Others have, but not me.

But you seem to think that

1. having two equal choices negates determinism because you can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

This is completely fallacious.

2. confusing what he meant by insisting that "nothing can make you do anything against your will" includes physical force.

He was not referring to physical force Angakuk. I've said this numerous times but you still seem to think that this negates his proof. It does nothing of the sort. Physical force is someone using their will against you; it has nothing to do with your will.

If you continue to believe that these two arguments negate this discovery, we obviously can't continue because you will keep referring back to them as if they mean something, which they don't because the logic is incorrect.

[Sidhe]

Peacegirl you seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Peacegirl you seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

That just shows me you understand nothing.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That just shows me you understand nothing.

Ironically I think the opposite is true and it is you that doesn't understand anything.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That just shows me you understand nothing.

Typical rookie mistake. The Wisdom does not include cakes. It has puddings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Ironically I think the opposite is true and it is you that doesn't understand anything.

Your opinion is irrelevant Sidhe. You don't even know why man's will is not free.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your opinion is irrelevant Sidhe. You don't even know why man's will is not free.

Neither do you and that is the rub!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Neither do you and that is the rub!

You choose to believe that the issue of free will vs. determinism has not been solved...and probably never will. But it has been solved. That's the rub.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You choose to believe that the issue of free will vs. determinism has not been solved...and probably never will. But it has been solved. That's the rub.

I don't choose I have no free will.