|
|
04-24-2013, 12:37 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation. If you stop at the idea that whatever you choose you choose, and therefore it means nothing, you are cutting yourself off entirely from his main proof, which is so much more than that.
|
A tautology does not mean it is not true, it just means that it cannot be used to prove anything.
|
But it can be used to prove something, because a tautological syllogism is now what he based his conclusions on.
|
04-24-2013, 12:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation.
|
It is indeed a tautology, and this renders his entire argument fallacious, for you cannot validly infer contingent conclusions from necessary premises.
|
Give me a specific example of how I am inferring contingent conclusions from necessary premises. Your logic is not accurate Spacemonkey.
|
04-24-2013, 12:40 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They are proven facts, even though you can't believe it.
|
You can't have proven facts without proof. And not only do you lack proof, but you lack any evidence whatsoever in support of any of your or your father's claims.
|
His observations and explanations are so spot on, you really don't know what you're talking about. There is absolute proof that man's will is not free, and it's spelled out very accurately in his book.
|
04-24-2013, 12:45 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They are proven facts, even though you can't believe it.
|
You can't have proven facts without proof. And not only do you lack proof, but you lack any evidence whatsoever in support of any of your or your father's claims.
|
You keep saying that but I don't agree. You know his reasoning as to why he believed the eyes aren't a sense organ, and he gave a very clear demonstration as to why man's will is not free. Then he showed in detail how the two-equation works because of how conscience works. These were very astute observations. If his observations were sound, then everything that follows from his reasoning is also sound. Someone can describe accurate observations, which do not require the kind of empirical proof that you are demanding, although this will be the ultimate proof when these laws of our nature create the kind of world that was never thought possible.
|
Every single step of his reasoning is fallacious and he didn't make any observations. You are still conflating the two meanings of 'observation', and your father's claims don't qualify by either one. His claims about vision were based on complete ignorance of actual science, along with further claims about infant and canine vision which were neither true nor even relevant. His 'demonstration' regarding free will was based upon a complete ignorance of compatibilism and the fallacy of inferring meaningful conclusions from a tautological premise. And his explanation of his two-sided non-equation was based on completely unsupported assumptions about conscience that he had no evidence for whatsoever. You still don't have a single scrap of supporting evidence for any of his claims, still less anything amounting to actual proof.
|
He was not ignorant about science. His claims were accurate. Infant and canine vision are very relevant because dogs do not recognize their masters from a picture, and they should if the eyes are a sense organ. Infants do not focus their eyes until they receive further stimuli from the other senses, which indicates that no images from the external world are being interpreted by the brain allowing vision to occur.
|
04-24-2013, 12:54 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How many times did I say let's wait and see what empirical evidence tells us, with this new claim in mind.
|
That would require research scientists to not only hear the claim, but take the claim seriously enough to work on it. What makes you think that will happen?
|
I have no idea, but this doesn't change the validity of his observations.
|
I didn't say it did. I asked you on what you base a belief that scientists will research his claims.
|
I base my belief that scientists will research his claims when enough people begin asking if this could be true. They may decide to investigate to see if his claims could be correct. After all, scientists want to know the truth, and if they are mistaken I'm sure they would want to know the basis for his claim, and why.
|
Okay thanks, now, how do you think an interested scientist could go about getting that research funded?
|
04-24-2013, 12:57 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Yes, whatever choice one makes is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but this does not make it a meaningless tautology.
|
That's exactly what it does. If movement towards greater satisfaction means whatever one chooses, and whatever one chooses is movement towards greater satisfaction, by definition that is a tautology.
|
Yes, that is true LadyShea, but you're not understanding anything else.
|
We aren't talking about anything else right now. I was responding to your statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You don't even understand why the principle of "greater satisfaction" is not a tautology.
|
It is a tautology as stated, which you just agreed is true. So why do you keep saying that it isn't a tautology and that I am wrong, when you know and agree that I am right?
|
Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation. If you stop at the idea that whatever you choose you choose, and therefore it means nothing, you are cutting yourself off entirely from his main proof, which is so much more than that.
|
It absolutely means it is circular. His proof is circular. We can't derive any meaning from it.
|
04-24-2013, 01:13 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I really don't know what you're talking about. [...] I question your entire approach toward this problem, and I'm sorry to say it is wrong, not the model.
|
How could you possibly know my approach is wrong if you don't even know what I'm talking about? Does that make any sense to you?
Anyway, there are three components to my approach:
1. The general method of reductio ad absurdum (RAA), which states that anything which implies a contradiction or absurdity must be false.
Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]
2. That your position entails that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from somewhere they were never located.
Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]
3. That it is not possible for photons (or anything else) to ever have come from somewhere they never were.
Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]
Please indicate which part of my approach you reject, or admit that your only objection to my approach is that you don't like it because it refutes your claims.
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
04-24-2013, 01:15 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Maybe they don't, but he clarified how he was using the terms so it's a non issue as far as I'm concerned. If you want to nitpick go right ahead.
|
Clarifying that you are using words wrongly does not justify or excuse using them wrongly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's a knowing; call it intuition if you want. I am so very sure that people are going to not only read this book but be impressed by it, and want to spread the word, that I have no worries.
|
So blind faith it is then.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
04-24-2013, 01:16 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He was correct, and he was anything but arrogant.
|
He was incorrect and incredibly arrogant, and the only one who can't see that is you.
|
You can keep repeating this until the cows come home...
|
Okay. He was incorrect and incredibly arrogant, and the only one who can't see that is you.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
04-24-2013, 01:26 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation.
|
It is indeed a tautology, and this renders his entire argument fallacious, for you cannot validly infer contingent conclusions from necessary premises.
|
Give me a specific example of how I am inferring contingent conclusions from necessary premises.
|
Why? Last time I did so you flatly refused to discuss it.
It is a contingent conclusion that we could only have chosen that choice which we actually happened to choose, for there is nothing logically contradictory about our having chosen something else. So if I choose to do X then there is still a logically possible world where I chose Y instead. But if it is a tautology that we always choose in the direction of greater satisfaction, then this is true in all possible words including the one where I chose Y instead of X. That means there is a possible world where your premise is true (we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction), and yet your conclusion is false (for it was not the case that I could only have chosen my real-world actual choice of X). QED. Lessans' 'demonstration' of the falsity of free will is therefore plainly invalid and fallacious.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
04-24-2013, 01:28 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
dogs do not recognize their masters from a picture, and they should if the eyes are a sense organ
|
On what evidence or facts do you base that "should"? Where does that "should" come from?
|
04-24-2013, 01:40 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Every single step of his reasoning is fallacious and he didn't make any observations. You are still conflating the two meanings of 'observation', and your father's claims don't qualify by either one. His claims about vision were based on complete ignorance of actual science, along with further claims about infant and canine vision which were neither true nor even relevant. His 'demonstration' regarding free will was based upon a complete ignorance of compatibilism and the fallacy of inferring meaningful conclusions from a tautological premise. And his explanation of his two-sided non-equation was based on completely unsupported assumptions about conscience that he had no evidence for whatsoever. You still don't have a single scrap of supporting evidence for any of his claims, still less anything amounting to actual proof.
|
He was not ignorant about science.
|
This is Mr. Molecules of light we're talking about, right? He was completely ignorant of both the content and methodology of science. He wrote on the psychology of projection and conscience without knowing the first thing about the existing science on psychology. He wrote on the physiology of vision without knowing the first thing about the existing science on physiology. He wrote on the physics of light without knowing the first thing about physical science. He wrote on how the brain functions without knowing anything at all about neuroscience. There isn't a single scientific discipline he touched upon where he was anything but completely ignorant of existing scientific knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His claims were accurate.
|
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Infant and canine vision are very relevant because dogs do not recognize their masters from a picture, and they should if the eyes are a sense organ.
|
All evidence shows that they do recognize their masters from a picture, and as we've explained innumerable times before already, there's no reason why they should be able to merely because the eyes are a sense organ. Your nose is a sense organ, but there are plenty of things you can't recognize by smell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Infants do not focus their eyes until they receive further stimuli from the other senses, which indicates that no images from the external world are being interpreted by the brain allowing vision to occur.
|
Also completely false, as infants do not need any input from other senses before they can focus their eyes, and you are still employing a strawman misrepresentation of actual science by speaking of "images from the external world".
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
04-24-2013, 02:06 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How many times did I say let's wait and see what empirical evidence tells us, with this new claim in mind.
|
That would require research scientists to not only hear the claim, but take the claim seriously enough to work on it. What makes you think that will happen?
|
I have no idea, but this doesn't change the validity of his observations.
|
I didn't say it did. I asked you on what you base a belief that scientists will research his claims.
|
I base my belief that scientists will research his claims when enough people begin asking if this could be true. They may decide to investigate to see if his claims could be correct. After all, scientists want to know the truth, and if they are mistaken I'm sure they would want to know the basis for his claim, and why.
|
Okay thanks, now, how do you think an interested scientist could go about getting that research funded?
|
I have no clue. If they are interested, they will find the funds. If not, then it won't get tested. I have no control over this.
|
04-24-2013, 02:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Every single step of his reasoning is fallacious and he didn't make any observations. You are still conflating the two meanings of 'observation', and your father's claims don't qualify by either one. His claims about vision were based on complete ignorance of actual science, along with further claims about infant and canine vision which were neither true nor even relevant. His 'demonstration' regarding free will was based upon a complete ignorance of compatibilism and the fallacy of inferring meaningful conclusions from a tautological premise. And his explanation of his two-sided non-equation was based on completely unsupported assumptions about conscience that he had no evidence for whatsoever. You still don't have a single scrap of supporting evidence for any of his claims, still less anything amounting to actual proof.
|
He was not ignorant about science.
|
This is Mr. Molecules of light we're talking about, right? He was completely ignorant of both the content and methodology of science. He wrote on the psychology of projection and conscience without knowing the first thing about the existing science on psychology. He wrote on the physiology of vision without knowing the first thing about the existing science on physiology. He wrote on the physics of light without knowing the first thing about physical science. He wrote on how the brain functions without knowing anything at all about neuroscience. There isn't a single scientific discipline he touched upon where he was anything but completely ignorant of existing scientific knowledge.
|
If you're so sure about him, and that's what you believe, then let's let the conversation go. I will not continue the conversation with the same attacks, and end up after another 1000 pages no further than page 50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His claims were accurate.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Nope.
|
Profound answer I must say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Infant and canine vision are very relevant because dogs do not recognize their masters from a picture, and they should if the eyes are a sense organ.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
All evidence shows that they do recognize their masters from a picture, and as we've explained innumerable times before already, there's no reason why they should be able to merely because the eyes are a sense organ. Your nose is a sense organ, but there are plenty of things you can't recognize by smell.
|
This is where you're just as much a believer as any fundamentalist, but of course you don't see it. Richard Milton says it well:
We also think that this process of
‘scientific’ acceptance is different in kind from the ordinary
acceptance of everyday things: a person might be right or wrong to
believe in the value and the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy
because it is a matter of opinion, but he or she cannot be wrong to
believe in atomic theory because it is a matter of fact. Yet the
psychological process of acceptance is actually the same in each case:
it rests simply on the fact that the conclusion seems to be irresistible,
even to the well-informed mind.
This appearance of being irresistible
can in itself be a self-evident justification for belief — just as it is
‘obvious’ that two and two must make four, and just as it was obvious
to Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat. The problem that this
psychological process can present, as we saw earlier, arises because our
perception — and hence what appears obvious — is to some extent
determined by our beliefs. It means that all observers, scientists as
well as savages, employ a kind of mental inertial guidance navigation
system which takes over our routine mental processing; an intellectual
autopilot whose perpetual heading is star of our convictions, and
which filters our perceptions to ensure that they conform to those
convictions. It is as though our perceptions reach our minds through
a screen — a matrix that is dynamically adaptive to our world view
and that can selectively modify the contents of our field of vision in
the service of that world view.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Infants do not focus their eyes until they receive further stimuli from the other senses, which indicates that no images from the external world are being interpreted by the brain allowing vision to occur.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Also completely false, as infants do not need any input from other senses before they can focus their eyes, and you are still employing a strawman misrepresentation of actual science by speaking of "images from the external world".
|
Ummm, I beg to differ. This has not been substantiated.
|
04-24-2013, 02:20 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
A tautology does not mean it is not true, it just means that it cannot be used to prove anything.
|
But it can be used to prove something, because a tautological syllogism is now what he based his conclusions on.
|
So now you are claiming that because Lessans used a tautology as the basis for his conclusions, that it is possible to use a tautology as proof of those conclusions. That sounds like tautoloty itself, but perhaps there is a more accurate name for this kind of logical fallacy.
Last edited by thedoc; 04-24-2013 at 02:31 PM.
|
04-24-2013, 02:30 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have no clue. - I have no control over this.
|
There seem to be a lot of things about which you don't have a clue.
There also seem to be a lot of things over which you have no control.
Is there anything that you know something about, and have some control over?
|
04-24-2013, 03:43 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation.
|
It is indeed a tautology, and this renders his entire argument fallacious, for you cannot validly infer contingent conclusions from necessary premises.
|
Give me a specific example of how I am inferring contingent conclusions from necessary premises.
|
Why? Last time I did so you flatly refused to discuss it.
It is a contingent conclusion that we could only have chosen that choice which we actually happened to choose, for there is nothing logically contradictory about our having chosen something else. So if I choose to do X then there is still a logically possible world where I chose Y instead. But if it is a tautology that we always choose in the direction of greater satisfaction, then this is true in all possible words including the one where I chose Y instead of X. That means there is a possible world where your premise is true (we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction), and yet your conclusion is false (for it was not the case that I could only have chosen my real-world actual choice of X). QED. Lessans' 'demonstration' of the falsity of free will is therefore plainly invalid and fallacious.
|
Wrong, you are using logic to justify your dismissal of this conclusion, but there is no such thing as other worlds except in your logic. It's very easy to do this, and this is no different than fundamentalism. Lessans is basing his reasoning on "this world", not other worlds, where it becomes fantasy. This is truly insane, and for you people to think that you have the edge because of this reasoning is more insane than I can handle.
Last edited by peacegirl; 04-24-2013 at 06:30 PM.
|
04-24-2013, 03:56 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
I will not continue the conversation with the same attacks, and end up after another 1000 pages no further than page 50.
|
Of course you will.
|
04-24-2013, 06:15 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation.
|
It is indeed a tautology, and this renders his entire argument fallacious, for you cannot validly infer contingent conclusions from necessary premises.
|
Give me a specific example of how I am inferring contingent conclusions from necessary premises.
|
Why? Last time I did so you flatly refused to discuss it.
It is a contingent conclusion that we could only have chosen that choice which we actually happened to choose, for there is nothing logically contradictory about our having chosen something else. So if I choose to do X then there is still a logically possible world where I chose Y instead. But if it is a tautology that we always choose in the direction of greater satisfaction, then this is true in all possible words including the one where I chose Y instead of X. That means there is a possible world where your premise is true (we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction), and yet your conclusion is false (for it was not the case that I could only have chosen my real-world actual choice of X). QED. Lessans' 'demonstration' of the falsity of free will is therefore plainly invalid and fallacious.
|
Of course it's a contingent conclusion that we chose X. It is impossible to prove that in another world a person could have chosen otherwise; Y instead of X. In a logically possible world (or situation) a person could have chosen Y instead of X, but the contingent conditions would not be the same since X was already chosen. There is nothing logically contradictory about him having chosen something else, but he didn't choose something else because it gave him less satisfaction under the conditions. If that person would have chosen Y, there would be no contradiction at all because that would have been the better choice at that instant. But he didn't choose Y because at that moment X was the preferable choice. You are placing the cart before the horse. If another situation the conditions were such that he chose Y, they would not be the exact contingent conditions that brought a person to choosing X, which is necessary for you to prove that choosing Y was possible at that moment. There is no false conclusion that can be had because there can only be one choice at each moment in time, rendering Y an impossibility. Again, that doesn't mean choosing Y was logically impossible until X was chosen. It also doesn't mean Y is not a perfectly logical choice in the next moment, but you cannot prove that Y could have been chosen after the fact.
|
04-24-2013, 06:29 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
I will not continue the conversation with the same attacks, and end up after another 1000 pages no further than page 50.
|
Of course you will.
|
Not if it's the same exact group that was here before. Your mind is completely shut, so there's no use discussing this book with you any further.
|
04-24-2013, 06:51 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Not if it's the same exact group that was here before. Your mind is completely shut, so there's no use discussing this book with you any further.
|
Yet, once again, here you are discussing with the exact same group.
|
04-24-2013, 06:54 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no false conclusion that can be had because there can only be one choice at each moment in time, rendering Y an impossibility. Again, that doesn't mean choosing Y was logically impossible until X was chosen. It also doesn't mean Y is not a perfectly logical choice in the next moment, but you cannot prove that Y could have been chosen after the fact.
|
And after the fact you can't prove that Y could not have been chosen. Therefore the whole premise you state -"there can only be one choice at each moment in time, rendering Y an impossibility"- is unfalsifiable and unprovable...which renders it a meaningless assertion.
Last edited by LadyShea; 04-24-2013 at 07:40 PM.
|
04-24-2013, 09:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
dogs do not recognize their masters from a picture, and they should if the eyes are a sense organ
|
On what evidence or facts do you base that "should"? Where does that "should" come from?
|
If the eyes are a sense organ, that would mean that the light from the external world is traveling toward the eye, striking it, and sending signals to the brain. The dog should be able to recognize his master if this is true. Isn't that what all the empirical tests are trying to prove? But it is not proven to be the case. And to say that a dog's brain may have evolved to where the visual part of the brain is less developed (as Spacemonkey suggested) doesn't add up either because dogs have good vision in general (even night vision), even though their sense of smell is more acute.
|
04-24-2013, 09:30 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I really don't know what you're talking about. [...] I question your entire approach toward this problem, and I'm sorry to say it is wrong, not the model.
|
How could you possibly know my approach is wrong if you don't even know what I'm talking about? Does that make any sense to you?
Anyway, there are three components to my approach:
1. The general method of reductio ad absurdum (RAA), which states that anything which implies a contradiction or absurdity must be false.
Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]
2. That your position entails that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from somewhere they were never located.
Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]
3. That it is not possible for photons (or anything else) to ever have come from somewhere they never were.
Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]
Please indicate which part of my approach you reject, or admit that your only objection to my approach is that you don't like it because it refutes your claims.
|
Bump.
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
04-24-2013, 09:34 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no false conclusion that can be had because there can only be one choice at each moment in time, rendering Y an impossibility. Again, that doesn't mean choosing Y was logically impossible until X was chosen. It also doesn't mean Y is not a perfectly logical choice in the next moment, but you cannot prove that Y could have been chosen after the fact.
|
And after the fact you can't prove that Y could not have been chosen. Therefore the whole premise you state -"there can only be one choice at each moment in time, rendering Y an impossibility"- is unfalsifiable and unprovable...which renders it a meaningless assertion.
|
You're right in that we cannot go back in time to prove that he could have chosen Y, which means we can never prove that he had a free choice. Proof of free will requires doing something that is impossible (going back in time to show that under the exact same conditions, with the same antecedent events in place, he could have chosen Y instead of X). This also means that determinism cannot be proven false because that would prove free will true (which cannot be done), but this doesn't mean that determinism cannot be proven true, and free will false. His observations are absolutely spot on and his reasoning is pristine.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 51 (0 members and 51 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 AM.
|
|
|
|