A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

[peacegirl]

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. 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.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[LadyShea]

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.

It absolutely means it is circular. His proof is circular. We can't derive any meaning from it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[LadyShea]

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?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His claims were accurate.

Nope.

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.

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".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His claims were accurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope.

Profound answer I must say.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[thedoc]

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?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

[LadyShea]

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

[LadyShea]

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.

[LadyShea]

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.