A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope I don't, this is about trust which you can't handle. You have no trust at all; you are a very suspicious person which works in some situations but can backfire in others.

I am suspicious of people who have proven untrustworthy. I don't trust Lessans nor you when it comes to anecdotes, because there have been some flat out lies* and/or twisted bullshit from both of you. You haven't earned any trust when it comes to conveying experiences

* No encyclopedia ever said an observer on Rigel would see Columbus discovering America. You were never prescribed a drug that was pulled from the market due to causing cancer.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, but it is not exact because it talks about "existential passage", or "shifting". This is not in accordance with Lessans at all, and to say that it is is pretentious.

No, again, you are incorrect. Stewart's and Clark's claims are exactly in accord with those of Lessans. "Passage" or "shifting" is just in a manner of speaking, the same way that "I" and "you" is in a manner of speaking; have you forgotten that you yourself had to explain this with respect to using the word "you"? Tom Clark, in his essay at naturalism.org, is also quite explicit on this point.

Stewart is quite clear that some subject x, upon death, is extinguished qua x and is gone for good; which is precisely what Lessans and Clark said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Christina, peacegirl doesn't really understand forums still. I have quoted people, like Dr. Ruth, by putting their name in the quote, and she thought they were really here, then she didn't put together that "wstewart" who linked to Wayne Stewart's (his own) essay, was actually the very Wayne Stewart davidm has linked us to several times.

What's funny is that she chit-chitted us to be on our best behavior if Tom Clark showed up, but then proactively scolded Wayne Stewart, who is well respected in his field and could be helpful to her.

I'm glad Mr. Stewart is here. Maybe he will be instrumental in bringing this discovery to light. How coincidental would that be?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mr. Stewart is here? Welcome. How are you? I truly believe you will be interested in Lessans' observations because your observations and his are so close. I really do hope you stick around.

Yes, did you not notice that it was his post you replied to earlier?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, again, you are incorrect. Stewart's and Clark's claims are exactly in accord with those of Lessans. "Passage" or "shifting" is just in a manner of speaking, the same way that "I" and "you" is in a manner of speaking; have you forgotten that you yourself had to explain this with respect to using the word "you"? Tom Clark, in his essay at naturalism.org, is also quite explicit on this point.

Stewart is quite clear that some subject x, upon death, is extinguished qua x and is gone for good; which is precisely what Lessans and Clark said.

That's even better because Mr. Stewart (can I call you Wayne; it's hard to talk so formally? ) will have a major platform in which to speak, that is, if I can get Lessans' other discoveries brought to light. It's a win-win David. You may actually be helping this cause, even though you meant it do otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, did you not notice that it was his post you replied to earlier?

I didn't at first, but when you pointed out to me who he was, I welcomed him. What else do you want me to do, stand on my head?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am suspicious of people who have proven untrustworthy. I don't trust Lessans nor you when it comes to anecdotes, because there have been some flat out lies* and/or twisted bullshit from both of you. You haven't earned any trust when it comes to conveying experiences

* No encyclopedia ever said an observer on Rigel would see Columbus discovering America. You were never prescribed a drug that was pulled from the market due to causing cancer.

And wormholes and time machines have proven trustworthy? I don't trust you either LadyShea, so it works both ways. And btw, I almost took a drug for fibromyalgia that was implicated for causing liver damage. I told you this already, and I will not defend it because you are suspicious.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's even better because, if Mr. Stewart (can I call you Wayne; it's hard to talk so politely in here ) he will have a major platform in which to speak, that is, if I can get Lessans' other discoveries brought to light. It's a win-win David. You may actually be helping this cause, even though you meant it do otherwise.

It remains the case, no matter how many times you complain otherwise, that no one here is "out to get" you or Lessans; and if Lessans has a genuine discovery, we would be all ears and, if his case were convincing, we would acknowledge that and try to spread word of it.

Alas, it absolute baloney that we see in real time, and that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it immediately, but not see our neighbor on earth for eight and a half minutes. This is easily demonstrated to be empirically false and the claim itself is incoherent.

His stuff on free will and determinism does indeed reduce to a tautology and a modal fallacy, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

There remains his third claim, which perhaps Wayne will speak to.

What you have never understood, after all this time, is that for people like us, the standard of judging a claim is evidence and sustainable argument. No one here, except for you, has a personal stake in his or her world view. We go where the evidence leads. We know that his claims on light and sight are ridiculous, and so we are going to tell you so. It's nothing personal.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have quoted people, like Dr. Ruth, by putting their name in the quote, and she thought they were really here...

That happened to be on one of the pages that I stopped and read as I was jumping through the thread and it cracked me up. We have a comparable person on all of the local forums (except that she's an aggressively ignorant howling bitch all the time and dumber than a turnip about everything) and we do shit like that to her all the time and she falls for it over and over and over. She hands us more lulz material than I ever thought possible and still doesn't know why it's funny after a decade.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: Wow, this is so true for so many girls. Thank you for sharing your truth with others.

On Mother's Day, She Was On The Bathroom Floor, Hungover, And Pregnant

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It remains the case, no matter how many times you complain otherwise, that no one here is "out to get" you or Lessans; and if Lessans has a genuine discovery, we would be all ears and, if his case were convincing, we would acknowledge that and try to spread word of it.

Alas, it absolute baloney that we see in real time, and that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it immediately, but not see our neighbor on earth for eight and a half minutes. This is easily demonstrated to be empirically false and the claim itself is incoherent.

His stuff on free will and determinism does indeed reduce to a tautology and a modal fallacy, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

There remains his third claim, which perhaps Wayne will speak to.

What you have never understood, after all this time, is that for people like us, the standard of judging a claim is evidence and sustainable argument. No one here, except for you, has a personal stake in his or her world view. We go where the evidence leads. We know that his claims on light and sight are ridiculous, and so we are going to tell you so. It's nothing personal.

You just gave yourself away David. This has become very personal for you, and you know it. Everything you are doing is an effort to discredit Lessans on his claim of real time vision. This is not about the truth; it's about discrediting Lessans and making his discoveries look like folly because you are threatened. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And wormholes and time machines have proven trustworthy? .

You just don't understand science. Worm holes or time machines may or may not exist, but they are derivations of solutions to general relativity, and general relativity has been well attested science for a century. There is such a thing as speculative science; we can speculate about future technology based on our best current science. General relativity does tell us, indeed, in principle, that it might be possible to build a time machines. As previously noted, the reason we don't see travelers from the future right now, is because the time machine has not yet been built: if it is possible to build such a machine, no one could travel to a time before the machine was built.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just gave yourself away David. This has become very personal for you, and you know it. Everything you are doing is an effort to discredit Lessans on his claim of real time vision. This is not about the truth; it's about discrediting Lessans and making his discoveries look like folly because you are threatened. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

No, what gets personal, even for someone like the Lone Ranger, who is a perfect gentlemen, is your torrent of lies, your condescension to your betters, your hypocrisy, your goalpost-shifting, your refusal to answer straightforward questions as soon as you see that the only possible answer contradicts Lessans, and so on. Just think about how many times you've been asked, and failed to answer, this question: If real-time seeing is true, why does NASA incorporate delayed-time seeing to send spacecraft to other worlds? The fact that NASA does this by itself conclusively disproves Lessans' claims on light and sight. So I ask you this question again. Will you answer it? Or will you lie and weasel again?

You do not arouse personal animosity because of Lessans' claims, which are easily shown to be false and provoke only laughter among us. You arouse animosity because you are a , and nobody, online or irl, likes a weasel.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You missed the whole point of the conversation; it went right over your head thedoc. He was showing that it can never be proven that someone could have chosen otherwise. It cannot be done. You can believe he could have chosen B instead of A, but you cannot prove it. There is no smokescreen here, as you're trying to imply so you can be right and Lessans wrong. But it will fail every time because it's you that's wrong.

Except that is not what you have argued here. You have argued that some contingently true proposition x becomes necessarily true after the event occurs that the proposition describes. On this account, the proposition "Oswald kills JFK" is contingently true until Oswald pulls the trigger; after he does, the proposition is necessarily true. This is your claim. And it's wrong.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't at first, but when you pointed out to me who he was, I welcomed him. What else do you want me to do, stand on my head?

Can you type upside down?

Seriously, I would love it if you sort of hung back, relaxed and let David and others carry the conversation with him if Wayne wants to talk about it. You could look at it as if Wayne is standing in for your dad and let him argue the case with David for you. When it's all over you'll be able to see if you think that there are significant differences between Wayne's ideas and those of your father. He probably doesn't have the time or inclination to go 100 rounds with you and might not want to deal with your insults if he disagrees with you and it could irritate him and chase him off.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It remains the case, no matter how many times you complain otherwise, that no one here is "out to get" you or Lessans; and if Lessans has a genuine discovery, we would be all ears and, if his case were convincing, we would acknowledge that and try to spread word of it.

Alas, it absolute baloney that we see in real time, and that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it immediately, but not see our neighbor on earth for eight and a half minutes. This is easily demonstrated to be empirically false and the claim itself is incoherent.

It's not incoherent at all when you understand that the object comes first, not light. It automatically puts the eyes in optical range, therefore it isn't teleportation or magic of any kind.

Originally Posted by davidm

His stuff on free will and determinism does indeed reduce to a tautology and a modal fallacy, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

No matter how many times you say it's a modal fallacy and a tautology, it is not. How easy it is for you to simply gloss over your error.

Originally Posted by davidm

There remains his third claim, which perhaps Wayne will speak to.

What you have never understood, after all this time, is that for people like us, the standard of judging a claim is evidence and sustainable argument. No one here, except for you, has a personal stake in his or her world view. We go where the evidence leads. We know that his claims on light and sight are ridiculous, and so we are going to tell you so. It's nothing personal.

I don't mind if he speaks on this subject, but as I said before, this is not my main focus. It would be nice if he understood Lessans' claim that when we die, it's not the end.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Except that is not what you have argued here. You have argued that some contingently true proposition x becomes necessarily true after the event occurs that the proposition describes. On this account, the proposition "Oswald kills JFK" is contingently true until Oswald pulls the trigger; after he does, the proposition is necessarily true. This is your claim. And it's wrong.

First of all, the dialogue was only to show that free will will remain a theory because we cannot go back in time to prove that someone could have acted otherwise. This means we cannot prove determinism false. That is all he wanted to show in that dialogue.

To address your rebuttal, every movement we make (not just when making choices) is necessary, so you are making an artificial distinction for the purpose of argument, and it doesn't work. Everything we do from moment to moment is a motion away from that which dissatisfies to a more satisfying position. We are compelled, by our nature, to move in this direction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Can you type upside down?

Seriously, I would love it if you sort of hung back, relaxed and let David and others carry the conversation with him if Wayne wants to talk about it. You could look at it as if Wayne is standing in for your dad and let him argue the case with David for you. When it's all over you'll be able to see if you think that there are significant differences between Wayne's ideas and those of your father. He probably doesn't have the time or inclination to go 100 rounds with you and might not want to deal with your insults if he disagrees with you and it could irritate him and chase him off.

I agree with you. David took it upon himself to invite him here, so I will step back. I haven't read Wayne's paper on death so I can't speak to it anyway. And no one has read Lessans' chapter: Our Posterity. How can people talk about something they haven't carefully studied without looking foolish?

To respond to your last comment, I don't purposely insult people. I try to be polite but my patience has grown thin after being called names for over 2 years, and counting.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not incoherent at all when you understand that the object comes first, not light. It automatically puts the eyes in optical range, therefore it isn't teleportation or magic of any kind.

It's nonsensical bullshit that you refuse to discuss because you know you can't explain it without contradicting yourself. You are not being honest with us or yourself when you claim it to still be plausible. It is not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't read Wayne's paper on death so I can't speak to it anyway.

Why don't you try reading it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And no one has read Lessans' chapter: Our Posterity. How can people talk about something they haven't carefully studied without looking foolish?

How are we meant to read what you refuse to share?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, the dialogue was only to show that free will will remain a theory because we cannot go back in time to prove that someone could have acted otherwise. This means we cannot prove determinism false. That is all he wanted to show in that dialogue.

To address your rebuttal, every movement we make (not just when making choices) is necessary, so you are making an artificial distinction for the purpose of argument, and it doesn't work. Everything we do from moment to moment is a motion away from that which dissatisfies to a more satisfying position. We are compelled, by our nature, to move in this direction.

You are contradicting yourself. You have explicitly stated that prior to some action, the choice is contingent; after the action, the choice was necessary. That is what you said. This is logically impossible. Either some choice or act is always contingent or it is always necessary. This is what Norman Swartz called the principle of the fixity of modal status, and it derives, if memory serves, from Becker's Theorem on the modal logic S5. That is, necessary propositions are necessarily necessary, and contingent propositions are necessarily contingent,

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Actually, Wayne, I have answered the question, but let's start afresh.

I think perhaps it would be helpful to outline a taxonomy of claims about what happens when we die.

Here are the ones that come to mind:

1. Metaphysical supernaturalism holds that when I die, something about me, a "soul" or some such, survives my death, and meets God. In the Christian idea, Jesus will show his boundless love for me by hurling me, or my soul or whatever, into an eternal lake of fire. Given my particular nature, I'm sure I'm bound for the fire if MS is true.

2. Metaphysical naturalism holds that when I die, I am permanently extinguished, and can anticipate nothing after death. BTW, I think Tom Clark makes a big mistake in explicating this idea in the opening part of his essay at naturalism.org. The people he quotes, I think, are speaking metaphorically. No one is trying to reify nothingness, as Clark supposes. It's not as if, at death, we will find ourselves floating in a sea of blackness, and, floundering around, say, "Oh, noes! I'm in a sea of blackness!" Rather, it is that all experience and sensation shall cease, as it does every night when we are in deep, dreamless sleep. No one "finds himself" in deep, dreamless sleep, and complains about it. If one were able to complain about it, one would not be in deep, dreamless sleep.

3. Reincarnation holds that some essential part of me, a soul, will transmigrate from a dead vessel to a new living vessel, thus preserving, in a different guise, some irreducible "I."

4. Existential Passage/Generic Subjective Continuity holds ... and Wayne, I invite you to fill in the blank.

BTW, it really is nice to see you again, glad you stopped by.

I didn't realize you talked to him over a long period of time. I'm curious as to what could possibly be added to this discussion that wasn't already covered in the other thread?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You are contradicting yourself. You have explicitly stated that prior to some action, the choice is contingent; after the action, the choice was necessary.

You're still missing the point. Even the contemplation of what choice you will make is necessary, so you are making an artificial distinction here between the two. Just because our choices are contingent on previous experiences, genetic predispositions, and present knowledge does not change the fact that every movement, thought, action we make is necessary.

Originally Posted by davidm

That is what you said. This is logically impossible.

Who said it's logically impossible? Norman Schwartz? Becker? Does that make it true?

Originally Posted by davidm

Either some choice or act is always contingent or it is always necessary. This is what Norman Swartz called the principle of the fixity of modal status, and it derives, if memory serves, from Becker's Theorem on the modal logic S5. That is, necessary propositions are necessarily necessary, and contingent propositions are necessarily contingent,

My choosing lobster for dinner tonight is contingent upon how much money I will have left after going shopping. This does not change the fact that my choice, whatever it turns out to be, is absolutely necessary because it could not have been any other way. Just because Beckem proposed a theorem, and Shwartz gave a nice sounding name to his theory, doesn't automatically make it right.

[peacegirl]

Wayne, if you're still here why don't you tell us a little about yourself. I think it was rather impolite to throw you into a discussion without giving you a chance to introduce yourself. Maybe you can also share a little about your book. I didn't realize you wrote one; I thought it was just an essay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, again, you are incorrect. Stewart's and Clark's claims are exactly in accord with those of Lessans. "Passage" or "shifting" is just in a manner of speaking, the same way that "I" and "you" is in a manner of speaking; have you forgotten that you yourself had to explain this with respect to using the word "you"? Tom Clark, in his essay at naturalism.org, is also quite explicit on this point.

That's fair enough, but is Stewart alluding to a numerical identity of some sort, so that when one person dies the next person replaces him? I'm trying to see if it's at all in keeping with Lessans' claim of eternal life.

Originally Posted by davidm

Stewart is quite clear that some subject x, upon death, is extinguished qua x and is gone for good; which is precisely what Lessans and Clark said.

But that's not his entire thesis. Do you even know what it is?