A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying we will choose what we prefer rather than we were compelled to choose what we prefer is huge (in technical terms, not in everyday language) because it is the difference between living in a world that is deteriorating due to not understanding our true nature, or finding a permanent solution to the misery that exists.

Argument from consequences.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Therefore, it's not enough to know that we will choose this or that, even though it's an expression of intent. Yes, we can easily say we will choose this, but this does not remove the fact that we will choose this because it is the most preferable among the options available to us at that moment.

Which is what I said. We will choose the most preferable, not we must choose the most preferable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It still goes back to the fact that, once we choose something, it could not have been otherwise

We're back to the difference between actual and necessary, which you don't seem to understand. If a different action was actually possible, then it could have been otherwise. It wasn't otherwise, but it could have been.

since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go.

This is the modal fallacy.

I already did. It's gone right over your head.

You haven't proven there is a compulsion because it is not something that can be proven. You have asserted it plenty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? This is not redefining compulsion. Compulsion means being compelled. If we are compelled to choose that which is most preferable, then this definition is applicable. The word compulsion does not necessarily refer to being forced by something external to us.

Find a definition of compel that does not include the word force, otherwise you are, indeed, redefining the word.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Argument from consequences.

Of course this has to do with consequences. Don't you consider the consequences of your choices? What's wrong with that? That is what everyone does so as to figure out which choice will give them the outcome that they are looking for. Every human being uses consequences to determine which choice is the most beneficial. You don't get it at all, not even a little bit. It's so sad to me because you are losing objectivity entirely due to the fact that you think you're right. You're not even listening.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Therefore, it's not enough to know that we will choose this or that, even though it's an expression of intent. Yes, we can easily say we will choose this, but this does not remove the fact that we will choose this because it is the most preferable among the options available to us at that moment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which is what I said. We will choose the most preferable, not we must choose the most preferable.

But that is a superficial observation. I can't even talk to you because you are so convinced Lessans was wrong. There is nowhere to go, therefore I am backing out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It still goes back to the fact that, once we choose something, it could not have been otherwise

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We're back to the difference between actual and necessary, which you don't seem to understand. If a different action was actually possible, then it could have been otherwise. It wasn't otherwise, but it could have been.

Your smug attitude upsets me to no end. You have no idea what you are talking about. Think about this before reacting LadyShea: If something could not have been otherwise, could it have been otherwise?

since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the modal fallacy.

I guess you're right since LadyShea said so.

I already did. It's gone right over your head.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You haven't proven there is a compulsion because it is not something that can be proven. You have asserted it plenty.

It was proven. You are not capable of understanding this concept, for whatever reason. I'm not putting you down, but you refuse to open your mind. It's really disheartening that you consider yourself the cream of the FF crop, and that people here are listening to your every word, and because of this they will reject this book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Huh? This is not redefining compulsion. Compulsion means being compelled. If we are compelled to choose that which is most preferable, then this definition is applicable. The word compulsion does not necessarily refer to being forced by something external to us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Find a definition of compel that does not include the word force, otherwise you are, indeed, redefining the word.

You have no knowledge in this area, therefore you cannot argue with me in any way that proves Lessans wrong. He gave 30 years of his life to this knowledge, and you so easily dismiss it. You didn't even know what a syllogism was, so how can you so casually claim that you know he was wrong when you didn't even understand his words? How dare you to come off the way you do. It is the most arrogant and self-congratulatory way of speaking that I have ever seen, and yet you and Vivisectus talk of Lessans as being arrogant? I am not here to condemn you; I just want you to seriously look at yourself in the mirror and decide whether you could be wrong in this instance. I think you need to be set straight by someone other than me. That's all I want to say on this subject because I feel nauseous.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no knowledge in this area, therefore you cannot argue with me in any way that proves Lessans wrong. He gave 30 years of his life to this knowledge, and you so easily dismiss it. You didn't even know what a syllogism was, so how can you so casually claim that you know he was wrong when you didn't even understand his words? How dare you to come off the way you do. It is the most arrogant and self-congratulatory way of speaking that I have ever seen, and yet you and Vivisectus talk of Lessans as being arrogant? I am not here to condemn you; I just want you to seriously look at yourself in the mirror and decide whether you could be wrong in this instance. I think you need to be set straight by someone other than me. That's all I want to say on this subject because I feel nauseous.

It appears that I may have been wrong about Peacegirl, she has been reading posts about her father and now is turning them around using the same language to describe others. At least she never claimed to be original.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no knowledge in this area, therefore you cannot argue with me in any way that proves Lessans wrong. He gave 30 years of his life to this knowledge, and you so easily dismiss it. You didn't even know what a syllogism was, so how can you so casually claim that you know he was wrong when you didn't even understand his words? How dare you to come off the way you do. It is the most arrogant and self-congratulatory way of speaking that I have ever seen, and yet you and Vivisectus talk of Lessans as being arrogant? I am not here to condemn you; I just want you to seriously look at yourself in the mirror and decide whether you could be wrong in this instance. I think you need to be set straight by someone other than me. That's all I want to say on this subject because I feel nauseous.

This post is oozing with arrogance and hypocrisy.

BTW, when's this wedding that was a month away one month ago? The one preventing you from having the time to plan or begin marketing, yet which has not prevented you from wasting hours of your time posting here every single day.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course this has to do with consequences. Don't you consider the consequences of your choices? What's wrong with that? That is what everyone does so as to figure out which choice will give them the outcome that they are looking for.

You weren't talking about the consequences of one's individual choices, you were talking about the consequences of the whole world accepting and adhering to Lessans ideas and ushering in the his New World or not.

Every human being uses consequences to determine which choice is the most beneficial. You don't get it at all, not even a little bit. It's so sad to me because you are losing objectivity entirely due to the fact that you think you're right. You're not even listening.

I was listening, and I responded to what you actually said, but then you moved the goalposts. You can't even keep track of what you yourself are talking about.

But that is a superficial observation.

You can't observe people being compelled by their nature, it can't be seen or detected or even felt by the person themself. All that can be actually observed is how people act, and you can ask them about their motivation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't even talk to you because you are so convinced Lessans was wrong. There is nowhere to go, therefore I am backing out.

I am demonstrating how and why I think he was wrong. You can back out, or you can attempt to refute my arguments or you can throw a fit. Looks like you chose option number 3.

Originally Posted by peaceirl

Your smug attitude upsets me to no end. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about, the difference between what actually happens and what necessarily happens.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about this before reacting LadyShea: If something could not have been otherwise, could it have been otherwise?

But it could have been otherwise, had another choice been made or another action taken it would have been otherwise. That was my point.

Your stating that it could not have been otherwise is fallacious...you are just poofing it into existence with your imagination.

I guess you're right since LadyShea said so.

I am right because I am right. Refute it if you can.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, you've only asserted it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was proven.

Nope, simply asserted. It is not provable at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not capable of understanding this concept, for whatever reason.

I understand the concept. I know that Lessans did not prove the existence of any compulsion...how could he? It can't be tested.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not putting you down, but you refuse to open your mind. It's really disheartening that you consider yourself the cream of the FF crop, and that people here are listening to your every word, and because of this they will reject this book.

I don't think any of those things are true. I certainly don't consider myself the cream of the crop. I am almost positive nobody will reject the book based on me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no knowledge in this area

"this area" being the definitions of words in English? I have lots of knowledge in that area, and I do not routinely use words wrong or require new definitions to make my arguments work as you do. So, what is your definition of the word compel to add to the Lessans dictionary?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

therefore you cannot argue with me in any way that proves Lessans wrong. He gave 30 years of his life to this knowledge, and you so easily dismiss it.

You think this has been easy? LOL

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't even know what a syllogism was, so how can you so casually claim that you know he was wrong when you didn't even understand his words?

I knew what a syllogism was, though I didn't know what it was called, so I learned a new word. What does that have to do with the definition of compel?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How dare you to come off the way you do. It is the most arrogant and self-congratulatory way of speaking that I have ever seen,

You must not have read your father's book then.

I am not here to condemn you; I just want you to seriously look at yourself in the mirror and decide whether you could be wrong in this instance. I think you need to be set straight by someone other than me. That's all I want to say on this subject because I feel nauseous.

Wrong in what instance? About the definition of the word compel? I need to be set straight about what?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no knowledge in this area, therefore you cannot argue with me in any way that proves Lessans wrong.

Funny how the fact that neither you nor your father know anything at all about physics, cosmology, neurobiology, or anatomy doesn't stop either of you from insisting that virtually everything we think we know about these fields is utterly wrong.

Yes, I know, you'll now insist that Lessans' "discovery" doesn't contradict what we know about these fields. But that just demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You're too ignorant to understand your own ignorance.

***

That having been said, I'm pretty-much convinced that peacegirl is primarily seeking attention, as has been suggested before. Considering the breath-takingly stupid and unbelievably ignorant things she claims to believe, it defies belief that such a person could actually be a more or less functional human being.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That having been said, I'm pretty-much convinced that peacegirl is primarily seeking attention, as has been suggested before. Considering the breath-takingly stupid and unbelievably ignorant things she claims to believe, it defies belief that such a person could actually be a more or less functional human being.

That, in fact, has not been proven. I have suggested that her participation on an internet forum may be part of her therapy to bring her back to an awareness of the real world, and break her out of the fantasy world she seems to inhabit. I really don't see how anyone holding these beliefs could be a part of any rational society. Her keepers might be allowing her to vent these ideas in an effort to get them out of her system and get her back to reality.

[peacegirl]

True, but how can we come to a reason without contemplating our options? This does not prove that we are free or that we are not compelled to choose the option that is most preferable, which would make any other choice AN IMPOSSIBILITY.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no need, and no justification, to add compulsion to it, nor any reason to assume man's will is free or not free. It's enough know that we will choose what we prefer under the circumstances. Not must, will.

Saying we will choose what we prefer rather than we were compelled to choose what we prefer is huge (in technical terms, not in everyday language) because it is the difference between living in a world that is deteriorating due to not understanding our true nature, or finding a permanent solution to the misery that exists.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Argument from consequences.

I'm not arguing the validity of this knowledge based on future consequences. I am saying that if Lessans is right, then, yes, the consequences of dismissing this knowledge by saying it doesn't matter whether we understand our true nature or not, is going to have a impact on the future. All future decisions have been based on previous knowledge. The more knowledge we gain, the better our options will be. If this knowledge turns out to be true (which it is), then it is important that people know its value so it can be harnessed and applied in such a way that it can benefit our world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Therefore, it's not enough to know that we will choose this or that, even though it's an expression of intent. Yes, we can easily say we will choose this, but this does not remove the fact that we will choose this because it is the most preferable among the options available to us at that moment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which is what I said. We will choose the most preferable, not we must choose the most preferable.

That is true, I will choose, but after the fact, I could not have chosen otherwise. I will repeat this again: just because no one can predict what the choice will be before it is chosen does not make greater satisfaction a modal fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It still goes back to the fact that, once we choose something, it could not have been otherwise

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We're back to the difference between actual and necessary, which you don't seem to understand. If a different action was actually possible, then it could have been otherwise. It wasn't otherwise, but it could have been.

Of course it could be otherwise if a different action is possible. All that means is that we have options before us. Until we decide which is preferable based on contemplation, no one knows what that choice will be. But this does not change the fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise based on the information and the considerations that the individual used to make his decision.

since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the modal fallacy.

No it is not.

I already did. It's gone right over your head.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You haven't proven there is a compulsion because it is not something that can be proven. You have asserted it plenty.

Wrong again. This was not an assertion. These were profound observations that have nothing to do with assertions.

When I use the word compulsion, this does not mean that we are being forced to do something without our consent, but giving our consent does not mean our will is free or that we are not compelled by forces over which we have no control (i.e., the greater satisfaction principle).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you are having to re-define compulsion to make your argument work? Why not just get rid of it, since it's the problem? That's where the fallacy lies.

Huh? This is not redefining compulsion. Compulsion means being compelled. If we are compelled to choose that which is most preferable, then this definition is applicable. The word compulsion does not necessarily refer to being forced by something external to us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Find a definition of compel that does not include the word force, otherwise you are, indeed, redefining the word.

Compel means to be forced to do something but not always from an external source. We are always under a compulsion every second of our lives, although we're not conscious of it. We only become aware of it when we have a strong desire to do something. That's when we say I felt compelled to do it, or I couldn't resist doing it.

You don't want to be compelled to go to a classical music concert if you'd rather listen to rap. School officials might be upset if a winter storm compels them to cancel classes, but you'd be okay with that. A compelling mystery forces you to pay attention because you want to find out "whodunit."

compel - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This post is oozing with arrogance and hypocrisy.

BTW, when's this wedding that was a month away one month ago? The one preventing you from having the time to plan or begin marketing, yet which has not prevented you from wasting hours of your time posting here every single day.

You think I have any desire to talk to you about my personal life when you call my post oozing with arrogance and hypocrisy?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not arguing the validity of this knowledge based on future consequences. I am saying that if Lessans is right, then, yes, the consequences of dismissing this knowledge by saying it doesn't matter whether we understand our true nature or not, is going to have a impact on the future. All future decisions have been based on previous knowledge. The more knowledge we gain, the better our options will be. If this knowledge turns out to be true (which it is), then it is important that people know its value so it can be harnessed and applied in such a way that it can benefit our world.

You are arguing for Lessans ideas based on future consequences. That's what this paragraph is.

That is true, I will choose, but after the fact, I could not have chosen otherwise.

That is the modal fallacy. Adding the element of impossibility, saying that it couldn't have been any other way, when it was possible to have been some other way, is fallacious.

After the fact, all that can be validly and non fallaciously said is that the person didn't choose otherwise.

I will repeat this again: just because no one can predict what the choice will be before it is chosen does not make greater satisfaction a modal fallacy.

It does when you change from contingent before the fact to necessary after the fact. Doing that is fallacious.

Of course it could be otherwise if a different action is possible. All that means is that we have options before us.

Then yes, it could have been otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until we decide which is preferable based on contemplation, no one knows what that choice will be. But this does not change the fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise based on the information and the considerations that the individual used to make his decision.

Fallacy. Unless the choice is necessary before it is made it cannot be necessary afterward.

No it is not.

It is, as has been demonstrated. Unless you can refute it, instead of just denying it as you have here, then the charge stands.

Wrong again. This was not an assertion. These were profound observations that have nothing to do with assertions.

More assertions

Compel means to be forced to do something but not always from an external source. We are always under a compulsion every second of our lives, although we're not conscious of it. We only become aware of it when we have a strong desire to do something. That's when we say I felt compelled to do it, or I couldn't resist doing it.

Who said anything about an external source? Force is force. If there is a force at work, you must prove that it exists. How can that be done? How can you prove that humans cannot control their actions despite strong desires?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not arguing the validity of this knowledge based on future consequences. I am saying that if Lessans is right, then, yes, the consequences of dismissing this knowledge by saying it doesn't matter whether we understand our true nature or not, is going to have a impact on the future.

You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think I have any desire to talk to you about my personal life when you call my post oozing with arrogance and hypocrisy?

You don't want to talk about your personal life.
You don't want to talk about vision.
You don't want to talk about vaccines.
You don't want to talk about the book.
You won't post on other threads and subjects.

With all that negativity there isn't much positive in your life.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Funny how the fact that neither you nor your father know anything at all about physics, cosmology, neurobiology, or anatomy doesn't stop either of you from insisting that virtually everything we think we know about these fields is utterly wrong.

Yes, I know, you'll now insist that Lessans' "discovery" doesn't contradict what we know about these fields. But that just demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You're too ignorant to understand your own ignorance.

***

That having been said, I'm pretty-much convinced that peacegirl is primarily seeking attention, as has been suggested before. Considering the breath-takingly stupid and unbelievably ignorant things she claims to believe, it defies belief that such a person could actually be a more or less functional human being.

Actually, you would be surprised how people compartmentalize. People can hold astonishingly outlandish beliefs, and support that belief with bizarre logic that they then fail to apply to anything else.

In fact, they can be fairly rational on other subjects. I once had the misfortune of knowing a group of ladies who were fervent believers in guardian angels, in a weird mix of catholic saint-worship and new-age beliefs. They defended these beliefs with a combination of anecdotal stories, claims that all unbelief was caused by bias and close-mindedness, and the usual "Science does not know everything" routines.

Discuss anything to do with money, and they were chillingly rational.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course this has to do with consequences. Don't you consider the consequences of your choices? What's wrong with that? That is what everyone does so as to figure out which choice will give them the outcome that they are looking for.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You weren't talking about the consequences of one's individual choices, you were talking about the consequences of the whole world accepting and adhering to Lessans ideas and ushering in the his New World or not.

No, that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that new understandings bring new opportunities for change.

Every human being uses consequences to determine which choice is the most beneficial. You don't get it at all, not even a little bit. It's so sad to me because you are losing objectivity entirely due to the fact that you think you're right. You're not even listening.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was listening, and I responded to what you actually said, but then you moved the goalposts. You can't even keep track of what you yourself are talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

But that is a superficial observation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't observe people being compelled by their nature, it can't be seen or detected or even felt by the person themself. All that can be actually observed is how people act, and you can ask them about their motivation.

Of course we can't see people being compelled. This is not a direct observation; it doesn't have to be in order to be valid.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't even talk to you because you are so convinced Lessans was wrong. There is nowhere to go, therefore I am backing out.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am demonstrating how and why I think he was wrong. You can back out, or you can attempt to refute my arguments or you can throw a fit. Looks like you chose option number 3.

You can think what you want.

Originally Posted by peaceirl

Your smug attitude upsets me to no end. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know exactly what I am talking about, the difference between what actually happens and what necessarily happens.

What actually happens is what necessarily happens. What happens beforehand is not a necessity until it happens. You are referring to hard determinism where the agent has no control and is just a puppet where we can predict all of his choices. This is not the determinism Lessans is proposing. I will have to find other people who can explain this better than I can. If I said to you that you have to choose eggs over cereal, you would defy this and purposely choose cereal to prove to me that you are free to make another choice. Don't you see that this desire to prove me wrong by changing what you normally eat would be your preference in the direction of greater satisfaction? No choice is necessary until it is made, which only means that it gave you greater satisfaction at that moment in time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about this before reacting LadyShea: If something could not have been otherwise, could it have been otherwise?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But it could have been otherwise, had another choice been made or another action taken it would have been otherwise. That was my point.

Absolutely not. How could it have been otherwise had everything leading up to that choice been exactly the same?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your stating that it could not have been otherwise is fallacious...you are just poofing it into existence with your imagination.

It is not fallacious. It could not have been otherwise had the conditions been exactly the same, but we can't replicate those conditions since this requires going back in time which we cannot do.

since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying, which is a direction that is impossible to go.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the modal fallacy.

I guess you're right since LadyShea said so.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am right because I am right. Refute it if you can.

I did refute it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, you've only asserted it.

His explanation as to why man's will is not free is clearly explained in the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was proven.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, simply asserted. It is not provable at all.

Wrong again. It is provable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not capable of understanding this concept, for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I understand the concept. I know that Lessans did not prove the existence of any compulsion...how could he? It can't be tested.

Testing empirically can only be done indirectly because we can't see compulsion. When this law actually is put into practice, it will be shown that we can only move in one direction, which is exactly why our behavior can be controlled. His observations were sound and the inferences that were drawn were also sound.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not putting you down, but you refuse to open your mind. It's really disheartening that you consider yourself the cream of the FF crop, and that people here are listening to your every word, and because of this they will reject this book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think any of those things are true. I certainly don't consider myself the cream of the crop. I am almost positive nobody will reject the book based on me.

I don't think you realize the impact that group think has. I am the underdog here. I am looked down upon, therefore the listeners are looking at me in the same light. They are probably using this thread for the lulz. The conversation has gotten stale because no one but a few have participated, and it's the same old refutations which, by the way, have not proven him wrong. Because you believe the foundational principles aren't valid, you laugh, but I promise you that you that one day you will wipe the smirk off your face.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have no knowledge in this area

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"this area" being the definitions of words in English? I have lots of knowledge in that area, and I do not routinely use words wrong or require new definitions to make my arguments work as you do. So, what is your definition of the word compel to add to the Lessans dictionary?

I gave you the definition. The problem is when you think of the word compel, you think of something forcing you to do something. That's why people say we have free will because we can choose freely, but the truth is we are not free. We are compelled, but not in the forceful way you are imagining.

Compel means to force or drive someone to do something. Even if you don't like toast, when you visit the toast-eating natives of Shrintakook Island, you'll be compelled to eat it, or they will not trust you.

You don't want to be compelled to go to a classical music concert if you'd rather listen to rap. School officials might be upset if a winter storm compels them to cancel classes, but you'd be okay with that. A compelling mystery forces you to pay attention because you want to find out "whodunit."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/compel

Originally Posted by peacegirl

therefore you cannot argue with me in any way that proves Lessans wrong. He gave 30 years of his life to this knowledge, and you so easily dismiss it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think this has been easy? LOL

No it hasn't, but you're acting like you've proven him wrong, and you haven't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't even know what a syllogism was, so how can you so casually claim that you know he was wrong when you didn't even understand his words?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I knew what a syllogism was, though I didn't know what it was called, so I learned a new word. What does that have to do with the definition of compel?

It seems to me that if you had done reading in this field you would have known what this word was.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How dare you to come off the way you do. It is the most arrogant and self-congratulatory way of speaking that I have ever seen,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You must not have read your father's book then.

You love to copy what others have said, don't you? So babyish.

I am not here to condemn you; I just want you to seriously look at yourself in the mirror and decide whether you could be wrong in this instance. I think you need to be set straight by someone other than me. That's all I want to say on this subject because I feel nauseous.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wrong in what instance? About the definition of the word compel? I need to be set straight about what?

You need to be set straight by others who have a better grasp of this knowledge. You have not proven him wrong. You will have a completely different attitude once you see that he is beginning to get recognition. Until then, you will remain smug.

[Spacemonkey]

So the wedding's cancelled? Along with your plans to start marketing the book?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What actually happens is what necessarily happens. What happens beforehand is not a necessity until it happens.

This is complete nonsense, and shows only that you have zero comprehension of the meanings of modal terms.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What actually happens is what necessarily happens. What happens beforehand is not a necessity until it happens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You don't want to talk about your personal life.
You don't want to talk about vision.
You don't want to talk about vaccines.
You don't want to talk about the book.
You won't post on other threads and subjects.

With all that negativity there isn't much positive in your life.

No, it just means there's nothing left to keep me here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yVuEC3r7a-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I loved Doris Day. That's a fitting song.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is complete nonsense, and shows only that you have zero comprehension of the meanings of modal terms.

Everything I say, according to you, is complete nonsense, so who cares?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the wedding's cancelled? Along with your plans to start marketing the book?

No, the wedding isn't canceled and neither are my marketing plans.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the wedding isn't canceled and neither are my marketing plans.

So when is it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything I say, according to you, is complete nonsense, so who cares?

Not just according to me. According to everyone but you. YOU should care about this. You should try to learn what the terms mean instead of throwing them about in this nonsensical fashion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am saying that if he is right, then this knowledge is important. And that is true whether I'm arguing for him based on future consequences, or not. I'm not trying to prove his knowledge through future consequences.

After the fact you can say that the person didn't choose otherwise, but you can also say that he couldn't have chosen otherwise based on the exact conditions that were present.

No it is not LadyShea. Obviously our choices are contingent on our present circumstances. So what? Changing from contingent to necessary does not create a modal fallacy. Norman Schwartz was wrong.

No, it could not have been otherwise. It could be otherwise the next moment because the antecedent conditions have changed (we may learn that our choice yesterday did not give us the results we wanted, so now we have a chance to choose something different), but the past could not have been any different.

Wrong. Just because a choice isn't predetermined does not mean our will is free, or undetermined. Having the ability to contemplate doesn't take away from the fact that only one choice is possible, and it is the choice that leads to greater satisfaction when meaningful differences are being considered. We don't have a free choice because it is impossible to choose what is less satisfying when a more satisfying choice is available. Even though it looks like we have free will, it's a mirage because we really never are given a free choice at all.

I have tried and tried to explain it, and you keep telling me that I haven't. Your charge means nothing because it's not true.

Whatever.

Who said anything about an external source? Force is force. If there is a force at work, you must prove that it exists. How can that be done? How can you prove that humans cannot control their actions despite strong desires?

He has proven it exists. There is an internal compulsion or force that moves us in a direction away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers us greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. This is a universal law and it stands.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So when is it?

Tomorrow is the henna party. Saturday is the rehersal dinner, and Sunday is the wedding. After the wedding I am going to work on my marketing strategy.