A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Just as well that A Revolution in Thought is so enthusiastically acclaimed, applauded, accepted and implemented everywhere else.

Yes, Peacegirl, there are many instances of theories that have been ignored or rejected at one time and become mainstream later on, but there are many others that never were because basically they were crap. Lessans' is one of the latter.

Is this the post you are referring to? Who cares that other theories were wrong; that does not conclude that this one is wrong also, just because others were. Your reasoning is so flawed I didn't have the desire to even respond to it Seraph, and if this is the type of reasoning you are capable of, let's stop conversing right now. I am tired of all the phony criticism that has no support whatsoever.

p. 2 Down through history there has always been this skepticism before
certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle. [B]You may reason that many people have been positive that
they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also
be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this
reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong
because I am positive.

The first astronomer who observed the
mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to
predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist
who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison
when he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right.
Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive
and right — and so were many other scientists — but they proved that
they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong.

There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over
something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four. Just
bear in mind how many times in the course of history has the
impossible (that which appeared to be) been made possible by scientific
discoveries which should make you desire to contain your skepticism
enough to investigate what this is all about.

[LadyShea]

This is not the book review I posted earlier, which was by Andrei A. Buckareff and posted by Jonathon MS Pearce (which, if you followed the link has a whole list of citations for "backup"). This is a different take on the debate by a different philosopher, named Keith Lehrer (who has many published works).

You didn't even read any of it, just dismissed it as junk based on a faulty assumption. Nice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why. He gives no examples to back up his argument. All he does is says that there are problems with Caruso's argument and lists what he believes can be contested but does not give one bit of support to the contrary. That is not evidence that he is inaccurate.

[/QUOTE]

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not intentionally miss the first paragraph of your previous thread, so instead of accusing me of doing this purposely

I happen to agree with determinism, so intention and purpose don't enter into what I have said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you jumping on the anti-Lessans bandwagon when you haven't even studied his work?

Despite my easy to follow instructions you obviously have not bothered to check out my previous posts in this thread. If you had, you would have discovered that I have read enough of your dad's crap to reject it. Checking out a few dozen of my contributions is not worth your effort, yet reading hundreds of pages of your dad's crap is a prerequisite before one can make a comment. Nice one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will ignore you.

[LadyShea]

There is a box at the top of the thread that says "search this thread", click it, then click advanced search and enter the user name only. You will see that Seraph has posted here since 2011

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

I happen to agree with determinism, so intention and purpose don't enter into what I have said.

Despite my easy to follow instructions you obviously have not bothered to check out my previous posts in this thread. If you had, you would have discovered that I have read enough of your dad's crap to reject it. Checking out a few dozen of my contributions is not worth your effort, yet reading hundreds of pages of your dad's crap is a prerequisite before one can make a comment. Nice one.

All I can say is "yuck". I don't have to go perusing your list of comments. I thought you were different in that you were at the very least hearing me, but you're turning out to be just like the rest because you are not backing up your disagreement with anything substantial. If that is the case, I have nothing more to say to you. If I missed something, speak your mind right here and now. To repeat: I am not going to search through all of your responses to try to decipher where you think Lessans was wrong. You have not been here for quite awhile, so refresh my memory, or we have nothing more to discuss.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a box at the top of the thread that says "search this thread", click it, then click advanced search and enter the user name only. You will see that Seraph has posted here since 2011

No, I have no desire to do this. Let him answer me without a sarcastic tone of voice, and maybe I'll listen. Otherwise I have no desire whatsoever to go back and read his posts from 3 years ago. All of a sudden he pops in and thinks that he can start where he left off? He missed the majority of the responses in this thread. Unless he has a specific question, I am not going to cater to this type of individual.

[LadyShea]

LOL, I anxiously await your response to any reviews of the book that might be forthcoming. Have you started marketing yet?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to go perusing your list of comments. ... you are not backing up your disagreement with anything substantial.

You won't bother reading my few posts in this thread and then claim that I'm not backing up my disagreement with anything substantial? Peacegirl, you really are a fucking nutcase.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

You won't bother reading my few posts in this thread and then claim that I'm not backing up my disagreement with anything substantial? Peacegirl, you really are a fucking nutcase.

You can't even give me one refutation that is worth its salt. That shows how much you know about this discovery. And calling me a nutcase doesn't give you extra points. It only shows that you can't control yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, I anxiously await your response to any reviews of the book that might be forthcoming. Have you started marketing yet?

I just sent the book to a psychology journal. They should be receiving the book any day now. The founder of this philosophy journal (I'm not giving out the name of the journal for people may try to sabotage my efforts as they did in Project Reason) is going to send out inquiries on my behalf as to who would like to give this book an objective review. He, himself, does not give the reviews because people may view this as biased. He will then put the review in the journal and give it to me to put on my website. I told him I have found that people will not respond to me directly (they must think I'm a troll), which is why he is willing to help me even though I told him that the book does not have an index or footnotes. It didn't seem to bother him when I told him my story. I told him I am looking for philosophers or psychologists, or others who may be interested in this topic, who are already leaning toward determinism or I'll never make any headway. I reminded him that the discovery is not determinism, but what lies beyond the door of determinism. Fortunately, there are open-minded people in this world, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack. I'll keep you posted if I'm still around.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even give me one refutation that is worth its salt.

I already have voiced several, but you can't be bothered to check them out, even though it's easy enough compared to combing through your 11,000 posts in this thread. So, it seems that not only are you a fucking nutcase, but you are also fucking lazy and/or fucking arrogant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

I already have voiced several, but you can't be bothered to check them out, even though it's easy enough compared to combing through your 11,000 posts in this thread. So, it seems that not only are you a fucking nutcase, but you are also fucking lazy and/or fucking arrogant.

No no Seraph. Your tantrum isn't going to get you anywhere. Voice one refutation here, and I'll take a look.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Voice one refutation right here, and I'll take a look. Obviously, you can't even do that.

I obviously have voiced refutations right here, you stupid, lazy, arrogant cunt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

I obviously have voiced refutations right here, you stupid, lazy, arrogant cunt.

Actually, I clicked on the link and it said: Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms. Your anger is so completely disproportionate, I doubt if I can have a meaningful debate with you.

[peacegirl]

This is a diversion from the conversation but it's important to know about, so I'm posting it.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ign=20130925Z1

[peacegirl]

I hope this puts a smile on your face.

Husky Verbally Refuses to Go Into His Kennel

[peacegirl]

Last video for the day.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone, this is not effectively an appeal to compatibilist free will because we are not discussing " relevant similar situations". Spacemonkey is very very confused.

The only confusion you can attest to is your own. You've said that if Lessans were wrong he'd be able to admit that he was wrong. Yet as you see things, he was right and said he was right, and both of these things were causally determined such that they couldn't have been otherwise. And you are then appealing to a counterfactual scenario that could not have occurred due to the actual antecedent conditions (him being right), where antecedent conditions were different (him not being right), and then making claims about what he could have done in that counterfactual situation (admit that he was wrong), before going on to speak of the relevance of this counterfactual scenario for the actual world.

That is exactly how compatibilist freedom works - given actual antecedent conditions, there are still relevant counterfactual scenarios with different antecedent conditions that show important things about the actual causally determined real-world situation. You say Lessans could have admitted he was wrong if (contrary to causally determined fact) he had been wrong. And we say that Bob could have chosen otherwise if (contrary to determined fact) he had wanted to do otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone, this is not effectively an appeal to compatibilist free will because we are not discussing " relevant similar situations". Spacemonkey is very very confused.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The only confusion you can attest to is your own.

You are so confused that you don't even know why, so you just keep repeating the same thing; but the kind of freedom you think is compatible with determinism does not prove that free will actually exists. It's just a convenient definition.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've said that if Lessans were wrong he'd be able to admit that he was wrong. Yet as you see things, he was right and said he was right, and both of these things were causally determined such that they couldn't have been otherwise.

That is true, but if he found out that he was wrong (a new set of conditions Spacemonkey that somehow proved the eyes were a sense organ), he would have admitted it. But I don't believe he was wrong because he was not the type of person that would have espoused something he wasn't sure of as a result of his astute observations and mathematical ability. There is a standard he used; he didn't pull anything out of his hat, nor was he a compatibilist in any way, shape, or form.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you are then appealing to a counterfactual scenario that could not have occurred due to the actual antecedent conditions (him being right), where antecedent conditions were different (him not being right), and then making claims about what he could have done in that counterfactual situation (admit that he was wrong), before going on to speak of the relevance of this counterfactual scenario for the actual world.

All you are saying here is hindsight is 20/20. This does not prove free will true in any sense of the word. My god Spacemonkey, for someone who seems to know how to reason pretty well, you have completely lost sight of the truth of this proposition due to a definition of free will that only means "I chose this freely because I don't have OCD." Yes it's useful because then you can blame all you want, just like we've done for thousands of years and look where it's gotten us. It's time to make a paradigm shift that will change the world in ways we can't even begin to imagine. This definition means nothing as far as reality is concerned, as I have said many times.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is exactly how compatibilist freedom works - given actual antecedent conditions, there are still relevant counterfactual scenarios with different antecedent conditions that show important things about the actual causally determined real-world situation.

That does not disprove determinism. All this does is shows that in each and every moment we learn from our previous mistakes. That's how we change, sometimes drastically if our choice turns out different than what we had imagined. I don't know why you don't read carefully; you argue with me before you even understand what he actually wrote. This is a very important excerpt and I don't think you understand a darn thing.

p. 54 Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from
previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at
a mathematical rate and during every moment of his progress was
doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does
not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the
word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that
something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four
is not caused by two plus two, it is that already.

As long as history has
been recorded, these two opposing principles were never reconciled
until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of
ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the
millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was
supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently
because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of
satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as
the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these
laws.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You say Lessans could have admitted he was wrong if (contrary to causally determined fact) he had been wrong.

No he could not have admitted he was wrong unless someone proved him wrong, which would mean he would be just as causally determined to admit this as he was when he believed he was right. But I don't believe he had reason to think he was wrong since he gave 30 years to this difficult subject matter and knew what he was talking about. You understand that this is a hypothetical situation that would not occur; I'm just using this as an example since you brought it up. Obviously, you want to pretend that he was wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And we say that Bob could have chosen otherwise if (contrary to determined fact) he had wanted to do otherwise.

That's just the point. He didn't do otherwise because he didn't want to do otherwise or he would have chosen otherwise. It wasn't his preference in comparison to other alternatives that were available to him at the time, therefore he was not free to choose other than what he did because it would have given him less satisfaction, which is impossible to do. You still don't get it, do you? P.S. I know I said I wasn't going to talk to you but I cannot let you make it appear as if you're right and Lessans was wrong, when I know darn well that he wasn't wrong. So I'm stuck answering you even if your patronizing tone is very irritating, to say the least.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused that you don't even know why, so you just keep repeating the same thing; but the kind of freedom you think is compatible with determinism does not prove that free will actually exists. It's just a convenient definition.

All you are saying here is hindsight is 20/20. This does not prove free will true in any sense of the word. My god Spacemonkey, for someone who seems to know how to reason pretty well, you have completely lost sight of the truth of this proposition due to a definition of free will that only means "I chose this freely because I don't have OCD. This definition means nothing as far as reality is concerned, as I have said I don't know how many times.

That does not disprove determinism. All this does is shows that in each and every moment we learn from our previous mistakes. That's how we change, sometimes drastically if our choice turns out different than what we had imagined. I don't know why you don't read carefully; you argue with me before you even understand what he actually wrote. This is a very important excerpt and I don't think you understand a darn thing.

p. 54 Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from
previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at
a mathematical rate and during every moment of his progress was
doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does
not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the
word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that
something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four
is not caused by two plus two, it is that already.

As long as history has
been recorded, these two opposing principles were never reconciled
until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of
ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the
millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was
supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently
because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of
satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as
the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these
laws.

No he could not have admitted he was wrong unless someone proved him wrong, which would mean he is just as causally determined as he was when he made the discovery. But I don't believe he had reason to think he was wrong since he gave 30 years to this difficult subject matter and knew what he was talking about.

That's just the point. He didn't do otherwise because he didn't want to do otherwise or he would have chosen otherwise. It wasn't his preference in comparison to other alternatives that were available to him at the time, therefore he was not free to choose otherwise. You still don't get it, do you? P.S. I know I said I wasn't going to talk to you but I cannot let you make it appear as if you're right and Lessans was wrong, when I know darn well that he wasn't wrong. So I'm stuck answering you even if your patronizing tone is very irritating.

Idiot. Try reading the whole post before trying to respond to it. You haven't addressed my point at all. My point was that you are effectively appealing to the same reasoning as compatibilism while simultaneously rejecting it. I just showed you how that is the case, and you've done nothing to show otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Idiot. Try reading the whole post before trying to respond to it. You haven't addressed my point at all. My point was that you are effectively appealing to the same reasoning as compatibilism while simultaneously rejecting it. I just showed you how that is the case, and you've done nothing to show otherwise.

It's taken me a long time to get to this point but shut up Spacemonkey. I will not let you treat me like a piece of shit without me retaliating. Your reasoning stinks and I will not show you where unless you change your ways. I am not appealing to compatibilism while simulaneously rejecting it. You don't understand this discovery whatsoever, so you have no way to know why this is not a compatibilist concept. We have no free will. Obviously, you are stuck in a groove, kind of like OCD,and you cannot stop doing what I asked you politely not to do BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO STOP. It gives you greater satisfaction than to play fair. This kind of response you give me comes from insecurity because you are trying to use intimidation. You are insecure about your own position, which is why you are fighting me so hard. But as long as you name call, don't expect me to to answer you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's taken me a long time to get to this point but shut up Spacemonkey.

Fuck off. You've been an idiot since you arrived.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not appealing to compatibilism while simulaneously rejecting it...

Yes you are. That's exactly what I just showed you. Why don't you take a break and come back when you're ready to try being reasonable?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Fuck off. You've been an idiot since you arrived.

Yes you are. That's exactly what I just showed you. Why don't you take a break and come back when you're ready to try being reasonable?

You are completely unreasonable and now everyone can see it for themselves! I have done nothing to elicit this kind of reaction. This just shows how defensive you are. Someone who is confident in their beliefs doesn't have to act this way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have done nothing to elicit this kind of reaction.

Of course you have. You constantly lie, evade, weasel, and talk shit about other posters without ever backing it up. If you weren't mentally ill, your behaviour here would make you an awful human being.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not the book review I posted earlier, which was by Andrei A. Buckareff and posted by Jonathon MS Pearce (which, if you followed the link has a whole list of citations for "backup"). This is a different take on the debate by a different philosopher, named Keith Lehrer (who has many published works).

You didn't even read any of it, just dismissed it as junk based on a faulty assumption. Nice.

This review by Buckareff of Caruso's book "Free Will and Consciousness" of which the argument against compatibilism is only a small part, are points well taken.

In making his case against compatibilism. Caruso begins by presenting the consequence argument for incompatibilism — which concludes that our decisions are not “up to us” in the sense required for free will if they are the causal consequences of past events and laws of nature that are not up to us (van Inwagen 1983, pp. 16 and 55-105). He then turns to making a case against compatibilism from recent work in experimental philosophy on folk intuitions about free will and from the phenomenology of agency. He argues that the findings from experimental philosophy and the phenomenology of agency count against regarding compatibilism as the ordinary common-sense theory of free will (pp. 89-90).]

<snip>

Regarding the phenomenology of agency and compatibilism, Caruso claims that compatibilists have ignored the phenomenology of agency. He asserts that, “We actually feel as though we have the power to choose in a way that is not causally determined by antecedent events and conditions” (p. 89). Whether or not compatibilists have ignored the phenomenology of agency or, better, treated it as a “metaphysical illusion” (Smart 2006, pp. 172-173).