A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're contradicting yourself aready. If it is an inductive truth known by empirical observation, then it is empirically testable. If it is not empirically testable, then it is being put forward as an analytic truth.

The discovery can be empirically tested on a smaller scale. But ultimately these principles will be applied worldwide.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is an inductive truth known by empirical observation, then you need to define "greater satisfaction" and specify exactly how it can be measured or determined in any given instance of observation. You need to explain how it can be empirically observed to be true in any instance by specifying what empirical observations would have shown it to be false. If you can't give empirically observable truth conditions for the principle, then it is not being judged empirically at all, but is instead being judged a priori as an analytic truth.

If it is an "immutable universal law" known to be true in any given instance without any empirical measurement or determination, but rather by way of an a priori conceptual proof (as you suggest in your previous post), then it cannot be an inductive truth known by empirical observation.

Greater satisfaction can only be determined by an a priori analytic proof, but the two-sided equation (the actual discovery which is based on these premises) can be tested empirically.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can be empirically tested on a smaller scale. But ultimately these principles will be applied worldwide.

Maybe I was hasty on pegging her comprehension to that of six year hold. Perhaps it is lower.

I suspect that just as her responses often resemble a word salad, she interprets our responses as a word salad as well. Her written confusion mirrors her internal confusion.

But by now even a six year old would have picked up on some of these concepts and agree or not could at least parrot them back correctly. But peacegirl just can't pull it off.

Her obsession is so strong that she could persist in this dance of the Emily Litellas until she drops dead.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Greater satisfaction can only be determined by an a priori analytic proof...

Is there any part of this that you're able to discuss without directly contradicting yourself in successive posts?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an inductive truth known by empirical observation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is definitely not an analytic truth.

What point is there in having you answer questions when you clearly have no idea what Lessans was saying?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it does. That is exactly what it means. They were not moving in the direction of greatest satisfaction, but only (at best) in the direction of greatest expected satisfaction.

You can say that if you want. We are basing our decisions on what we believe is the best choice. We often make the wrong choice because we don't have the information that would allow us to make a better choice. Please read this again:

To give you a more familiar example, let us imagine that a woman
has a special business meeting to attend and must quickly choose
between two dresses because she is running late. If both dresses are
undesirable, she is compelled to select the dress that is the least
undesirable of the two, therefore her final choice in this comparison
is the better alternative. Obviously, she has other options; she could
leave both dresses and wear something from home, continue to shop
and call in late, etc. This is a hypothetical situation for the purpose
of showing that once she decides to buy a dress as a solution to her
problem, she is compelled to prefer the one that gives every indication
of being the best possible choice. It is true that her choice will be
influenced by many variables such as price, quality, color, etc., but
regardless of the factors that contribute to her final decision she is
compelled, by her very nature, to pick the dress that is the most
preferable after weighing the pros and cons.

For instance, if cost is an
important consideration she may desire to buy the less expensive dress
because it is within her price range and though she would be happier
with the more expensive dress, she moves in the direction of greater
satisfaction by picking the dress that appeals to her the least. This is
where people get confused. Moving toward greater satisfaction does
not mean that we are always satisfied. It just means that when
comparing the options that are available to us, we are choosing [what
we believe to be] the best alternative under our particular
circumstances. [Note: This does not mean that we have considered
all possible options; only those that have come to mind or have been
brought to our attention at any given moment in time. Nor does it
mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability of choices
depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social factors].

After
coming home and trying on the dress, she may have a change of heart
and wish she had splurged on the more expensive dress. She may
decide to go to the store to make an exchange, or she may decide to
just keep the dress even though she isn’t that happy with her choice.
Each moment offers a new set of options but always in the direction
of greater satisfaction.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is there any part of this that you're able to discuss without directly contradicting yourself in successive posts?

What point is there in having you answer questions when you clearly have no idea what Lessans was saying?

Indeed. It would be like expecting a coherent discussion from a mental patient.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can say that if you want. We are basing our decisions on what we believe is the best choice. We often make the wrong choice because we don't have the information that would allow us to make a better choice. Please read this again:

No.

You need to go back to my post and read that again. Keep reading it until you understand it. I will then answer any questions you may have.

[peacegirl]

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 44-59

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic
revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled
to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at
Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic
bomb among their people, we wanted to.

It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically
undeniable, the expression ‘free will’ which has come to signify this
aspect — that nothing can compel man to do what he doesn’t want
to do — is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what
the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the
unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN
IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES
UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO — but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone was to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise, that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but for
the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”
Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not.
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have mathematical control. Since I can’t
be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will
free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend
pointed out, that man has mathematical control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction.

It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions.

The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is
free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding
this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must
always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when
the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel
are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in
order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary
that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short.

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from
previous experience.

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man 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 which makes the
motion of all life just as harmonious as the solar system — because we
are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.
Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what
they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? Therefore,
when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought
I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do
something against my will does not mean my will is free because my
desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free
choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did
it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually
did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me
no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

“He does understand.”

“Does this mean you are also in complete agreement so I can
proceed?”

“Yes it does.”

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his
nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth is that the words
good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to
oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of
having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is
not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only
because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions
is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life but under
the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the
lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction. Consequently,
when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this
the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced
with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is
compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off he has three
possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to
sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question
under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though
he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he
needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or
being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up
and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he
doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing
than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the other
alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu
may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the
other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is
still considered worse under his particular circumstances.

The law of
self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely nothing
can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.

Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death...but this
doesn’t mean his will was free, it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred as the lesser of
two evils to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL.
He might not like what he did — but he wanted to do it because the
alternative gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely important
that you clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed
as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something
fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no
accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt
that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT
MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.
And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or
principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his
will because over this his nature allows absolute control; and that his
will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of
available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will
reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has
been made.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it does. That is exactly what it means. They were not moving in the direction of greatest satisfaction, but only (at best) in the direction of greatest expected satisfaction.

That's true, but next to the other available choices, this was the most preferable in comparison.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 44-59

Dialogue with Peacegirl is pointless, I've had better, more productive conversations with a concrete block wall.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter. Let's move on.

Lessans wrote a whole lot of stuff about it, what do you mean it doesn't matter? And if they were someone else's words why the hell wasn't it cited, either in a footnote or bibliography? Never have I read a non-fiction book that had no list of citations or references like this.

Are these also Morrisons words not Lessans?

This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No.

You need to go back to my post and read that again. Keep reading it until you understand it. I will then answer any questions you may have.

You expect something from peacegirl that she just can't do. She can read your post as many time as you wish, but her comprehension is scrambled. So her responses are scrambled. To top it off, she isn't capable of learning much new. So if the idea isn't already floating around her brain it is unlikely that you will be able to introduce it. If that wasn't enough, she obsesses about her scrambled perceptions of Lessans books. So even when she talks about what Lessans wrote she doesn't understand it. This is why the best she can do is quote Lessans directly. But she can't quote the relevant passages alone because she doesn't really understand what she is reading.

She is pretty fucked up. She needs help.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans wrote a whole lot of stuff about it, what do you mean it doesn't matter?

She can't address it any better than she already has. There is no point in asking her for more. She just does not have the mental facilities to do any better. If she wasn't so obsessive she would have quit long ago. It does well illustrate one of her illnesses. She must tell the world but she is not capable of telling the world. It must be hell to be peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are soooo wrong and soooo arrogant I don't even know where to start.

I am not wrong. You can't even seriously discuss a single sentence without contradicting yourself several times and weaseling.

Can you, or can you not explain "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction" in a rational way?

As I told you, if this premise is not demonstrated valid (which you have not done), then the whole "discovery" fails because this premise is foundational to his no free will argument.

Is N.A. correct? Are you simply incapable of participating in a rational discussion?

[thedoc]

How about a nice brick wall?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong, all it means is you don't have nimble fingers.

Peacegirl, how long have you been playing the piano, or do you play another musical instrument, and for how long?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, but next to the other available choices, this was the most preferable in comparison.

I don't think you've wrapped your mind all the way around Spacemonkey's point. SM will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but the point appears to be that your formulation of Lessans' premise -- i.e., that people always "mov[e] in the direction of greater satisfaction" -- is demonstrably incorrect. You acknowledge that people occasionally bollix their decision making and as a result end up moving toward lesser satisfaction, no satisfaction or even dissatisfaction. Their intent may well have been to move toward greater satisfaction, but intent is irrelevant to your formulation of the premise, which addresses only actions. The screw-up whose decision took him down the path of dissatisfaction has not, as a simple matter of fact, "moved in the direction of greater satisfaction." Hence, it is not the case that people always move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

A more precise formulation of the premise might go something like, "A person always chooses the option s/he believes will generate the greatest possible satisfaction under the circumstances." That formulation incorporates an essential subjective component that the ham-fisted "people always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" lacks. I believe the reformulated premises is false as well, and thus cannot support a sound argument,1 but it stands up longer in a firefight than the original formulation.

As always, precision is our friend.

1Generally speaking, soundness = validity + true premises.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans wrote a whole lot of stuff about it, what do you mean it doesn't matter? And if they were someone else's words why the hell wasn't it cited, either in a footnote or bibliography? Never have I read a non-fiction book that had no list of citations or references like this.

Are these also Morrisons words not Lessans?

You were attributing certain words to Lessans that clearly came from Morrison. There was a quote and an unquote. Did you not see this?

The belief in free will was compelled to remain in power until the
present time because no one had conclusive proof that determinism
was true, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an
impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnson didn’t want to get into
this matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond
the vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so
difficult to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated? Since the
modern world of science was playing havoc with religion it needed a
boost and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave
seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote
his book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that
God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written
in his book, “Man Stands Alone.” Both tried to answer the question,
“Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is
right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t,’ but Morrison’s arguments were
mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith
again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing
happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil.
It went something like this:

“Chance seems erratic, unexpected and subject to no method of
calculation......The argument is closed; the case is submitted
to you, the jury, and your verdict will be awaited with confidence.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I don't think you've wrapped your mind all the way around Spacemonkey's point. SM will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but the point appears to be that your formulation of Lessans' premise -- i.e., that people always "mov[e] in the direction of greater satisfaction" -- is demonstrably incorrect. You acknowledge that people occasionally bollix their decision making and as a result end up moving toward lesser satisfaction, no satisfaction or even dissatisfaction. Their intent may well have been to move toward greater satisfaction, but intent is irrelevant to your formulation of the premise, which addresses only actions. The screw-up whose decision took him down the path of dissatisfaction has not, as a simple matter of fact, "moved in the direction of greater satisfaction." Hence, it is not the case that people always move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

A more precise formulation of the premise might go something like, "A person always chooses the option s/he believes will generate the greatest possible satisfaction under the circumstances." That formulation incorporates an essential subjective component that the ham-fisted "people always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" lacks. I believe the reformulated premises is false as well, and thus cannot support a sound argument,1 but it stands up longer in a firefight than the original formulation.

As always, precision is our friend.

1Generally speaking, soundness = validity + true premises.

That's why Lessans said "in the direction of". This is very precise. The movement off of the spot you're now on is in this direction, even when you are not choosing between two or more alternatives. Scratching your head because you have an itch is also in this direction, otherwise you would be "satisfied" not to scratch your head, but to remain where you are without moving a hairs breath. But you can't do this for long because life dictates that we move away from a position which has grown uncomfortable to a more satisfying position. This is "life" propelling you forward in the direction of "greater" satisfaction, not absolute "satisfaction". You really need to reread this section which is his proof, if you can only allow yourself to really let it sink in. The following excerpt is an undeniable relation whether you see it or not. You can argue with me until the cows come home but this does not make his observation any less accurate. It also shows that his reasoning was not a tautology. If we can't get past this, or if you can't give him the benefit of the doubt so we can continue, I can't move on. It is difficult being called all kinds of names and being interrogated every step of the way. After thousands of posts, we are no further along than page 5.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate
object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the
present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification,
and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on
thispresent moment of time and space called here and you are given two
alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot
called there or remain where you are without moving a hairs breadth
by committing suicide.

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there.

Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater
satisfaction, otherwise, we would not kill ourselves.

The truth of the
matter is that at any particular moment the motion of man is not free
for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his
nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options
are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for
himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found
that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison
to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. During
every moment of man’s progress he always did what he had to do
because he had no choice.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why Lessans said "in the direction of". This is very precise. The movement off of the spot you're now on is in this direction, even when no choice is involved. Scratching your head because you have an itch is in this direction, otherwise you would be "satisfied" to remain where you are without moving a hair's breath. But you can't do this for long. That is called "life". It is propelling us forward.

In terms of actual greater satisfaction, you've already agreed that this is incorrect. In terms of expected or perceived/judged greater satisfaction, it is also wrong. For in many such motions from here to there we pay no conscious consideration to satisfaction at all. That leaves "satisfaction" as used here ill-defined, and his assertion unsupported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to reread this section which is his proof, if you can only allow yourself to really let it sink in. The following is an undeniable relation whether you see it or not. You can argue with me until the cows come home...

No-one can argue with you at all, because after 15 pages you have yet to actually discuss this material with anyone. All you've done is quote Lessans' words and tell people to read them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but this does not make his observation any less accurate. It also shows that his reasoning was not a tautology.

You just earlier agreed that it was a tautology (when you said his satisfaction principle could only be established by a priori analytic proof). Analytic truths are tautologies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can't get past this, or at least give him the benefit so we can continue, I can't move on. It is difficult being called all kinds of names and being interrogated every step of the way. After thousands of posts, we are no further along than page 5.

Your fault, not ours. You've been told at every forum you've been to that this kind of C&P step-by-step method doesn't work, and will only turn your audience against you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why Lessans said "in the direction of". This is very precise. The movement off of the spot you're now on is in this direction, even when no choice is involved. Scratching your head because you have an itch is in this direction, otherwise you would be "satisfied" to remain where you are without moving a hair's breath. But you can't do this for long. That is called "life". It is propelling us forward.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In terms of actual greater satisfaction, you've already agreed that this is incorrect.

We cannot always achieve "actual" satisfaction, but we are constantly moving [in the direction] of "greater" satisfaction than what our present position offers.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In terms of expected or perceived/judged greater satisfaction, it is also wrong. For in many such motions from here to there we pay no conscious consideration to satisfaction at all. That leaves "satisfaction" as used here ill-defined, and his assertion unsupported.

No it doesn't. We don't consciously think, "Oh is this greater satisfaction, or isn't it?" Animals can't reason this way, yet they also move in this direction. We go about our lives from day to day, minute to minute, second to second, always and ever moving away from a "present" position to another "present" position in an effort to rid ourselves of some discomfort or dissatisfaction that we're beginning to feel. This doesn't mean our movement to "there" is always going to be completely satisfying, but it is an effort to find greater satisfaction than what we are now feeling, otherwise, we not move to the next spot called "there". If I'm satisfied with what I'm doing, I don't desire to do something else. It's only when I have a feeling of discomfort or dissatisfaction with my present position that I make an effort to get off of that spot that I'm now on, which means that I am moving away from a feeling of dissatisfaction to a feeling of greater satisfaction. He gave an example of getting in the bathtub. I am comfortable sitting in the warm water until gradually that feeling of comfort grows to discomfort. It is at that time that I move off of the spot called "here" (sitting in the bathtub) to a more comfortable position (getting out of the bathtub), which is moving toward "greater" satisfaction than what the present position offers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to reread this section which is his proof, if you can only allow yourself to really let it sink in. The following is an undeniable relation whether you see it or not. You can argue with me until the cows come home...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one can argue with you at all, because after 15 pages you have yet to actually discuss this material with anyone. All you've done is quote Lessans' words and tell people to read them.

I don't know what you've read or what you haven't. If you're not going to work with me, then it is obvious that you are more interested in being right than in learning anything that can lead to the truth. So be it. I don't have a personal stake in proving anything to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but this does not make his observation any less accurate. It also shows that his reasoning was not a tautology.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just earlier agreed that it was a tautology (when you said his satisfaction principle could only be established by a priori analytic proof). Analytic truths are tautologies.

Then you are giving me no choice but to pick one, and they both don't fit. You can't test "greater satisfaction" empirically. And this is not a tautology. So now what? Does this make his observations wrong? Of course they don't. So call it an axiom. Is that better, or is that wrong too?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can't get past this, or at least give him the benefit so we can continue, I can't move on. It is difficult being called all kinds of names and being interrogated every step of the way. After thousands of posts, we are no further along than page 5.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your fault, not ours. You've been told at every forum you've been to that this kind of C&P step-by-step method doesn't work, and will only turn your audience against you.

Are you kidding? I never went through this book step by step with anyone, let alone these philosophers. They would not let me. That's why it never worked. And it still might not if you can't get over this block in your head that Lessans is wrong before we even get to the actual discovery.

[LadyShea]

A quote and unquote is not terribly helpful given how many instances if dialog Lessans uses throughout the book and the terrible formatting.

Also, anytime you are referencing a published work or speech you need to properly cite it. That's scholarship 101 stuff right there, I knew about it in middle school.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A quote and unquote is not terribly helpful given how many instances if dialog Lessans uses throughout the book and the terrible formatting.

I spent an entire week going through 600 pages to make sure the quotations were accurate. I think I did a darn good job. The formatting is just fine. You just want to pick at me because you can't accept responsibility that you didn't take the time to carefully read who was speaking.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, anytime you are referencing a published work or speech you need to properly cite it. That's scholarship 101 stuff right there, I knew about it in middle school.

You're so much better than me LadyShea. You're right, I should learned this in middle school. Do you feel better now?

[LadyShea]

Anyway, Lessans agreed with Morrison, as stated here:

This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe.

so the point stands that he believed that the Universe was designed by an intelligent being of some sort, and that his discoveries were also part of this design.

If he found that Creationist Apologetic 101 silliness convincing, then he did not understand probabilities at all, nor did he have an accurate concept of the size of the Universe. So, why should I think such a person is the holder of universal truths?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was not even his writing LadyShea. It was Morrison's writing. Lessans was just responding to what he wrote regarding chance.

Yes, and he quoted it because he agreed with it. And it's wrong. Comically, laughably wrong. Do you understand why?

Suppose in a billion trials, we expect x to happen just once. That means the odds agains x happening are astronomical. How many times should we expect x to happen in an infinite number of trials? Can you answer this simple math problem?