A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can there be objections Stephen, when there isn't anything to object to because we have yet to get past page 5?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Fine, I surrender. Two hundred ninety-four pages in, and there are no objections.

No, it's just been gobbledygook since the discussion on the senses ended.

Originally Posted by Kael

Truly, this is the most bizarrely entertaining pseudo-science/logic I have ever seen pushed on the internet, way better than Sov/Soph in my humble opinion, and the person doing the pushing is more than half the show.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Slobberin's devotion to his craft was remarkable, but it pales to nothing compared to what we've seen here. All this thread lacks is some fuzzy craniotomy porn.

With your twisted thinking, you could make Gandhi and Mother Teresa look like Bonnie and Clyde.

Originally Posted by Kael

I can only hope against hope that her personal hero, Deepak Chopra, or some similarly famous bullshit peddler, will hear of this work and take up its soiled and shabby banner, pushing it a bit out of the shadows of well-deserved obscurity and into spots on morning "news" and daytime talk shows.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That may be a job for Phil "Ain't Got No License, But I Sure Got A Whole Lotta Cash" McGraw. That would be a pairing for the ages.

You forgot what is most important: He reads before he speaks. You speak before you read. Bigggggg difference!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

The question is entirely irrelevant anyway, coming as it is from a proponent of hard determinism. It's just fishing for particular answer, one to which a response has already been crafted. That is why no other answer will do.

To ask a person if we have any other choice other than to live out our life the best way we can, or to leave this life, is definitely fishing for a particular answer; the right answer.

[LadyShea]

Mother Teresa was cruel and a liar.

[Kael]

Can't say I'm a big fan of Gandhi either, being as he was a proponent of the caste system and holding what I can only describe as extremely distorted views on sexuality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that he got his knowledge from observation. He didn't use formal logic, which would make it appear that it's circular.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It doesn't matter where he got his knowledge, whether it came from astute observation, divine revelation or was pulled directly out of his ass. Nor does it matter that he did not use formal logic. He makes claims that are, by their very nature, subject to critical inquiry and logical analysis. If they do not hold up under such analysis then they need not be taken seriously. Personal opinions that do not relate to matters of fact are the only species of claim that are immune to such critical inquiry and logical analysis.

I have no problem with this work getting critical analysis. All I'm getting is the critical part; where's the analysis?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If will is not free, then it follows that we cannot blame. How can we blame anyone for doing what is beyond their control?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If my will is not free and I am compelled to move in the direction of greatest satisfaction and I find the greatest satisfaction in blaming someone for something they did, even though their will also was not free, then it follows that not only can I blame them for their action I must necessarily blame them.

That's true. The only way you won't desire to blame is the realization that not blaming will get us the very thing that blame and punishment could never achieve.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I dislike pasting and cutting...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How can you dislike doing something that it is impossible for you to have ever done? Can you paste before cutting? I think not. This is additional evidence for your lack of understanding of how causality works.

This is one for the books. Not the pasting and cutting part; but everything else you just wrote.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to write "I dislike cutting and pasting."

Just because I wasn't paying attention as to the order of the words does not mean that I don't know how causality works. This could be a movie better than dumb and dumber.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Assuming that this is what you meant to write I can only say that it flies directly in the face of the evidence provided by your own posting history. Considering how often you resort to it, cutting and pasting, whether from Lessans' book or from some random website, appears to be your preferred method of argument.

I have hardly cut and pasted on this thread. Everything was explained in my own words until I realized I was wasting my breath.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Free will does not do or believe anything. Free will is a concept, not an agency.

But free will doesn't go floating around without an agency to embody that will.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

People do and believe things and people often act quite irrationally. Throughout the ages some people (whether they believed in free will or not) have blamed, and punished, other people for mere accidents of birth. People have been blamed and punished by other people for being born; in the wrong caste, with the wrong color of skin, in conditions of poverty, etc. It is an historical fact that people have often been blamed and punished for conditions that were entirely beyond their control.

He was just making a distinction between things that people have no control over, such as urinating, and things that people are believed to have control over, such as making a choice. I'm sure in the past there was a lot of superstition, so it's no surprise that people were blamed for almost anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other choice do we have other then living or dying? Do we have another choice? Seriously, all I want is for someone to answer this question, or I'm not going to be able to move forward.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other choice do we have other than living our life the best we can, or opting out of this life? This is not a trick question.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is also not the same question. However, I am going to be generous and give you a twofor.

"What other choice do we have other then living or dying?"

We can choose to not choose either. That is, we can choose to not do anything that materially increases the chance of either outcome. For example: One can choose to eat because one is hungry and/or the food is appetizing. Or, one can choose to not eat because one is not hungry and/or the food is not appetizing. One can make either of those choices at different times without ever taking into consideration whether or not the choice being made increases or decreases the prospects for either outcome.

But by default this person is choosing life Angakuk, regardless of how conscious he is of his choices.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"What other choice do we have other than living our life the best we can, or opting out of this life? "

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We can, and often do, make choices that result in our living lives that are considerably less than the "best" that we could manage. We may do this out of a sense of guilt or low self-esteem that leads us to believe that we do not deserve to live our lives the best we can. Self-destructive behavior is quite common and it reflects neither a desire to live life the best we can or to opt out of life altogether.

That's why I rephrased it earlier. The only two choices that are available to us is to either live out our life [forget the "the best we can" for now], or commit suicide. If there are any other choices that I'm not aware of, please speak up or forever hold your peace.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There, peacegirl, someone has answered your question(s). Now you can move on. You can thank me later.

I thank you and LadyShea for attempting to answer my question so that I can move forward.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no problem with this work getting critical analysis. All I'm getting is the critical part; where's the analysis?

"Analysis" is not synonymous with "agreement" which is all you have ever sought here.

I have hardly cut and pasted on this thread. Everything was explained in my own words until I realized I was wasting my breath.

The thread stands as strong evidence against that claim, unless by "hardly" you mean "in most of my posts."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mother Teresa was cruel and a liar.

So now we're going to go off on another tangent about Mother Teresa being cruel and a liar? I'm sure this could be a completely new thread. I can see myself in a rocking chair by the time we finish this book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no problem with this work getting critical analysis. All I'm getting is the critical part; where's the analysis?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

"Analysis" is not synonymous with "agreement" which is all you have ever sought here.

There has been NO, I will repeat, NOOO analysis Angakuk, which is why there's no agreement.

I have hardly cut and pasted on this thread. Everything was explained in my own words until I realized I was wasting my breath.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The thread stands as strong evidence against that claim, unless by "hardly" you mean "in most of my posts."

In the beginning I posted a little, but then I stopped. Everything has been in my own words, but I can't do it that way anymore.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the only answer is that can't do both. We either live out our lives, or we die.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there are any other choices that I'm not aware of, please speak up or forever hold your peace.

There is no only answer. I gave a reasoned answer that was different from the one you were looking for. That it was different from the one you were looking for does not mean it was wrong. As to the correct answer, so called, being that we can't do both, it may well be true that we can't do both but this does not preclude our being able to avoid choosing to do either.

I disagree that "we either live out our lives, or we die". I think it would be more correct to say that we live out our lives until we die. In any case, your question was, ""[w]hat other choice do we have other then living or dying?" That is to say, your question was about the choices that are available to us. Neither your assertion, "we either live out our lives, or we die", or my assertion, "we live out our lives until we die", speaks to the question of choice.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has been NO, I will repeat, NOOO analysis Angakuk, which is why there's no agreement.

In the beginning I posted a little, but then I stopped. Everything has been in my own words, but I can't do it that way anymore.

Both of those quotes were from Kael, not me. However, I am not offended at the false attribution as I am in complete agreement with Kael on both points. While it is a fact that this thread is rich in insult, vitriol and mockery it is also a fact that it is replete with careful analysis of both Lessans' arguments and your own. Unfortunately, for you and Lessans, that analysis is uniformly negative, and rightly so. Your problem (one of them anyway) is an inability to distinguish between disagreement and insult. The reason there has been no agreement is quite simple. Neither you or Lessans have succeeded in constructing a convincing argument.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now we're going to go off on another tangent about Mother Teresa being cruel and a liar?

Only if you choose to do so. Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction, and all that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now we're going to go off on another tangent about Mother Teresa being cruel and a liar? I'm sure this could be a completely new thread. I can see myself in a rocking chair by the time we finish this book.

You've mentioned her name 3 times in this thread, it must be another of your folksy little ditties like proof of the pudding, so anyway I thought I would let you know that she is not considered the epitome of loving kindness by most secular people.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've mentioned her name 3 times in this thread, it must be another of your folksy little ditties like proof of the pudding, so anyway I thought I would let you know that she is not considered the epitome of loving kindness by most secular people.

It has been said that there are 2 sides to every story, I believe that is an understatement, there are many sides and intrepretations. Some people think the Pope is a wonderful person, some people are blind to reality, is there anyone like that here?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

HA!

Okay: I'll go first...why did Peacegirl cross the road?

Oh, Henry, BTW welcome to the forum, there are a few interesting threads, but mostly dross, like any other forum, just a bit more active than some other sites. FYI, there are a lot of rabidly fundamentalist atheists here so don't admit that you know me.

[LadyShea]

Nah, the rabidly fundamentalist atheists hang out at like Pharyngula and Talk Rat and shit, we are the least rabid.

[Doctor X]

"Fundamentalist Atheist" remains a contradiction in terms.

"Poisoning the Well" for the FAIL.

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

I'm not continuing to go round and round the merry go round with no progress. I will only take one sentence at a time from chapter one and try to help you understand it. If that is impossible, then we're done. I feel sorry, but I can't do more.

That is a sad copout. I wish you would put your money where your mouth is and actually examine what is in the book to see if it is true. Every time you are unable to deal with criticism and still uphold that it is 100% correct, you just back off, re-set and try again. This is not the behavior of someone interested in truth.

Would it not be easier to say that you believe in this religiously, and that it therefor should not be examined as a universal and necessary truth but as something people can choose to believe in stead?

One thing I will add: Before you choose something, the options are open because they are still being contemplated, but once the choice is made it could not have been otherwise. It was as necessary a choice as it was a necessity that day turns into night.

Indeed - that what is chosen, is that what is chosen. I am glad you finally see this. This is a tautology, and carries no information beyond "things are chosen". It does not give us any information about whether or not the person could have chosen something else, IE if that person was compelled to choose it.

When Lessans says that we are "Compelled to follow the path of maximum satisfaction", this compulsion is derived from the compulsion that results in us having to choose what we end up choosing. As such it is based on a false assumption. We have not shown that there IS such a compulsion.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nah, the rabidly fundamentalist atheists hang out at like Pharyngula and Talk Rat and shit, we are the least rabid.

Most people here are pretty laid back on the topic, including our resident preacher, and there are plenty of people here who have not made their views public, most likely because it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter.

That doesn't mean that sloppy theology or philosophy, or invoking god(s) as a fall-back in a discussion, won't be met with sharp criticism and/or mockery. I don't recall thedoc being mocked or criticized for theism, just for posting stupid shit.

Confession: I usually skim his posts thinking, "at least he's not Iacchus."

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has been NO, I will repeat, NOOO analysis Angakuk, which is why there's no agreement.

Thank you once again for so succinctly summing up your oft-denied yet continually demonstrated attitude regarding criticism of your dad's work. In your mind there can't have been any sort of analysis if there is no agreement, because analysis cannot help but lead to agreement. There is no flaw, nor possibility of flaw, in your mind, and as always lack of agreement equates to lack of understanding. You are aware of this bias, of course, and will acknowledge it in your own way by flatly denying it while continuing to ignore, twist, and dodge every objection and criticism brought to bear, while copiously copy-pasting (even while you pretend you try not to) sections of the book as though the criticisms arise from a lack of familiarity with the text rather than an abundance of it.

And the lulz will continue to flow.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Kael

Thank you once again for so succinctly summing up your oft-denied yet continually demonstrated attitude regarding criticism of your dad's work. In your mind there can't have been any sort of analysis if there is no agreement, because analysis cannot help but lead to agreement. There is no flaw, nor possibility of flaw, in your mind, and as always lack of agreement equates to lack of understanding. You are aware of this bias, of course, and will acknowledge it in your own way by flatly denying it while continuing to ignore, twist, and dodge every objection and criticism brought to bear, while copiously copy-pasting (even while you pretend you try not to) sections of the book as though the criticisms arise from a lack of familiarity with the text rather than an abundance of it.

And the lulz will continue to flow.

To support what Kael has just said:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not pleading persecution. The fact that you say the rest of this book is no good, is telltale sign that you have not understood these principles whatsoever. I have hope that you will eventually see the proof, but whether you do or not does not discredit that which contains within itself proof of its veracity.

You even say outright that to you, disagreement equals lack of understanding. You do not entertain the notion that the disagreement may be justified.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You do not entertain the notion that the disagreement may be justified.

Which is why she refuses to read TLR's essay or anyone else's detailed evidence.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the only answer is that can't do both. We either live out our lives, or we die.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there are any other choices that I'm not aware of, please speak up or forever hold your peace.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There is no only answer. I gave a reasoned answer that was different from the one you were looking for. That it was different from the one you were looking for does not mean it was wrong. As to the correct answer, so called, being that we can't do both, it may well be true that we can't do both but this does not preclude our being able to avoid choosing to do either.

There is only one answer to certain questions Angakuk. Two is the only answer to one plus one. If we're alive, we're not dead. I needed one answer so we can continue on.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I disagree that "we either live out our lives, or we die". I think it would be more correct to say that we live out our lives until we die.

That's a completely different concept. I was trying to bring out the point that we have only two options. We live out our lives the best we can (even if we don't appear to be making the best choices), or we have the option of leaving. What other choice do we have?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In any case, your question was, ""[w]hat other choice do we have other then living or dying?" That is to say, your question was about the choices that are available to us. Neither your assertion, "we either live out our lives, or we die", or my assertion, "we live out our lives until we die", speaks to the question of choice.

Not yet. You're reading into this one question, which is why you're making an issue over it. I am not trying to trap you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has been NO, I will repeat, NOOO analysis Angakuk, which is why there's no agreement.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thank you once again for so succinctly summing up your oft-denied yet continually demonstrated attitude regarding criticism of your dad's work. In your mind there can't have been any sort of analysis if there is no agreement, because analysis cannot help but lead to agreement. There is no flaw, nor possibility of flaw, in your mind, and as always lack of agreement equates to lack of understanding. You are aware of this bias, of course, and will acknowledge it in your own way by flatly denying it while continuing to ignore, twist, and dodge every objection and criticism brought to bear, while copiously copy-pasting (even while you pretend you try not to) sections of the book as though the criticisms arise from a lack of familiarity with the text rather than an abundance of it.

There is no bias; just facts.

1. There were objections that his definition of determinism is a tautology, which is flat out wrong.

2. There were objections to his description of how conscience works, which is also flat out wrong.

3. There were objections that blame is the main condition for justification, which is flat out wrong.

All of these objections show me a lack of understanding.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And the lulz will continue to flow.

To support what Kael has just said:

You even say outright that to you, disagreement equals lack of understanding. You do not entertain the notion that the disagreement may be justified.

If this wasn't a genuine discovery, I wouldn't be this confident. But I can see where your lack of a deeper understanding leads you to disagree. My hope for you is that you hold on and don't prematurely reject these principles.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've mentioned her name 3 times in this thread, it must be another of your folksy little ditties like proof of the pudding, so anyway I thought I would let you know that she is not considered the epitome of loving kindness by most secular people.

I used her name because she is considered the epitome of loving kindness. Most people have a shadow side, even those considered saints, so that wouldn't surprise me. But using her name as the embodiment of all goodness worked for that particular post.

[peacegirl]

I'm not continuing to go round and round the merry go round with no progress. I will only take one sentence at a time from chapter one and try to help you understand it. If that is impossible, then we're done. I feel sorry, but I can't do more.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a sad copout. I wish you would put your money where your mouth is and actually examine what is in the book to see if it is true. Every time you are unable to deal with criticism and still uphold that it is 100% correct, you just back off, re-set and try again. This is not the behavior of someone interested in truth.

And you are interested in truth, when you incorrectly state that blame is the main condition for justification?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Would it not be easier to say that you believe in this religiously, and that it therefor should not be examined as a universal and necessary truth but as something people can choose to believe in stead?

Absolutely not. This is a universal truth Vivisectus, which is why this new world is inevitable, unless we self-destruct first.

One thing I will add: Before you choose something, the options are open because they are still being contemplated, but once the choice is made it could not have been otherwise. It was as necessary a choice as it was a necessity that day turns into night.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed - that what is chosen, is that what is chosen. I am glad you finally see this. This is a tautology, and carries no information beyond "things are chosen". It does not give us any information about whether or not the person could have chosen something else, IE if that person was compelled to choose it.

I am trying to show you what his observations were that led him to his accurate definition of determinism. If you still don't see this relation, that doesn't make him wrong. It would be like you not seeing the relation that 2 + 2 = 4, and telling me I'm wrong for not agreeing with you that 2 + 2 = 5.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When Lessans says that we are "Compelled to follow the path of maximum satisfaction", this compulsion is derived from the compulsion that results in us having to choose what we end up choosing. As such it is based on a false assumption. We have not shown that there IS such a compulsion.

I believe you are saying this because you did not read as carefully as you think you did. If you still don't agree after I go over these 13 pages (pp. 46-59), that does not mean he is wrong, but at least I will know I gave it my best shot.