A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

The proof is found within the proof. That is tautological. That's like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

How about you explain what you did mean then.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't relating it to this topic. I was just saying that the validity of 2 + 2 = 4 is found within the equation itself, which has nothing to do with someone's rank, title, or occupation.

Yes, 4=4 is true, it is also a tautology, but it can be verified by other means, like it can be demonstrated with 4 of anything. This says nothing about Lessans ideas. See below, for an explanation

Originally Posted by Good Math, Bad Math

Source

The only time that a tautological statement of a theory is a problem is when it's the only statement of the theory - that is, when the theory itself consists of nothing more than a tautological structure. A theory that consisted of nothing more than the fundamental statement "A=A" isn't a theory - it's gibberish dressed up to look like a theory.

So, how about you give us Lessans' theory without requiring acceptance of Lessans' theory...make it not tautological.

[Henry Quirk]

I recall having 'conversations' with Peace elsewhere.

Since I’m extraordinarily resistance to dancing the same dance over and over, I think the best way to get my two cents in is simply to repost the highlights of those conversations.

These highlights may (or may not) be relevant to 'this' thread, and interesting/entertaining (or not) to any one willing to read them.

-----

PG: You are missing the whole point of this thread when you say 'eye for an eye'. This knowledge prevents the need to strike back


No.

I get your point...I just don't agree with it.

Example: I may not have a perfect recollection of the event, but the minutia of my being robbed and beaten is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Joe kicked my ass and stole my hat.

I don't need a complete, or completely accurate, recalling of the event to know Joe made the choice to view me as a resource...there is a consequence to that choice.

When and if I get my hands on Joe, I will hurt him...I will have his eye for my eye.

Justice is for chumps...revenge is golden.

#

Just scanned the first two chapters.

In my view: the premise is flawed, that is, the choice is between 'free will' and 'determinism'.

'Free will' is a fiction, and, 'determinism' was never synonymous with 'pre-determined'.

There is a third option, that being 'agency' or the idea that the human individual, while mired in countless casual chains, can and does initiate new causal chains all the damned time.

No one has a capacity for unlimited choice. Our choices are bound up in, and by, our flesh and the world.

Example: I step into a Baskin Robbins. I view the 31 flavors. My inclination/preference is for chocolate or vanilla. The other flavors leave me cold.

I can...

Choose chocolate.

Choose vanilla.

Choose to leave the store without getting ice cream.

Choose to be an ornery fuck and get Pistachio (which I hate).

Any or all of the choices are expression of my will (that is: of 'me'), none of these choices is made in a vacuum (that is: all these choices occur within the context of my inclinations expressed at a certain time in a certain place, with certain elements present).

I have limited choices within a context I only partially control, and still 'I' have four (or, maybe, more) possibles to choose from.

MY choice: MY responsibility.

Joe the thief: makes his choice (to rob, to rob 'me', to beat 'me', and so on).

Joe's selection of a possible within the context he only partially controls is HIS choice: HIS responsibility.

Again; 'free will' is hooey; my autonomy/agency/self-deliberation/-possession is as real as the flesh that comprises me because my autonomy/agency/self-deliberation/-possession IS me.

So, yeah: gimme honest war and violence over semantic, peace-making, bullshit any day.

*shrug*

#

PG: It is not flawed; it is your understanding of determinism that is not congruous with the author's definition.


That’s fine: I prefer ‘my’ definition.

#

PG: You are getting close. He does have the ability to choose between options (although his choices are influenced by previous determinants), but what makes his will not free is that he is compelled to choose the alternative that gives him greater satisfaction. He cannot move in the direction of what gives less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available.


Where your position breaks down: only 'I' determine what gives me the greater satisfaction. There is no universal standard or baseline to apply against me...what I find more satisfying, you may find utterly abhorrent. Your choice is to accept that I’m 'not' you, that I think differently than you, move in the world differently than you, or, attempt to restrain (and re-train) me.

It’s a simple as that.

#

PG: why settle for honest war and violence when you can have true peace-making without giving up your autonomy, agency, or the ability to deliberate?


In my view: 'peace' is as much a fiction as 'free will'.

#

PG: But you're wrong.


Prove it

#


PG: let's end the conversation


The conversation hasn't even begun.

All you've really done is say "read the book, and THEN you'll understand."

That's not a conversation (on your part): that's an advertisement.

500 pages is a commitment and you've offered nothing so far to interest me in making that commitment.

Were I you: I would first offer a summary of the book's major themes and points (with page references).

Do that and maybe a conversation can happen.

Thing is, Peacegirl: if you want folks to take the book seriously, you're gonna have to exhibit just a tad more stamina. If you want folks to seriously engage: you'll have to offer a bit more than, "read the book, and THEN you'll understand."

Again: post a full-bodied abstract or summary and then, maybe, a conversation can happen.

Till then: the book, to me, is poor attempt to marry an interpretation of 'agency' to some kind of half-assed plan for world peace.

And: speaking only for me: it's a poor, artificial, marriage and a pedestrian attempt at selling snake oil.

I'm not trying to be adversarial: just stating a position

#

PG: Your interpretation is wrong, period. I don't have any desire to cross-reference the book or to jump hoops to convince you to read anything. This has turned into something that was never intended. Calling this a half-assed plan for world peace is enough to know your position. Sorry you missed out on a very important discovery.


*shrug*

#

PG: can you imagine a philosophy teacher critiquing a well-known philosopher without carefully reading his work?


Probably not, but then Lessans and Rafael aren't well-known philosophers, are they?

Two unknown names attached to (my assessment admittedly based on scanning, not reading, two chapters) a dodgy 500 pages that I'm expected to read first, then discuss later.

A reminder: YOU came to the forum looking for an audience...to capture said audience you gotta do more than say "read about this very important discovery!"

Where's my incentive to devote myself to wading through 500 pages of *badly written material?

You offered no incentive, dangled no bait.

And since MY life seems to be moving along nicely without the 'wisdom' of Lessans and Rafael to buoy me: I can only assume that what they (you) have to offer is not worth the effort.

Hell: it doesn't even seem to be worth YOUR effort since you promote, but will not summarize, the work.

*shrug*

As you will and like, Peacegirl...



*the book needs substantial editing: for length and style...just sayin'...*shrug*

#

PG: you can't bring a book to a discussion group"

Sure you can: but if you want any one to 'read' then 'discuss', you MUST make that investment of time and effort worthwhile.

You haven’t done that, not 'here' anyway.

-----

*shrug*

[Vivisectus]

This definition was taken from a religious page, but I believe it has validity even though it by no means is proof.

First, there is the human conscience, that certain “something” within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times.

Nonsense. Conscience is subjective - some acts are wrong to one group of people (It seems eating a person who is considered a witch is not considered very bad by some people, for instance) and not by another.

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

More nonsense. Science requires a presupposition: "Stuff probably exists, and we assume we can come to conclusions about the properties of stuff by observing it carefully."

Not an absolute truth.

[

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But his "observation" is a tautology! You claim it is not, but you fail to show me why I am wrong. "That which leads to the maximum satisfaction" equals "That what ends up being chosen". It is not defined in any other terms than that what, after the fact, was the thing that was selected.

But that is true. And it doesn't make it a tautology.

That what ends up being chosen is that what ends up being chosen is not a tautology?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We have not shown that what was chosen, HAD to be chosen. Only that is WAS chosen. So the compulsive element is "We are compelled to chose that which leads to our maximum satisfaction" is not shown to be there, and the observation is a faulty one.

But the fact that it WAS chosen means it HAD to be chosen, if you understand that we have no other choice BUT to choose the maximum satisfaction at any given moment in time.

You assume that, but it does not follow from the proposition. It is not something that logically follows, so we do not know if there was anything compelling a person to choose that way.

If a roulette ball drops into number 5, was it necessary for it to drop into that pocket? Or could something else have happened?

We can't predict what that choice will be that leads to our maxiumum satisfaction, because that's based on many many factors. There is no way in the world we can know ahead of time what those factors are, not even for the individual himself.

Indeed - we cannot. And yet you make all kinds of claims about how, if you just set things up a certain way, a person is compelled to choose a certain way and that you know what both the choices are going to be, and what the environment should look like.

You are getting confused over the old definition which is all about prediction, which IS a modal fallacy. We can't know that it was necessary that JFK would be killed, as if to say before it happened that there was no other alternative than for this to take place. That is wrong.

And yet you claim just that when you claim to know how all people will react to a certain environment.

It is not a false assumption. You're making it sound circular, but the truth is we are under a compulsion that results in us having to choose what gives us greater satisfaction, and what that is we don't know until the options are weighed.

One of actions A, B and C is the action that leads to the maximum satisfaction. The only definition for A is "That which ends up being chosen". So if we ask the question "What is going to end up being chosen" then the answer is "What will end up being chosen is what will end up being chosen"

It IS circular.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, I am saying this because there is a fallacy at work here. "That which is chosen" is something we can ascertain only after the fact. However, in your fathers reasoning it is used before the fact, in predicting what a person will do - IE "Follow the path of maximum satisfaction".

How can you say that? As I just mentioned, it is impossible to predict what someone will choose in the direction of greater satisfaction. That's what the conventional definition says and it's a modal fallacy. Here's what Lessans says:

And yet it IS predicted that this compulsion which we have not proven will actually make it impossible for me to hurt your father once the new environment is realized.

But that doesn't make it wrong. This is the danger of faulty logic Vivisectus, not Lessans' observations. If you understand why we must choose that which gives us greater satisfaction at each moment in time, you will see that this is not a tautology at all.

I am afraid it rather does. The danger of faulty logic is that you lose track of what your own proposition actually is, and reach conclusions that are not warranted at all. Lessans observations, as you call them, are a textbook fallacy - you take 2 definitions, "That which we choose" and "That which leads to our greatest satisfaction" and you do not notice that they are used in a way that makes them synonymous.

But the relation that is implied - that before the choice was made the outcome was just as determined as after - is not real. before the choice is made there is no pre-determined "that which we are compelled to choose" - the compulsion does not exist.

[Henry Quirk]

To get to the other side, of course.

And: once there, to expect any one she finds to absolve of her any responsibility for having crossed the road since, of course, having made the choice to cross the road it’s impossible for her to have made any other choice, therefore no one with a good, level-10, conscience can 'blame' her for crossing the road since, of course, she's blameless, guiltless, and wholly 'not' responsible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The fact that you included the phrase "forever hold your peace", indicates that you were telling people to speak now or not at all.

No, I said please speak up, not speak now, or forever hold your peace, which was meant to be tongue and cheek.

[Henry Quirk]

"500 pages"

Yep.

If I tell you 'fire is hot', pretty much that's all I have to say as I point to the flames and dare you to stick your hand in.

My statement (three words) plus your practical, personal, experience of fire (your blistered hand) is sufficient 'proof' that I know what the hell I'm talking about.


On the other hand: if I tell you 'fire is cold' well, I just might have to write myself a nice, fat, book (full of useless and diverting words) to get you to see things 'my way'.


Now: I'm not saying the two chapters I scanned are 'wrong', only misleading...'agency' is not a new notion and this fellow or lady (the writer) isn't revealing anything my 4 & 1/2 year old nephew doesn't already know intuitively.

The whole 'peace' thing, however, is just hooey appended to 'agency'.

'Peace' is the snake oil, the product being hyped.

The only real question: when will the requests for 'donations' begin?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you explain how this is NOT tautological?

It's not tautological because it doesn't come from logic. It comes from astute observation, which I have not gone over yet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How is it tautological to prove something true because the answer is found within the proof itself, not the indiviual offering the proof?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The proof is found within the proof. That is tautological. That's like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

The equation 3 is to 6 is what 4 is to 8, is true, because the knowledge contains within itself proof of its veracity. The Bible doesn't contain proof of its veracity.

Originally Posted by Lessans

knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does he mean the knowledge in book is true because the book says it's true? The knowledge in the book is true because the knowledge in the book is true?

Of course not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that's not what I meant LadyShea. At least I hope so.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How about you explain what you did mean then.

I hope I explained it well enough in the sentence above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't relating it to this topic. I was just saying that the validity of 2 + 2 = 4 is found within the equation itself, which has nothing to do with someone's rank, title, or occupation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, 4=4 is true, it is also a tautology, but it can be verified by other means, like it can be demonstrated with 4 of anything. This says nothing about Lessans ideas. See below, for an explanation.

Lessans does not just say any choice we make is the choice that we had to make. He shows why this is true.

Originally Posted by Good Math, Bad Math

Source

The only time that a tautological statement of a theory is a problem is when it's the only statement of the theory - that is, when the theory itself consists of nothing more than a tautological structure. A theory that consisted of nothing more than the fundamental statement "A=A" isn't a theory - it's gibberish dressed up to look like a theory.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, how about you give us Lessans' theory without requiring acceptance of Lessans' theory...make it not tautological.

He isn't just stating a premise with nothing to back it up. He demonstrates that our choices are not equal, and therefore not free. Please read this again so we can move on to the next part:

But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will?

But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. 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.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed.

But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

[LadyShea]

All Lessans does is define "That which was chosen" as "That which led to greater satisfaction". He doesn't offer any way to verify this by any means.

Source

"(A⇒B)∧A⇒B" - A implies B and A implies B. This is just a basic statement of one of the fundamental inference rules of logic. Once again, it doesn't matter what A means, or what B means; and it doesn't matter whether A or B are true or false. No matter what, by virtue of the structure of the statement, it must be true.

The structure is tautological. Which isn't problematic if it can be verified through logic or empirical evidence.

[peacegirl]

I ADDED A FEW RESPONSES WHERE THERE ARE FOUR STARS.

[quote=Henry Quirk;958656]I recall having 'conversations' with Peace elsewhere.

Since I’m extraordinarily resistance to dancing the same dance over and over, I think the best way to get my two cents in is simply to repost the highlights of those conversations.

These highlights may (or may not) be relevant to 'this' thread, and interesting/entertaining (or not) to any one willing to read them.

-----

PG: You are missing the whole point of this thread when you say 'eye for an eye'. This knowledge prevents the need to strike back


No.

I get your point...I just don't agree with it.

Example: I may not have a perfect recollection of the event, but the minutia of my being robbed and beaten is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Joe kicked my ass and stole my hat.

I don't need a complete, or completely accurate, recalling of the event to know Joe made the choice to view me as a resource...there is a consequence to that choice.

When and if I get my hands on Joe, I will hurt him...I will have his eye for my eye.

Justice is for chumps...revenge is golden.

#

Just scanned the first two chapters.

In my view: the premise is flawed, that is, the choice is between 'free will' and 'determinism'.

'Free will' is a fiction, and, 'determinism' was never synonymous with 'pre-determined'.

There is a third option, that being 'agency' or the idea that the human individual, while mired in countless casual chains, can and does initiate new causal chains all the damned time.

No one has a capacity for unlimited choice. Our choices are bound up in, and by, our flesh and the world.

Example: I step into a Baskin Robbins. I view the 31 flavors. My inclination/preference is for chocolate or vanilla. The other flavors leave me cold.

I can...

Choose chocolate.

Choose vanilla.

Choose to leave the store without getting ice cream.

Choose to be an ornery fuck and get Pistachio (which I hate).

Any or all of the choices are expression of my will (that is: of 'me'), none of these choices is made in a vacuum (that is: all these choices occur within the context of my inclinations expressed at a certain time in a certain place, with certain elements present).

I have limited choices within a context I only partially control, and still 'I' have four (or, maybe, more) possibles to choose from.

MY choice: MY responsibility.

**** PG: Yes, it is your responsibility. No one is refuting that.

Joe the thief: makes his choice (to rob, to rob 'me', to beat 'me', and so on).

Joe's selection of a possible within the context he only partially controls is HIS choice: HIS responsibility.

Again; 'free will' is hooey; my autonomy/agency/self-deliberation/-possession is as real as the flesh that comprises me because my autonomy/agency/self-deliberation/-possession IS me.

So, yeah: gimme honest war and violence over semantic, peace-making, bullshit any day.

*shrug*

**** PG: No one is saying you don't have autonomy, agency, self-deliberation, or possession Henry. You would understand that there is no conflict if you didn't scan the first two chapters, but actually read them.

#

PG: It is not flawed; it is your understanding of determinism that is not congruous with the author's definition.


That’s fine: I prefer ‘my’ definition.

#

PG: You are getting close. He does have the ability to choose between options (although his choices are influenced by previous determinants), but what makes his will not free is that he is compelled to choose the alternative that gives him greater satisfaction. He cannot move in the direction of what gives less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available.


Where your position breaks down: only 'I' determine what gives me the greater satisfaction. There is no universal standard or baseline to apply against me...what I find more satisfying, you may find utterly abhorrent. Your choice is to accept that I’m 'not' you, that I think differently than you, move in the world differently than you, or, attempt to restrain (and re-train) me.

It’s a simple as that.

**** PG: Who said there was a baseline? He very explicitly stated that our choices are personal. No one is trying to restrain or retrain you.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Gee, it was so wrong of me to speculate that you were attacking the atheist student and defending prayer in public schools because you like having those beliefs promoted.

I guess that makes me a "rabidly fundamentalist atheist"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All Lessans does is define "That which was chosen" as "That which led to greater satisfaction". He doesn't offer any way to verify this by any means.

The structure is tautological. Which isn't problematic if it can be verified through logic or empirical evidence.

I consider his proof more valid as a result of his observations, than if his proof came from logic, which can be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

"500 pages"

Yep.

If I tell you 'fire is hot', pretty much that's all I have to say as I point to the flames and dare you to stick your hand in.

My statement (three words) plus your practical, personal, experience of fire (your blistered hand) is sufficient 'proof' that I know what the hell I'm talking about.


On the other hand: if I tell you 'fire is cold' well, I just might have to write myself a nice, fat, book (full of useless and diverting words) to get you to see things 'my way'.


Now: I'm not saying the two chapters I scanned are 'wrong', only misleading...'agency' is not a new notion and this fellow or lady (the writer) isn't revealing anything my 4 & 1/2 year old nephew doesn't already know intuitively.

The whole 'peace' thing, however, is just hooey appended to 'agency'.

'Peace' is the snake oil, the product being hyped.

The only real question: when will the requests for 'donations' begin?

You are a perfect example of thinking you know what you're talking about, when you know absolutely nothing. You don't understand the two-sided equation. You probably skimmed the first two chapters so fast that you more than likely passed right over the two-sided equation. And this what you call a careful analysis???

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I consider his proof more valid as a result of his observations, than if his proof came from logic, which can be wrong.

That's really great...too bad he chose to not provide evidence that he made any observations. Also too bad one cannot observe "greater satisfaction" under any normal definition of observe.

Once again, what you consider valid, and what Lessans provided, are not satisfactory to most people.

Do you plan to try to remedy that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The equation 3 is to 6 is what 4 is to 8, is true, because the knowledge contains within itself proof of its veracity.

No, it's because the concept of half=half can be demonstrated to be true in many, many different ways.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

To get to the other side, of course.

And: once there, to expect any one she finds to absolve of her any responsibility for having crossed the road since, of course, having made the choice to cross the road it’s impossible for her to have made any other choice, therefore no one with a good, level-10, conscience can 'blame' her for crossing the road since, of course, she's blameless, guiltless, and wholly 'not' responsible.

Henry, with all due respect, you are so off base. This knowledge increases responsibility, it doesn't remove it. You are assuming that not blaming would easily get someone off the hook of responsibility. It's the exact opposite. This shows me immediately you understood nothing that you read, but boy do you sure think you have. This is the biggest stumbling block of all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's really great...too bad he chose to not provide proof that he made any observations. Also too bad one cannot observe "greater satisfaction" under any normal definition of observe.

But he did give his proof, and I gave you the pages. I am trying to post a little at a time, so we can go over it. Whether you are able to see the validity of the proof is another story.

[LadyShea]

What you consider "proof" and/or "evidence" and what Lessans offered is not satisfactory to me.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This guy is a perfect example of thinking he knows what he's talking about, when he knows absolutely nothing. He doesn't understand the two-sided equation. He probably skimmed the two chapters so fast that he probably passed right over it. And this what you call careful analysis???

Henry just joined the board like yesterday, nobody was referring to his posts when they said you only classify agreement as "careful analysis", at the very least because he simply wasn't around.

We're talking about what people like The Lone Ranger, Vivisectus, LadyShea, Kael, davidm among others have posted.

Personally, I don't know whether he knows what he's talking about, since his writing style is so I haven't read most of his posts.

[LadyShea]

I had edited some stuff into my post so I will repost it so you can address my other statements

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's really great...too bad he chose to not provide evidence that he made any observations. Also too bad one cannot observe "greater satisfaction" under any normal definition of observe.

Once again, what you consider valid, and what Lessans provided, are not satisfactory to most people.

Do you plan to try to remedy that?

No, it's because the concept of half=half can be demonstrated to be true in many, many different ways.

[Vivisectus]

We should start a list of things that we are expected to accept solely on the basis that some alleged "Astute Observation" has been made by your father. Such as Blame being a necessary condition for justifying a harmful act, the idea that free will is a myth and that the eyes do not see by receiving and interpreting light.

And we should also start a list of things that are gainsaid by these elusive observations. Apparently Logic can now be wrong (an interesting idea) and physics, optics and biology all have it dead wrong, all of which is proven by "observations" that no-one seems to have bothered to write down.

[peacegirl]

This definition was taken from a religious page, but I believe it has validity even though it by no means is proof.

First, there is the human conscience, that certain “something” within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nonsense. Conscience is subjective - some acts are wrong to one group of people (It seems eating a person who is considered a witch is not considered very bad by some people, for instance) and not by another.

Conscience is not subjective. It reacts to what is a concrete hurt to another. Conscience is a protection not just for the person who could be hurt, but it is a protection for us as well, so that we don't do something that would later on cause us to feel remorse.

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More nonsense. Science requires a presupposition: "Stuff probably exists, and we assume we can come to conclusions about the properties of stuff by observing it carefully."

Not an absolute truth.

I disagree with your disagreement. If everything was relative, it would be difficult to discover anything.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But his "observation" is a tautology! You claim it is not, but you fail to show me why I am wrong. "That which leads to the maximum satisfaction" equals "That what ends up being chosen". It is not defined in any other terms than that what, after the fact, was the thing that was selected.

But that is true. And it doesn't make it a tautology.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That what ends up being chosen is that what ends up being chosen is not a tautology?

That's not what he's saying, nor is it his proof.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We have not shown that what was chosen, HAD to be chosen. Only that is WAS chosen. So the compulsive element is "We are compelled to chose that which leads to our maximum satisfaction" is not shown to be there, and the observation is a faulty one.

But the fact that it WAS chosen means it HAD to be chosen, if you understand that we have no other choice BUT to choose the maximum satisfaction at any given moment in time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You assume that, but it does not follow from the proposition. It is not something that logically follows, so we do not know if there was anything compelling a person to choose that way.

This is not an assumption. I hope you are able to see his proof. I'm not sure if anyone will be able to.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If a roulette ball drops into number 5, was it necessary for it to drop into that pocket? Or could something else have happened?

At that moment in time, nothing else could have happened. But that doesn't mean something else couldn't happen in the future based on a different set of conditions.

We can't predict what that choice will be that leads to our maxiumum satisfaction, because that's based on many many factors. There is no way in the world we can know ahead of time what those factors are, not even for the individual himself.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed - we cannot. And yet you make all kinds of claims about how, if you just set things up a certain way, a person is compelled to choose a certain way and that you know what both the choices are going to be, and what the environment should look like.

I never said I know what a person is going to choose. How can I know that? Although I have a basic idea of what the environment would look like if these principles were applied.

You are getting confused over the old definition which is all about prediction, which IS a modal fallacy. We can't know that it was necessary that JFK would be killed, as if to say before it happened that there was no other alternative than for this to take place. That is wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet you claim just that when you claim to know how all people will react to a certain environment.

If the pillars upon which this discovery is based are correct, then I would be able to predict how people will react to this change in environment. The only thing that is changing in the environment is the removal of all hurt and the removal of all blame, which will cause a 180 degree turnaround in human conduct.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is not a false assumption. You're making it sound circular, but the truth is we are under a compulsion that results in us having to choose what gives us greater satisfaction, and what that is we don't know until the options are weighed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

One of actions A, B and C is the action that leads to the maximum satisfaction. The only definition for A is "That which ends up being chosen". So if we ask the question "What is going to end up being chosen" then the answer is "What will end up being chosen is what will end up being chosen."

That is true, but that isn't the proof Vivisectus. He didn't just say "That which ends up being chosen is that which ends up being chosen." It's laughable that you would think this is all to his proof.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It IS circular.

It is NOT circular.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, I am saying this because there is a fallacy at work here. "That which is chosen" is something we can ascertain only after the fact. However, in your fathers reasoning it is used before the fact, in predicting what a person will do - IE "Follow the path of maximum satisfaction".

Yes, it is not predicting what choices a person will make other than the choice to hurt or not to hurt someone. That is the only dividing line, and that is possible only because, under the new conditions, conscience would not be able to permit hurting someone without any justification to do so.

How can you say that? As I just mentioned, it is impossible to predict what someone will choose in the direction of greater satisfaction. That's what the conventional definition says and it's a modal fallacy. Here's what Lessans says:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet it IS predicted that this compulsion which we have not proven will actually make it impossible for me to hurt your father once the new environment is realized.

Yes, it is a prediction. It doesn't mean you can't hurt my father if you want to, but how could you want to knowing, in advance, that no one in the world would hurt you in return, not even my father. Like I said, no one is going to tell anyone what to do. If you want to do this, then do it. No one will be stopping you, putting you in jail, or retaliating in any way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem is that "Action A is that which leads to the maximum satisfaction" is only determined to be true or false after it has been chosen. There is no way to determine beforehand if action A, B or C will the the one that ends up fitting the description "That which led to the maximum satisfaction" before the choice is made. In fact, "That which led to the maximum satisfaction" is just a different way of saying "That which ends up being chosen." This means we now have a tautology : "That which ends up being chosen is that which ends up being chosen".

So it is unwarranted to say "People are compelled to follow the path of maximum satisfaction" because "That which gives the maximum satisfaction" is only determined after the fact, and it's definition is "The path that people end up following".

But that doesn't make it wrong. This is the danger of faulty logic Vivisectus, not Lessans' observations. If you understand why we must choose that which gives us greater satisfaction at each moment in time, you will see that this is not a tautology at all.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am afraid it rather does. The danger of faulty logic is that you lose track of what your own proposition actually is, and reach conclusions that are not warranted at all. Lessans observations, as you call them, are a textbook fallacy - you take 2 definitions, "That which we choose" and "That which leads to our greatest satisfaction" and you do not notice that they are used in a way that makes them synonymous.

Did you not read any of the first chapter? Did you not read what I just posted regarding the definition of free will? We can't choose A or B equally. One of those choices is impossible because it gives less satisfaction under the conditions. If a person could choose A or B equally, then our will would be free to choose either one.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But the relation that is implied - that before the choice was made the outcome was just as determined as after - is not real. before the choice is made there is no pre-determined "that which we are compelled to choose" - the compulsion does not exist.

There is no pre-determined choice, which implies that something other than ourselves is causing us to do what we do, but we are under a compulsion nevertheless. Once you understand that there are no equal choices, you will see that we are under a compulsion during every moment of our existence.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by erimir

Gee, it was so wrong of me to speculate that you were attacking the atheist student and defending prayer in public schools because you like having those beliefs promoted.

I guess that makes me a "rabidly fundamentalist atheist"

What you said is true I started by asking for clarification on a point, but every was reading posts thru a blind rage and anything other than support was seen as opposition. I will admit that when someone pushes I push back, I tend to 'reply in kind', don't like it? [quote Henry].

As far as the characterization 'If the shoe fits'. Otherwise, 'I don't care'.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What you said is true I started by asking for clarification on a point, but every was reading posts thru a blind rage and anything other than support was seen as opposition. I will admit that when someone pushes I push back, I tend to 'reply in kind', don't like it? [quote Henry].

As far as the characterization 'If the shoe fits'. Otherwise, 'I don't care'.

sorry, peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I consider his proof more valid as a result of his observations, than if his proof came from logic, which can be wrong.

Lessans had no 'proof' from observation or logic, he simply stated his conclusions as assertions, based on observations and reasoning that he does not reveal.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by erimir

Henry just joined the board like yesterday, , at the very least because he simply wasn't around.

Personally, I don't know whether he knows what he's talking about, since his writing style is so I haven't read most of his posts.[/QUOTE]

FYI, Henry had some contact with Peacegirl on 2 other forums.

And yes his style of writing is different but you can get used to it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's really great...too bad he chose to not provide evidence that he made any observations. Also too bad one cannot observe "greater satisfaction" under any normal definition of observe.

Once again, what you consider valid, and what Lessans provided, are not satisfactory to most people.

Do you plan to try to remedy that?

If you mean am I going to change anything in the book, no. I have to accept that some people will not see the proof, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The equation 3 is to 6 is what 4 is to 8, is true, because the knowledge contains within itself proof of its veracity.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's because the concept of half=half can be demonstrated to be true in many, many different ways.

This concept is very clear to me in the way it was explained. But I've had a lot more time to grasp it. I'm hoping it will become clearer to you too.