A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Kael]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"I knew, of course, that people would find my stunning overconfidence in my own astounding abilities to find the hidden truth of the Universe threatening, so I took the opportunity to explain, early on, that I am of course correct and perfect in every possible way. This is undeniable!"

"Yes, I see that you are by far the smartest human being on the planet, not subject to human mistakes and biases, and certainly scientists and scholars will find you intimidating, knowing so much more about physics and neuroscience than they do. Why, they might even try to crucify you like Jesus! However do you cope?"

"I know the Golden Age will come about, because I am correct in all ways, and my germinal substance will allow me to be there, though it won't be me, of course."

"Of course, this is so wonderful I feel like peeing my pants in joyous rapture!"

Bravo!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes me sick inside. Ready to puke.

Too late, you've already started posting Ch1.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From the first hundred pages

Can you refute the summary below using any form of rational argumentation and avoiding ad homs regarding my motivations and mindset and without mere assertions of "you're so wrong I can't even believe how wrong you are" and without moving the goalposts and without diversionary tactics?


The foundational premise, "Humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is a tautology because Lessans defined all actions/choices, whether voluntary or involuntary, as movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. His conclusion that "Mans will is not free because humans always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is therefore also a tautology, because all actions/choices are already included in the premise.

I am not using diversionary tactics LadyShea. Obviously, you did not read Chapter One in its entirety. You don't care to. You are not taking this book seriously. First you tell me that his claim of "no free will" is a modal fallacy and when that doesn't work you tell me it's a tautology. You can't even make up your mind what it is. It's true that "man's will is not free" is the first premise, but that is not his proof. I have gone over and over this with you, but you are blind to it. I can't take off your blindfold for you. You'll have to do that yourself. I just have to accept that some people will not get it no matter how hard I try to explain this concept. I believe this has to do with the fact that this debate has been going on for centuries, so who is Lessans to be the one to solve it? I will post the paragraph where he explains his astute observations. You even disputed the very first paragraph of his proof saying that man can be dead and alive at the same time, and that man can commit suicide even if he is completely satisfied with life. If we can't get through this beginning paragraph, then how are we going to get through the first two chapters? Let's break this down into smaller parts so you can show me where you think he's wrong so I can show you where he's not wrong. I can't guarantee that you will understand it even then, but I'm making one last ditch effort to help you.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 47-48

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans read tons of literature and philosophy.

This discovery did not come out of thin air, as you're implying LadyShea.

Pity he didn't read anything about the science he pretends to know about and critisize.

No, his Ideas (non-discoverys) did not come out of 'thin air', they came out of someplace much darker and unpleasant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want you to be the one that derails this thread.

Too late, lessans derailed this thread when he started writing his joke.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes way beyond style. You are using your computer training as a standard to judge the validity of this work. To make matters worse, you are now mixing up formal logic with mathematical relations. Don't you even know the difference between the two?

Tell me.

And who are these masters of yours?

Scientists who are experts in their fields.

[LadyShea]

Tautological and fallacious are not mutually exclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Bravo!

This just confirms the underlying resentment you feel. You can't believe Lessans has a genuine discovery (obviously you don't understand a word of it), and because I refuse to let anyone step on this knowledge as if it's a piece of junk, you resort to sarcasm and jokes because that's all you're left with:

"I knew, of course, that people would find my stunning overconfidence in my own astounding abilities to find the hidden truth of the Universe threatening, so I took the opportunity to explain, early on, that I am of course correct and perfect in every possible way. This is undeniable!"

"Yes, I see that you are by far the smartest human being on the planet, not subject to human mistakes and biases, and certainly scientists and scholars will find you intimidating, knowing so much more about physics and neuroscience than they do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Tautological and fallacious are not mutually exclusive.

No they're not, but you're grabbing at both in an effort to discredit him in any way you can. That's what I call BAD science. And don't tell me you've thoroughly investigated this book. If you are considered a good scientist (of course, you admitted you're not a scientist at all, which is obvious), I can't imagine what a rotten scientist looks like.

[LadyShea]

Diversionary tactics. Just demonstrate I am wrong instead of merely asserting it.

Can you refute me using any form of rational argumentation and avoiding ad homs regarding my motivations and mindset and without mere assertions of "you're so wrong I can't even believe how wrong you are" and without moving the goalposts and without diversionary tactics?

[LadyShea]

lol "admitted"...I never claimed to be a scientist in the first place so why would I need to "admit" to not being one?

I am not a scientist. Simple statement of fact.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Of course, this is so wonderful I feel like peeing my pants in joyous rapture!"

Damn! Too late.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just confirms the underlying resentment you feel. You can't believe Lessans has a genuine discovery (obviously you don't understand a word of it), and because I refuse to let anyone step on this knowledge as if it's a piece of junk, you resort to sarcasm and jokes because that's all you're left with

My appreciation for LadyShea's satirical post has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Lessans "has a genuine discovery." Whether he does or not is completely ancillary to the simple fact that his (or is it yours? you never will come clean about just how much of his work you altered...) writing is so laughably, astoundingly bad. The hokey, contrived, eyebleed-inducing dialogues are the worst part, and richly deserve to be laughed at.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Tautological and fallacious are not mutually exclusive.

And it occures to me that Lessans book, 'Decline and Fall of All Evil' is not a total loss, we can always use it as an example of a 'pompous and overblown bad example'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Tell me.

Scientists who are experts in their fields.

How narrow-minded can anyone get? Lessans knew what he was up against, and you are an example of someone who rejects knowledge even before it's understood.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction: pp. 6-7

The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks
no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

My appreciation for LadyShea's satirical post has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Lessans "has a genuine discovery." Whether he does or not is completely ancillary to the simple fact that his (or is it yours? you never will come clean about just how much of his work you altered...) writing is so laughably, astoundingly bad. The hokey, contrived, eyebleed-inducing dialogues are the worst part, and richly deserve to be laughed at.

LadyShea's satirical post has everything to do with her belief that Lessans does not have a discovery. To her, I'm just another example of Morton's demon. Kael, I really could care less what you think about the writing; you've been one of the worst critics of Lessans and myself even before you knew what this book was about. It doesn't surprise me that you would stoop this low to irritate me. I have to consider the source. Actually, people laughing at my writing style would be a small price to pay for getting this knowledge brought to light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

lol "admitted"...I never claimed to be a scientist in the first place so why would I need to "admit" to not being one?

I am not a scientist. Simple statement of fact.

The problem is you're trying to be one. Scientists do not do what you're doing. They step back and see things in an objective light. You're just assuming he's wrong because, in your mind, he couldn't be right. My confidence that he's right is proof to you that he's wrong. And you think this is sound logic?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How narrow-minded can anyone get?

Lessans knew what he was up against, and you are an example of someone who rejects knowledge even before it's understood.

Peacegirl, you are a good example of how extremely narrow minded a person can get. I would guess that if your efforts to promote this book became widely known, your name would be included in newer dictionaries as the definition of 'Narrow-minded'.

It would be surprising if Lessans actually had any idea of what he was up against, Usually crackpot Woo peddlers think their ideas are so wonderful that everyone will jump right on them. Most of the people here do understand the book (unfortunately) which is why they reject it, only those who are incapable of rational thought would accept what Lessans wrote.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How narrow-minded can anyone get? Lessans knew what he was up against, and you are an example of someone who rejects knowledge even before it's understood.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction: pp. 6-7

The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.

Every mathematical argument is a logical argument. Neither you nor Seymour has any idea what a mathematical relation is. I do.

Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

That's only possible using logic.

the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.

No, 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 7. That was easy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How narrow-minded can anyone get? Lessans knew what he was up against, and you are an example of someone who rejects knowledge even before it's understood.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction: pp. 6-7

The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.

Originally Posted by But

Every mathematical argument is a logical argument. Neither you nor Seymour has any idea what a mathematical relation is. I do.

Well excuse me! Lessans should have come to you to straighten him out.

Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

Originally Posted by But

That's only possible using logic.

Originally Posted by But

No, 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 7. That was easy.

I apologize for not recognizing your natural genius!

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, are you going to get around to posting Chapter 2 so that you can finally start addressing the issue of Lessans' presuppositions concerning conscience?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whoaaaa, you think this has already been refuted? No way. I am not going to do it your way. There are people here who want to understand this knowledge. I am directing these posts to them, not you.

Of course it has been refuted. Every single person you've presented this to has raised the same objections, and you've never been able to meet any of them. Who are these people you are referring to? Everyone here is of the same opinion regarding Lessans' first chapter. Nor is it a mere opinion, but is rather a rational conclusion based upon the evidence. The only thing worse than his reasoning was his appalling writing and presentation style.

For example, can you define "greater satisfaction" yet in a way that would make his claim that we always move in this direction non-tautological? Can you explain without question-begging why we can allegedly hold ourselves morally responsible because we were not compelled against our will, but cannot do the same for others who are also uncompelled? Or why we cannot hold others morally responsible because they were determined to choose the direction of greater satisfaction, but we can do so for ourselves despite the same thing being true for us?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, are you going to get around to posting Chapter 2 so that you can finally start addressing the issue of Lessans' presuppositions concerning conscience?

Yes, I will. But first, do you understand Lessans' definition of determinism because I remember you were refuting this premise as well. So please tell me where you think he's wrong, so I can correct anything you misunderstood. Then I will move forward with confidence that Chapter One was not just given a quick glance over.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it has been refuted. Every single person you've presented this to has raised the same objections, and you've never been able to meet any of them. Who are these people you are referring to? Everyone here is of the same opinion regarding Lessans' first chapter. Nor is it a mere opinion, but is rather a rational conclusion based upon the evidence. The only thing worse than his reasoning was his appalling writing and presentation style.

For example, can you define "greater satisfaction" yet in a way that would make his claim that we always move in this direction non-tautological?

Yes, I was trying to show LadyShea that this was not a tautology. A tautology deals in logic. This was an astute observation followed by sound reasoning. All of his discoveries were spot on. They had nothing to do with tautologies or modal fallacies.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you explain without question-begging why we can allegedly hold ourselves morally responsible because we were not compelled against our will, but cannot do the same for others who are also uncompelled? Or why we cannot hold others morally responsible because they were determined to choose the direction of greater satisfaction, but we can do so for ourselves despite the same thing being true for us?

Yes, that's what the entire second chapter is about Spacemonkey: the two-sided equation IS the core of this discovery, which you don't understand yet. If you think you do, then explain it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I will...

So do it then.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes...<blah blah blah>...

So do it then. Define "greater satisfaction" in a way that makes his claim that we always move in this direction non-tautological.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes...<blah blah blah>...

So do it then. If you need to post Chapter 2 first, then do that.