A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Actually Lessans could have gone to almost any educated person, who could have straightened out his obvious errors.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_%28mathematics%29

Glad to be of service.

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.

I apologize for not recognizing your natural genius!

No problem.

Also, let R_1 = {(x,y) | y = 2 * x} and R_2 = {(x,y) | y = x + 3} (read: the set of all pairs (x,y) that satisfy the following rule).Those are relations. 3 is R_1-related to 6 as is 4 to 8. 3 is R_2-related to 6 as is 4 to 7. An equation is a relation. Those are all "two-sided". We can also make "three-sided" relations.

[LadyShea]

A tautology is any circular reasoning. It need not represent formal logic to be tautological.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_%28mathematics%29

Glad to be of service.

No problem.

Also, let R_1 = {(x,y) | y = 2 * x} and R_2 = {(x,y) | y = x + 3} (read: the set of all pairs (x,y) that satisfy the following rule).Those are relations. 3 is R_1-related to 6 as is 4 to 8. 3 is R_2-related to 6 as is 4 to 7. An equation is a relation. Those are all "two-sided". We can also make "three-sided" relations.

Lessans knew all about two-sided equations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A tautology is any circular reasoning. It need not represent formal logic to be tautological.

As I said, this was not circular reasoning. He observed certain things that others missed. From those observations he came to certain conclusions about man's nature. He never included in his conclusion the very premise he was trying to prove.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans knew all about two-sided equations.

BS, Lessans knew nothing about equations, mathematics or science as evidenced by his incoherent writings in his book. There were no equations or math in his book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He observed certain things that others missed.

Lessans observed nothing other than what was in his Brain-dead imagination, he was totally oblivious to reality.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is you're trying to be one.

Nope, just using my own critical thinking skills and tools. Science is the best tool for finding the truth, so I try to use it.

Scientists do not do what you're doing. They step back and see things in an objective light.

No they examine any hypothesis and try to find the holes in it and try to construct tests that will falsify it. Science is a very active pursuit.

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?

I'm assuming he's wrong because he didn't make a convincing case for his being right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So do it then.

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

I already did when I posted Chapter One. The proof must have passed you right over. Either you didn't read it, or you missed the whole proof. I can't spoon feed this to you. You'll have to scroll back.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

For me to do it, I first need something from you. First, I need you to tell me why his proof is not a tautology. His proof begins with this paragraph:

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.

Do you even know which undeniable relation he is referring to? If you can't follow his reasoning, how do you expect me to move forward?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, this was not circular reasoning. He observed certain things that others missed. From those observations he came to certain conclusions about man's nature. He never included in his conclusion the very premise he was trying to prove.

More diversion.

I laid out the tautology as presented by Lessans. It's apparent and obvious. Demonstrate that it is not circular.


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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already did when I posted Chapter One. The proof must have passed you right over. Either you didn't read it, or you missed the whole proof. I can't spoon feed this to you. You'll have to scroll back.

Bullshit. I asked you for a definition of "greater satisfaction" which would render his principle non-tautological, and you haven't provided one. Lessans certainly didn't. If you think otherwise then provide it. Don't just tell me it was somewhere in the chapter you copypasted, because it wasn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For me to do it, I first need something from you in return. First, I want you to tell me why his proof is not a tautology.

I can't do that because it is a tautology. Asking me to tell you why it isn't would be like me asking you to tell me why vision is not instantaneous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, just using my own critical thinking skills and tools. Science is the best tool for finding the truth, so I try to use it.

I respect that, but Lessans' knowledge is scientific and hopefully you'll see that one day.

Scientists do not do what you're doing. They step back and see things in an objective light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No they examine any hypothesis and try to find the holes in it and try to construct tests that will falsify it. Science is a very active pursuit.

Regardless of how they go about finding out the truth, they stay objective and never assume that just because something doesn't ring true immediately, that it automatically makes it false. You've rejected this discovery from the very beginning because you can't believe he could be right. I can feel your resentment.

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?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm assuming he's wrong because he didn't make a convincing case for his being right.

You don't even understand what his proof is. Since you know so much, explain his observations to me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even understand what his proof is. Since you know so much, explain his observations to me.

Stop asking other people to explain things to you which you cannot explain yourself. It's ridiculous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bullshit. I asked you for a definition of "greater satisfaction" which would render his principle non-tautological, and you haven't provided one. Lessans certainly didn't. If you think otherwise then provide it. Don't just tell me it was somewhere in the chapter you copypasted, because it wasn't.

I can't do that because it is a tautology. Asking me to tell you why it isn't would be like me asking you to tell me why vision is not instantaneous.

I posted it Spacemonkey. I am not going to work any harder than you. Do you want me to repeat those few pages and we'll go over them sentence by sentence? I think that's what we should do. This is an important premise, and I can't just let it go by if people are telling me that the "greater satisfaction" principle is a tautology or worse, a modal fallacy, because it's not. If we can't do this, then we're at a standstill.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

BS, Lessans knew nothing about equations, mathematics or science as evidenced by his incoherent writings in his book. There were no equations or math in his book.

Lessans offered something that was supposed to be roughly analogous to an equation, insofar as it involved two sides or aspects which supposedly balance each other out. Peacegirl doesn't understand analogies and thinks he actually offered a real equation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I posted it Spacemonkey. I am not going to work any harder than you. Do you want me to repeat those few pages and we'll go over them sentence by sentence? I think that's what we should do. This is an important premise, and I can't just let it go by if people are telling me that the "greater satisfaction" principle is a tautology or worse, a modal fallacy, because it's not. If we can't do this, then we're at a standstill.

You posted the entire chapter. You have not shown me a definition of greater satisfaction, still less one that renders his principle non-tautological. I'm not asking you to go through the whole chapter sentence by sentence. I'm just asking you to give me a definition. You can't do it.

You're just doing exactly what you'll do for Chapter 2 and the alleged support for his presuppositions, i.e. posting the whole thing and then saying " Hey, it's in there somewhere! " That's ridiculous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop asking other people to explain things to you which you cannot explain yourself. It's ridiculous.

Do you want me to go through his proof again? Maybe you understand it; maybe you don't. If, after going through his proof and you still tell me it's a modal fallacy or a tautology, I won't be able to continue. FYI, Lessans never said that man's will is not free because he moves in the direction of greater satisfaction and the reason he moves in the direction of greater satisfaction is because his will is not free. That is frickin nuts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You posted the entire chapter. You have not shown me a definition of greater satisfaction, still less one that renders his principle non-tautological. I'm not asking you to go through the whole chapter sentence by sentence. I'm just asking you to give me a definition. You can't do it.

You're just doing exactly what you'll do for Chapter 2 and the alleged support for his presuppositions, i.e. posting the whole thing and then saying " Hey, it's in there somewhere! " That's ridiculous.

It is clearly explained in the book. I really think you're lying when you tell me you read it. The proof is only a few pages long. If you agree we can go over this section sentence by sentence. That way, we will be on the same page (literally). I can't let his proof slip by as if it's insignificant.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you want me to go through his proof again?

No. I want you to provide a definition of "greater satisfaction" which will render his principle non-tautological.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you understand it; maybe you don't. If, after going through his proof and you still tell me it's a modal fallacy or a tautology, I won't be able to continue.

In other words, you're using our diagreement over Chapter 1 as an excuse for continuing to avoid discussion of his presuppositions regarding conscience which you have never had any intention of getting to or addressing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FYI, Lessans never said that man's will is not free because he moves in the direction of greater satisfaction and the reason he moves in the direction of greater satisfaction is because his will is not free. That is frickin nuts.

Who said anything about that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is clearly explained in the book. I really think you're lying when you tell me you read it. The proof is only a few pages long. If you agree we can go over this section sentence by sentence. That way, we will be on the same page (literally). I can't let his proof slip by as if it's insignificant.

I'm not asking for his proof. I've read that. I'm asking for a definition.

I've read the chapter. Lessans NEVER defines "greater satisfaction".

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, this was not circular reasoning. He observed certain things that others missed.

The problem, I think, is the lack of any way for other people to observe these things, or confirm these observations.

Just a side note: Lots of people with schizophrenia observe things which other people don't observe. This does not make those things real.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Do you even know which undeniable relation he is referring to? If you can't follow his reasoning, how do you expect me to move forward?

I'm all ears. What relation is he referring to?

I have to admit I can't follow his reasoning.

A)

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

B)

it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time,

and since

C)

it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason),

D)

we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

A -> ((B and C) -> D)

Umm. Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I respect that, but Lessans' knowledge is scientific and hopefully you'll see that one day.

Really? Has it been tested? Because it's not science unless it's been tested. You've been told that multiple times.

[seebs]

Even if it's true, it's not science. Science is not an area of knowledge, it's a methodology. If Lessans didn't do tests with control groups, it's not science.

If years from now, someone devises a test and proves Lessans right, that won't mean that his beliefs were scientific all along; it will mean that they have then become scientific. Until then, it's not science, whether or not it's true.

And I'm still waiting for an answer, peacegirl: What does the word "undeniable" mean? Can something which people deny be undeniable?

[seebs]

dup