A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, he didn't. I didn't say he did. Why did you respond with that at all?

He defined all actions and choices as movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

He described involuntary movements as evidence that "life is not satisfied..." to stay in one place...hence movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

So, my argument stands. It is circular reasoning.

Movement in the direction of greater satisfaction = all choices
All choices = movement in the direction of greater satisfaction

The premise is simply defined into being true in all cases.

It IS true in all cases (there are no exceptions to this law), but don't you understand that the definition only came after he made his accurate observation? He didn't just concoct this definition of "greater satisfaction" as a first premise which would become the basis of a logical construct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

I am very frustrated right now. In all this time you have understood zilch. I don't even want to explain this again unless we do it step by step. I'll say one thing only. Once the choice was made to wear the red cap, he could not have chosen otherwise. Therefore, choosing the red cap was a necessary choice.

[LadyShea]

He didn't record any observations, accurate or otherwise. He only wrote his conclusions and his reasoning. I have no way to verify his observations at all, let alone check them for accuracy.

If it's true in all cases without exception, by definition, it can't be falsified or tested, and is useless.

Might as well say we always choose that which leads to shlupferdoodle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Um, you're the only one with page numbers, Peacegirl. So that doesn't help me at all. (And I'm pretty sure his definition doesn't run for 13 pages!) Please quote his actual definition of "greater satisfaction".

I thought someone gave you the .pdf. Why do you think I can't give you a one sentence definition without people telling me it's circular? Start here:

We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.” So without any further adieu, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once the choice was made to wear the red cap, he could not have chosen otherwise. Therefore, choosing the red cap was a necessary choice.

That is fallacious reasoning. You are committing the same fallacy Lessans did. Do you understand the modal fallacy? There is nothing on which to base the use of necessary. You are pulling "necessary" out of your ass. Does that clear it up for you?

The most that can be said is that it is an actual truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then it can't be falsified or tested, and is useless.

Empirical testing is not the only way to uncover truth. Astute observation and sound reasoning are key factors, and you can't just dismiss them. I've also stated that in the final analysis, something is true if it works. That will be your ultimate empirical proof.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is fallacious reasoning. You are committing the same fallacy Lessans did. Do you understand the fallacy? There is nothing on which to base the use of necessary. You are pulling "necessary" out of your ass.

The most that can be said is that it is an actual truth.

Here I tell you that this was not his proof and we have to go step by step, and then you tell me that what I just said was not proof. Of course it wasn't; it wasn't meant to be. I am not pulling "necessary" out of my ass. And you tell me I'm derogatory?

[LadyShea]

LOL, you think insulting me will make you right.

You don't understand the fallacy, so you keep committing it. I used the "out of your ass" to try to explain, at a level any imbecile can understand, why your reasoning is fallacious. The necessarily is being pulled out of thin air. It's not based on anything real or actual.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you think insulting me will make you right.

You don't understand the fallacy, so you keep committing it. I used the "out of your ass" to try to explain, at a level any imbecile can understand, why your reasoning is fallacious. The necessarily is being pulled out of thin air. It's not based on anything real or actual.

That's fine. Keep repeating yourself and I'll just talk to other people who will give Lessans a chance. You have done no such thing. It's interesting to note that the more "educated" one becmes, the greater is the learned ignorance. It's just something I observe generally speaking.

[LadyShea]

I am self educated, just like Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am self educated, just like Lessans.

Well somewhere along the line your self-education has backfired because you are way too dogmatic.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fine. Keep repeating yourself and I'll just talk to other people who will give Lessans a chance. You have done no such thing. It's interesting to note that the more "educated" one becmes, the greater is the learned ignorance. It's just something I observe generally speaking.

Or ... the more educated you are, the easier it is to see through the bullshit.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Empirical testing is not the only way to uncover truth.

But it is the only way to do science.

That's why what Lessans did isn't science. No empirical testing => no science.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well somewhere along the line your self-education has backfired because you are way too dogmatic.

Too bad she is not open minded and eager to learn like you.

[LadyShea]

All woo peddlers and crackpots accuse non-believers of closed minded dogmatism.

Keep waving that woo flag, peacegirl. Lessans sure did.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is fallacious reasoning. You are committing the same fallacy Lessans did. Do you understand the modal fallacy? There is nothing on which to base the use of necessary. You are pulling "necessary" out of your ass. Does that clear it up for you?

The most that can be said is that it is an actual truth.

There is a trivial use of the word "necessary" that would be a valid case in this context but it would be more along the lines of, "if Joe chose the hat he wears and he is wearing a red cap then it is necessary that he chose the red cap." Which would be a trivial statement about causality, "If something happened then it is necessary that it happened."

However if someone had trouble with tenses or had trouble with the concept of past, future and present because of some sort of mental disorder then I could see them making statements about necessity in relation to causality that to them seemed profound but were trivial tautologies to everyone else.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can somebody else answer Seeb's questions? I cannot go back 1000 pages and start over. Obviously, you haven't been here for very long or you would be able to answer these questions yourself.

Hypocrite. You insist on reposting the introduction and chapter 1 for the new interested readers. Well there is exactly one, seebs, and you're telling him you don't want to answer his newbie to the discussion questions.

But anyway seebs, she has no evidence, has been unable to posit a feasible test, and the only reason to posit it at all is about conditioning.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

There is a trivial use of the word "necessary" that would be a valid case in this context but it would be more along the lines of, "if Joe chose the hat he wears and he is wearing a red cap then it is necessary that he chose the red cap." Which would be a trivial statement about causality, "If something happened then it is necessary that it happened."

However if someone had trouble with tenses or had trouble with the concept of past, future and present because of some sort of mental disorder then I could see them making statements about necessity in relation to causality that to them seemed profound but were trivial tautologies to everyone else.

Well yes, he chose the red cap. That's the truth. It's actual. Everything is satisfactual.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well yes, he chose the red cap. That's the truth. It's actual. Everything is satisfactual.

If someone had a brain that reset every so often, then the whole idea of continuity would be a big leap for them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
Keep repeating yourself and I'll just talk to other people who will give Lessans a chance. You have done no such thing. It's interesting to note that the more "educated" one becmes, the greater is the learned ignorance. It's just something I observe generally speaking.

Well we've certainly seen that with Lessans, except that he wasn't educated at all, he was just ignorant and was content to stay that way. He just claimed education that he didn't have, just the ignorance.

If you actually find someone who will give Lessans a chance after reading the book, please let us know, it would be fun to watch.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well we've certainly seen that with Lessans, except that he wasn't educated at all, he was just ignorant and was content to stay that way. He just claimed education that he didn't have, just the ignorance.

If you actually find someone who will give Lessans a chance after reading the book, please let us know, it would be fun to watch.

As usual peacegirl got it backwards, it's been my experience that the less someone knows about something the more certain they are of their knowledge. By that measure Lessans knew nothing.

[naturalist.atheist]

peacegirl, I found your new forum: Create a Course on Udemy. Instead of spending all your time at FF in a format that is obviously not suited for your style of teaching, you can give online lessons on Lessanology.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can somebody else answer Seeb's questions? I cannot go back 1000 pages and start over.

Well, it's not as though you've ever answered any question I've asked, now or last year.

Obviously, you haven't been here for very long or you would be able to answer these questions yourself.

Oh, I've been here all along. And I can say what the answers are:
1. You don't have any evidence, because you don't need evidence, you just observed this to be true.
2. You cannot describe any test which would show that your theory is right and standard optics is wrong.
3. Because of this, the theory is completely irrelevant.

There is no circumstance in which believing your theory allows us to do anything that we can't do under the standard theory. It won't help us treat blindness or cataracts. It won't help us design lenses. It won't do anything...

Except make it seem like your dad was a little bit less of a crackpot.

And that's the thing; this is all emotional investment for you. You don't know or care about science; you just use the word as a placeholder for "things which will eventually be vindicated". But that's not what it is.

Even if Lessans were correct, his work wouldn't be science, because he didn't do science.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way Spacemonkey. I'm sorry if I have to end this thread abruptly, but that's what I will do if I can't get anyone to actually see that this premise was not a tautology or a modal fallacy. I told you I'm willing to go through every sentence so I can see where you may be misunderstanding something. If I can't even make progress here, no one will take Chapter Two seriously, and I'm not going to waste anymore time.

You know no-one is going to agree with the claims and reasoning of chapter 1. No-one you've shown it to has ever agreed with it. You're simply using the disagreement you know you will face on Chapter 1 as an excuse for not even addressing the problems with chapter 2. People are quite capable of considering the merits of chapter 2 independently of chapter 1. You know this because we've already done just that. We can grant him everything he says in chapter 1 for the purposes of evaluating chapter 2.

There is no point going through his chapter sentence by sentence, because none of his sentences ever provide any definition of "greater satisfaction", which is what he would need for his satisfaction principle to be non-tautological.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am very frustrated right now. In all this time you have understood zilch. I don't even want to explain this again unless we do it step by step. I'll say one thing only. Once the choice was made to wear the red cap, he could not have chosen otherwise. Therefore, choosing the red cap was a necessary choice.

That's attrocious reasoning. Once you've made the choice to wear the red cap you can no longer (present tense) choose to do otherwise. It is too late. But that doesn't mean you couldn't have previously (past tense) chosen otherwise at the time of the initial choice. The necessity of choice under determinism is causal, and relates to the casual factors determining the choice. It has nothing to do with the impossibility of choosing otherwise after a choice has been made, which in no way renders the original choice necessary at the time it was made.