A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will answer the question you want answered, but I'm not going to continue in that thread anymore once I answer you.

Not good enough. You said you would answer my questions so long as I asked them one at a time. If you're not prepared to keep your word then you can find someone else to discuss his first chapter with.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations can be verified. If his observations were not valid, then people could still hurt others under any condition. But they cannot. That's why this is proved true.

Your evidence for this claim is..., what exactly?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not good enough. You said you would answer my questions so long as I asked them one at a time. If you're not prepared to keep your word then you can find someone else to discuss his first chapter with.

If you are looking for substance as opposed to fluff, that will be a very short discussion.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations can be verified. If his observations were not valid, then people could still hurt others under any condition. But they cannot. That's why this is proved true.

Even assuming all the premises are true, the logic is exactly backwards and doesn't work at all.

Let's assume, as you did, that his observations, whatever they allegedly are, imply that "people cannot hurt others under any condition". If we then assume that we can observe that they really can't do that, that doesn't mean that his observations have been verified. It means that his conclusions haven't been falsified (by our observation). It does not mean that anything is proven true.

Look at these two rules. The first one works, the second one (which you are using) doesn't. It's just false. "->" means "implies".
(A -> B) -> (not B -> not A)

(A -> B) -> (B -> A)

If you don't understand it, we can go through some examples if you like.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

Even assuming all the premises are true, the logic is exactly backwards and doesn't work at all.

Let's assume, as you did, that his observations, whatever they allegedly are, imply that "people cannot hurt others under any condition". If we then assume that we can observe that they really can't do that, that doesn't mean that his observations have been verified. It means that his conclusions haven't been falsified (by our observation). It does not mean that anything is proven true.

Look at these two rules. The first one works, the second one (which you are using) doesn't. It's just false. "->" means "implies".
(A -> B) -> (not B -> not A)

(A -> B) -> (B -> A)

If you don't understand it, we can go through some examples if you like.

This is way beyond peacegirl. She doesn't understand contradiction let alone the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Lessans pretty much relies on argument from ignorance, unfortunately for him the only person on earth more ignorant than him is peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You for one. You say you don't believe in free will but you are defending it every time you tell me that it's not a necessary truth that we could not have chosen otherwise.

LOL. As if Lessans fallacy filled mess is the only argument against any version of free will. As if his form of determinism is the only one available.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not good enough. You said you would answer my questions so long as I asked them one at a time. If you're not prepared to keep your word then you can find someone else to discuss his first chapter with.

I do not need you to discuss Chapter One with. If you're not sincerely interested in this discovery for your own benefit, then don't engage with me in conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL. As if Lessans fallacy filled mess is the only argument against any version of free will.

You're so confused LadyShea, I have no desire to discuss this chapter with you. Calling it a fallacy filled mess over and over again does not make it so, and who are you anyway to make this determination? You're reasoning is not perfect (in fact it's quite messed up), not Lessans' discovery. You are using your limited reasoning ability to judge this work, along with the group think which supports you and gives you the false confidence to denounce what you clearly don't understand.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1036518]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL. As if Lessans fallacy filled mess is the only argument against any version of free will.

Calling it a fallacy filled mess over and over again does not make it so

Neither does calling it the undeniable truth make it so. We are even.

who are you anyway to make this determination?

I am a person you have been trying to convince of Lessans' correctness. As such, I determine what is or is not convincing. Every person who reads the book, or hears your defense/support of it, or discusses things with you, is similarly the ultimate determiner for themselves.

You're reasoning is not perfect (in fact it's quite messed up), not Lessans' discovery

.
I know I am not perfect. I also know that Lessans and you have failed to convince, even with ample opportunity. The material is flawed in my opinion. Your opinion of course differs, but you're already convinced that Lessans is right, so you have no net gain.

You are using your limited reasoning ability to judge this work

Of course I am using my own brain to judge material that has been presented to me. What else do you expect from humans? Instant belief? Why would you seek thinkers and skeptics when what you want are credulous people who just believe everything they are told?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Neither does calling it the undeniable truth make it so. We are even.

I am a person you have been trying to convince of Lessans' correctness. As such, I determine what is or is not convincing. Every person who reads the book, or hears your defense/support of it, or discusses things with you, is similarly the ultimate determiner for themselves.

.
I know I am not perfect. I also know that Lessans and you have failed to convince, even with ample opportunity. The material is flawed in my opinion. Your opinion of course differs, but you're already convinced that Lessans is right, so you have no net gain.

Of course I am using my own brain to judge material that has been presented to me. What else do you expect from humans? Instant belief? Why would you seek thinkers and skeptics when what you want are credulous people who just believe everything they are told?

You're ruining it for everyone else; just to let you know.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're ruining it for everyone else; just to let you know.

We've been over that when you have decided I am the ruiner for "everybody else" before.

I cannot "ruin it" for anybody else, let alone everybody else. Each person determines what is or is not convincing, what does or does not make sense, and what constitutes adequate evidence for themselves, peacegirl.

I have no special power of ruination.

[LadyShea]

As I said back in November:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I cannot "ruin it" for anyone, nobody is going to "follow my lead", I am not being relied upon to acknowledge anything, this is not a popularity contest and I am nobody's boss, guru, or leader.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're ruining it for everyone else; just to let you know.

So exactly how is LadyShea doing this?

[LadyShea]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're ruining it for everyone else; just to let you know.

Too Late. Ruining this thread happened a long time before Ladyshea started posting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your evidence for this claim is..., what exactly?

I already said many times that this cannot be proved through ordinary channels because we're living in a free will society, but that has no bearing on the fact that this knowledge works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We've been over that when you have decided I am the ruiner for "everybody else" before.

I cannot "ruin it" for anybody else, let alone everybody else. Each person determines what is or is not convincing, what does or does not make sense, and what constitutes adequate evidence for themselves, peacegirl.

I have no special power of ruination.

I never said you had a special power of ruination. To the extent that you're all suggestible to each other's comments, you are ruining it for everyone, but you're right in that if someone had a mind of his own he would still be here asking questions. The blame for this derailed thread doesn't fall exclusively on your shoulders; it just adds to the negative group think.

[LadyShea]

then people could still hurt others under any condition. But they cannot

I already said many times that this cannot be proved through ordinary channels because we're living in a free will society, but that has no bearing on the fact that this knowledge works.

It can't be shown to work empirically, so the questions stands..."what is the evidence for your claim?". Another poster asked it differently "You know this how?"

So, how can you possibly know it works if there is no evidence that it works?

[LadyShea]

Dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't ask about "many people", I asked about people here. Who here, at do you think is supporting or defending some version of free will?

You for one. You say you don't believe in free will but you are defending it every time you tell me that it's not a necessary truth that we could not have chosen otherwise.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL. As if Lessans fallacy filled mess is the only argument against any version of free will.

Calling it a fallacy filled mess over and over again does not make it so

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neither does calling it the undeniable truth make it so. We are even.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. This is not tit for tat.

who are you anyway to make this determination?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am a person you have been trying to convince of Lessans' correctness. As such, I determine what is or is not convincing. Every person who reads the book, or hears your defense/support of it, or discusses things with you, is similarly the ultimate determiner for themselves.

The fact that there is an audience changes the way one listens and speaks.

You're reasoning is not perfect (in fact it's quite messed up), not Lessans' discovery

.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know I am not perfect. I also know that Lessans and you have failed to convince, even with ample opportunity. The material is flawed in my opinion. Your opinion of course differs, but you're already convinced that Lessans is right, so you have no net gain.

Ample opportunity? In this atmosphere? You just keep going back to the idea that it's a modal fallacy but you're wrong. There's no convincing you though. It seems that you're just angry that neuroscience hasn't taken the lead in this research. The funny part about all this is that you're not even arguing over the fact that man doesn't have free will; you're just arguing over Lessans' definition of greater satisfaction. The joke is that under the changed conditions, no one will be able to get satisfaction out of hurting another.

You are using your limited reasoning ability to judge this work

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course I am using my own brain to judge material that has been presented to me. What else do you expect from humans? Instant belief? Why would you seek thinkers and skeptics when what you want are credulous people who just believe everything they are told?

It's not instant belief that I am looking for. You are the one that keeps calling it an ASSERTION, when it's anything but. You are the one that said, As if Lessans' fallacy filled mess is the only argument against any version of free will. It's good to be skeptical, but you're suspicious of me because I'm his daughter. You were from the beginning, and that is clouding your understanding. If you were truly interested, you would have left out the nasty descriptors. So we'll have to end the conversation on this note. You'll never understand this work, and that's fine.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said you had a special power of ruination. To the extent that you're all suggestible to each other's comments, you are ruining it for everyone, but you're right in that if someone had a mind of his own he would still be here asking questions. The blame for this derailed thread doesn't fall exclusively on your shoulders; it just adds to the negative group think.

No, no, no. I was quite liking my role as LadyRuination, Queen of the Groupthinkers.

You really are arrogant, you know it?

[LadyShea]

You have had a year to present this in any way you wanted without censorship. To respond however you think is best to achieve your goals. That is ample opportunity. That's as fair a chance as you will find anywhere in this world.

Yes, I am of the opinion that Lessans wrote a fallacy filled mess. I am of the opinion that both Lessans and you make assertion after assertion and have nothing to back it up with.

You don't get to decide anyone else's opinions, peacegirl. You don't get to decide how one should act if they are "truly interested", because you are not the boss. You can try to persuade and convince, but that doesn't seem to be going well for you here.

[naturalist.atheist]

Peacegirl, has discussing Lessans book on any forum ever gone well?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can't be shown to work empirically, so the questions stands..."what is the evidence for your claim?". Another poster asked it differently "You know this how?"

So, how can you possibly know it works if there is no evidence that it works?

I really hope you read the book or listen to the mp3, because his two-sided equation proves that man can only move in one direction for greater satisfaction, which is not to hurt others with a first blow once these principles are in effect. I also said this new environment could be simulated, but it won't be necessary when scientists confirm that this knowledge is accurate. That's why he wrote the following (which I've already posted):

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, has discussing Lessans book on any forum ever gone well?

You keep using past forums as some kind of proof that there is nothing valuable here. But it's not the knowledge that is at fault; it's the venue. I should have realized early on that no matter what forum I'm in, there will be a problem due to the fact that no one has actually studied the book thoroughly. They also don't like the claim that the eyes are not a sense organ, as if that's Lessans' fault.