A revolution in thought

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not calm.

Are you trying to tell me how I feel. Interesting...

Ironic but interesting, I am being forced to be something I am not against my will.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't talk to you Sidhe. Your attitude is too aggressive. You could have said the same thing with a different tone of voice.

Hey don't talk to me it's no big deal. put me on ignore and then never speak to me again it's fine. But don't pretend it is because I was aggressive, it was because you had no answers to the questions I have. At least show me some courtesy and don't lie to me. I will understand, but you will not convince people by such tricks. Nor would your father, you have to be honest about what you think about the argument, you just do. If not everyone will just see you for the liar you are.

I am impressed by your sophistry though I will say that.

You're fine just only talk to people who agree with you and I am in all honesty going to say good luck with that. Sooner or later everyone who disagrees with you will be ignored, religion is ever that way.

If religion is any indication I got off lightly: burning at the stake, pulled apart by horses was the usual method of silencing critics to your one true faith.

Amen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

It's off topic admittedly.

Thats a relief, I thought Bankers were exempt from the no hurt rule. If they closed the banks for even a day, how would all those people get greater satisfaction from going in and worshiping their money?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Thats a relief, I thought Bankers were exempt from the no hurt rule. If they closed the banks for even a day, how would all those people get greater satisfaction from going in and worshiping their money?

I AM LMAO of right now.

you can't see it but I am.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some choices are easier to make than others, and when either choice is satisfactory (equal value), we move in the direction of greater satisfaction by picking one, even if it's a random choice. Randomly choosing one or the other is an effort (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to resolve the issue.

That, quite simply, makes no sense. If one is confronted with two choices of equal value, call them A-1 and A-2, it is not possible for either choice to be more satisfying than other. That is what equal value means. What you are saying is that the mere act of choosing, even if it is a random choice, is itself movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. However, Lessans' system prohibits making a random choice since a random choice is not predicated upon a preference for either option. His whole system is predicated on each and every choice being always a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. If A-1 and A-2 are equally satisfying, then neither option can be a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is quite simple really. If it is true that every choice must be a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, then it is not possible to choose between to options of equal value. If it is possible to choose between to options of equal value, then it is not true that every choice must be a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. I think you are having trouble seeing this because you know, from your own experience, that it is possible to make random choices. The fact that it is possible to make a random choice clearly demonstrates that Lessans' claim is incorrect.

In any case, you have failed to show where Lessans makes this argument. Either he addressed this problem or he did not. If he did, show me, in his own words, how he addressed it. If he did not address it, then his system is incomplete because it fails to address a fundamental issue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You must constantly bear in mind that no matter what we do from one moment to the next, it is a movement in this direction.

This is the premise that we are debating. You can't use the premise to prove the truth of the premise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a fundamental issue because it was assumed people understood that in the statement "Nothing can make you do anything against your will", it is not someone else's will we're talking about.

Making assumptions about what other people understand is nearly always a grievous error. Unless Lessans explicitly excluded consideration of external physical force it is perfectly reasonable to take his language at face value and there is nothing in the words he uses that would cause me to suppose that meant to exclude external physical force. That you think he meant to exclude that is an interesting bit of personal information about you, but it is not relevant to a discussion of the claims that he actually makes. What is important here are his words, not how you choose to interpret them. If he did intend to include external physical force, but neglected to make that intention explicit, then his system, as he has explicated it, is incomplete.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These questions are not fundamental to this knowledge, so you are asking something that is not a requirement. That's why I called it trivial.

If Lessans undertook the enormous labor of producing this work solely for his own enjoyment, then you may well be correct in saying that these questions are not fundamental. If, on the other hand, he meant this work to be persuasive to its readers, then it was incumbent upon him to address those issues that were likely to engender doubt. His apparent failure to address the issues I have raised has certainly engendered significant doubt on my part.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tried to do the best I could in explaining this. Even if you aren't totally satisfied with my answer, if you can't let me finish, then this is done.

Honestly, I don't even know what this means. What does it mean for you to finish and how am I, or anyone else, interfering with your doing that?

You have previously complained that no one has even asked questions about Chapter One. Well, this is what it looks like when someone asks questions. I will restate my questions so that there is no confusion about what I am asking for.

How does Lessans deal with the problem of competing options of equal value? Please provide answers using Lessans' own words. Simply denying that it is a problem does not constitute an adequate response, because it is a problem for me.

How does Lessans deal with the problem of overwhelming external physical force? Please provide answers using Lessans' own words. Simply denying that it is a problem does not constitute an adequate response, because it is a problem for me.

If you cannot, or will not, answer those questions, within the specified parameters, then I will be compelled to conclude that you either cannot answers the questions or you are not sincere in your expressed desire for questions to be asked.

[Sidhe]

How horrible Angakuk you are forcing her not to finish against her will for your own wreckless pursuit of satisfaction. Bastard.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That, quite simply, makes no sense. If one is confronted with two choices of equal value, call them A-1 and A-2, it is not possible for either choice to be more satisfying than other. That is what equal value means. What you are saying is that the mere act of choosing, even if it is a random choice, is itself movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. However, Lessans' system prohibits making a random choice since a random choice is not predicated upon a preference for either option.

Absolutely wrong Angakuk. I told you that everything man does, or does not do, is in the direction of greater satisfaction. He never ever implied that a person has to have a preference. There are plenty of times we are faced with decisions that we're not sure about because they are both equally valuable. You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

His whole system is predicated on each and every choice being always a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. If A-1 and A-2 are equally satisfying, then neither option can be a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is quite simple really. If it is true that every choice must be a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, then it is not possible to choose between to options of equal value.

He never said that every choice must be a physical movement. He also said if there is a favorable difference, then a person is compelled to choose the one that is the most favorable (the one that is the most satisfying) based on his circumstances. But if there are two equal choices, he may decide to do nothing. That is a choice as well, and it's in the direction of greater satisfaction. If he picks a choice randomly because he doesn't care which choice it is, that is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. The analogy about moving from "here" to "there" includes every thought and every action. It includes the tiniest movements even if we're on the same spot. For example, I'm sitting here typing. I am not physically moving off of the spot called "here", but I am still doing something that is a movement away from my previous position. I'm reading; I'm thinking about how to answer you; I'm wiping sweat off my brow because it's already hot here; I'm listening to music. All these things I'm doing are moving in the direction of satisfaction. Soon I will feel dissatisfied, and in order to gain satisfaction, I will choose to get up and do something else. Everything we do is in this direction. You are too narrow in your understanding of what he means by "here" to "there".

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If it is possible to choose between to options of equal value, then it is not true that every choice must be a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. I think you are having trouble seeing this because you know, from your own experience, that it is possible to make random choices. The fact that it is possible to make a random choice clearly demonstrates that Lessans' claim is incorrect.

It clearly shows nothing. It's a triviality as far as "greater" satisfaction is concerned. The choices become part of our next decision, whether it's choosing something rather than nothing (in the direction of greater satisfaction), or choosing nothing because of insecurity that one will make the wrong choice. There are plenty of choices that I find equally compelling. Just because I don't know if I want a tuna fish sandwich for lunch, or a salad, doesn't negate the direction I must go. If you can't let go of this, then as I said earlier, you will leave thinking he was wrong, just like Vivisectus did, but it was your reasoning that was wrong.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In any case, you have failed to show where Lessans makes this argument. Either he addressed this problem or he did not. If he did, show me, in his own words, how he addressed it. If he did not address it, then his system is incomplete because it fails to address a fundamental issue.

The word ‘choice’ itself
indicates there are preferable differences otherwise there would be no
choice in the matter at all as with A and A.

You better think about this a little more deeply because there is nothing in your refutation that negates this knowledge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You must constantly bear in mind that no matter what we do from one moment to the next, it is a movement in this direction.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is the premise that we are debating. You can't use the premise to prove the truth of the premise.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a fundamental issue because it was assumed people understood that in the statement "Nothing can make you do anything against your will", it is not someone else's will we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Making assumptions about what other people understand is nearly always a grievous error. Unless Lessans explicitly excluded consideration of external physical force it is perfectly reasonable to take his language at face value and there is nothing in the words he uses that would cause me to suppose that meant to exclude external physical force. That you think he meant to exclude that is an interesting bit of personal information about you, but it is not relevant to a discussion of the claims that he actually makes. What is important here are his words, not how you choose to interpret them. If he did intend to include external physical force, but neglected to make that intention explicit, then his system, as he has explicated it, is incomplete.

He didn't have to because it is taken for granted that when he says, "Nothing can make you do what you don't want to do: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"; we are not talking about physical force by another. Of course you can make a horse drink if you shove water down his throat, but that is someone else's will imposed on the horse. Why do you think that idiom has come to mean what it does? If you can't accept this, then please move on. You keep saying his system is incomplete, but it's not incomplete. And it's not a system; it's a psychological law of of man's nature. It sounds contrived the way you put it, as if he created this knowledge instead of uncovering it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These questions are not fundamental to this knowledge, so you are asking something that is not a requirement. That's why I called it trivial.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If Lessans undertook the enormous labor of producing this work solely for his own enjoyment, then you may well be correct in saying that these questions are not fundamental. If, on the other hand, he meant this work to be persuasive to its readers, then it was incumbent upon him to address those issues that were likely to engender doubt. His apparent failure to address the issues I have raised has certainly engendered significant doubt on my part.

I'm sorry about that. If this prevents you from desiring to read anymore, so be it. You must do what gives you greater satisfaction based on what you have learned so far.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tried to do the best I could in explaining this. Even if you aren't totally satisfied with my answer, if you can't let me finish, then this is done.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Honestly, I don't even know what this means. What does it mean for you to finish and how am I, or anyone else, interfering with your doing that?

You're giving me an ultimatum. If I can't give you an excerpt that addresses your questions, then his "system", according to you is incomplete. That sounds like it's over for you. I'm sorry that this disturbs you so much that you wouldn't move forward with the investigation.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You have previously complained that no one has even asked questions about Chapter One. Well, this is what it looks like when someone asks questions. I will restate my questions so that there is no confusion about what I am asking for.

How does Lessans deal with the problem of competing options of equal value? Please provide answers using Lessans' own words. Simply denying that it is a problem does not constitute an adequate response, because it is a problem for me.

Every thought or action is movement. If I'm weighing two choices and I'm not sure which choice to make, that doesn't mean that I'm moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. We can't move in this direction; it's impossible. A lot of our choices seem as if we're moving in this direction because none of the choices at our disposal are happy ones. We then have to choose between the lesser of two evils. When it comes to having two choices of equal value, greater satisfaction might come from doing nothing; it might come from flipping a coin; it might come from having someone else make the decision for me; but it's still in the direction of greater satisfaction. It might even come from thinking through the advantages and disadvantages of both options (taking into consideration things you didn't think about earlier) thus helping you to make a choice that has now become slightly more preferable. That's all I'm going to say about this. You are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction to get me to answer your question. I hope you continue to get greater satisfaction learning about this knowledge, even if you aren't completely satisfied yet.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How does Lessans deal with the problem of overwhelming external physical force? Please provide answers using Lessans' own words. Simply denying that it is a problem does not constitute an adequate response, because it is a problem for me.

If you cannot, or will not, answer those questions, within the specified parameters, then I will be compelled to conclude that you either cannot answers the questions or you are not sincere in your expressed desire for questions to be asked.

I answered this already. Please scroll back.

[Sidhe]

He didn't have to because it is taken for granted that when he says, "Nothing can make you do what you don't want to do: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"; we are not talking about physical force by another. Of course you can make a horse drink if you shove water down his throat, but that is someone else's will imposed on the horse. Why do you think that idiom has come to mean what it does? If you can't accept this, then please move on. You keep saying his system is incomplete, but it's not incomplete. And it's not a system; it's a psychological law of of man's nature. It sounds contrived the way you put it, as if he created this knowledge instead of uncovering it.

No it isn't at all, taken for granted, the only person doing that is him and because he's doing that no one can fathom anything.

You can take a horse to water and make it drink, and you can make someone do what they don't want to do, something can make you do what you don't want to do also. It's not taken for granted and just repeating that says that a statement of a fundamental lie is a fundamental truth.

it's a psychological law of of man's nature.

No its not, because there exceptions to it, which have been given to you repeatedly. It's a statement that is false is what it is.

It sounds contrived the way you put it, as if he created this knowledge instead of uncovering it.

He did create it because no one else has made such a paradoxical argument, it is not a discovery. It sounds contrived because it is.

[peacegirl]

He didn't have to because it is taken for granted that when he says, "Nothing can make you do what you don't want to do: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"; we are not talking about physical force by another. Of course you can make a horse drink if you shove water down his throat, but that is someone else's will imposed on the horse. Why do you think that idiom has come to mean what it does? If you can't accept this, then please move on. You keep saying his system is incomplete, but it's not incomplete. And it's not a system; it's a psychological law of of man's nature. It sounds contrived the way you put it, as if he created this knowledge instead of uncovering it.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

No it isn't at all, taken for granted, the only person doing that is him and because he's doing that no one can fathom anything.

You can take a horse to water and make it drink, and you can make someone do what they don't want to do, something can make you do what you don't want to do also. It's not taken for granted and just repeating that says that a statement of a fundamental lie is a fundamental truth.

You can make a horse drink, which I already said, if you're shoving it down his throat and drugging him. I'm not just repeating it Sidhe; I'm repeating in different words so that it will get through to you.

it's a psychological law of of man's nature.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

No its not, because there exceptions to it, which have been given to you repeatedly. It's a statement that is false is what it is.

There are no exceptions. I never said a person can't be brainwashed, which could prompt him to do things that are uncharacteristic. But he isn't making a choice against his will. He is doing things that he wouldn't have done before because of a change in his belief system, which compels him to make choices he would never have made if he had not been brainwashed.

It sounds contrived the way you put it, as if he created this knowledge instead of uncovering it.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

He did create it because no one else has made such a paradoxical argument, it is not a discovery. It sounds contrived because it is.

Wrong, I can see by your refutations that you could not understand this discovery. You haven't read it in its entirety Sidhe.

[Vivisectus]

"People always end up choosing that which leads to the most satisfaction" fits any and all possible scenarios, simply because it's working definition is "That which people end up choosing".

So without a shadow of a doubt you can say "That which people choose is always that which they end up choosing".

It does not show that whatever was chosen had to be chosen though. Only that this particular thing was chosen.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can make a horse drink, which I already said, if you're shoving it down his throat and drugging him. I'm not just repeating it Sidhe; I'm repeating in different words so that it will get through to you.

There are no exceptions. I never said a person can't be brainwashed, which could prompt him to do things that are uncharacteristic. But he isn't making a choice against his will. He is doing things that he wouldn't have done before because of a change in his belief system, which compels him to make choices he would never have made if he had not been brainwashed.

Speaking from someone who is quite clearly brainwashed, how's that working out for you?

There are countless exceptions you just don't accept any of them, did you watch Derren Brown at all. Scary how suggestable we are is it not?

Witch craft use dolls (commonly mistakenly called Voodoo dolls) even though the practice is assosciated with Druids and or witches, to cause pain to people from remote locations.

I saw an episode where Derren, paralysed a self professed witch or Wiccan with a voodoo doll, by doing nothing more than taking a hair from her, talking to her, and then tying off her legs with the hair. You can pretty much make anyone do anything whether they want to or not. Belief is extremely powerful. It doesn't matter what you call it, magic, psychology, headology, or brain washing people can be made to do almost anything even things they claim they could not do or would not ever do of their own accord no matter what the situation. People can do whatever they want and whatever they dont want. If you're saying people can't force themselves to do what they don't want that is trite and valueless, they can obviously do that though as well.

I would never murder anyone of my own free will and if I did I would be ashamed, but I could quite easily kill someone, quite easily. What exactly does that prove though? It certainly doesn't prove I have no free will, I'll tell you that much, in fact if anything it tends to support the opposite case. Which is what I meant by you proving free will exists by setting out to prove it doesn't.

Wrong, I can see by your refutations that you could not understand this discovery. You haven't read it in its entirety Sidhe.

It doesn't matter though does it, as I've already said if you have read it (and yes I have read the whole of the first chapter) If you don't accept it then you are one of the conspiracy to keep the truth locked down. If you haven't read it and you don't accept it you can't make a judgment and if you have read it and you accept it you are you, the one and only person who has ever been convinced by his argument, due obviously to the VJC keeping the man down and their evil mad scientists via the aforementioned space weevils etc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"People always end up choosing that which leads to the most satisfaction" fits any and all possible scenarios, simply because it's working definition is "That which people end up choosing".

So without a shadow of a doubt you can say "That which people choose is always that which they end up choosing".

You still don't see his proof, and I can't do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It does not show that whatever was chosen had to be chosen though. Only that this particular thing was chosen.

Yes, that which was chosen had to be chosen, but that was not the proof. Just because the premise and conclusion match doesn't make it circular reasoning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can make a horse drink, which I already said, if you're shoving it down his throat and drugging him. I'm not just repeating it Sidhe; I'm repeating in different words so that it will get through to you.

There are no exceptions. I never said a person can't be brainwashed, which could prompt him to do things that are uncharacteristic. But he isn't making a choice against his will. He is doing things that he wouldn't have done before because of a change in his belief system, which compels him to make choices he would never have made if he had not been brainwashed.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Speaking from someone who is quite clearly brainwashed, how's that working out for you?

There are countless exceptions you just don't accept any of them, did you watch Derren Brown at all. Scary how suggestable we are is it not?

First of all, I'm not brainwashed. You are the one that can't even listen long enough to see that this knowledge is genuine. You are so sure it's not. Now who is the one filled to the brim with false knowledge? We are suggestible, I never said we weren't Sidhe.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Witch craft use dolls (commonly mistakenly called Voodoo dolls) even though the practice is assosciated with Druids and or witches, to cause pain to people from remote locations.

I saw an episode where Derren, paralysed a self professed witch or Wiccan with a voodoo doll, by doing nothing more than taking a hair from her, talking to her, and then tying off her legs with the hair. You can pretty much make anyone do anything whether they want to or not. Belief is extremely powerful. It doesn't matter what you call it, magic, psychology, headology, or brain washing people can be made to do almost anything even things they claim they could not do or would not ever do of their own accord no matter what the situation. People can do whatever they want and whatever they dont want. If you're saying people can't force themselves to do what they don't want that is trite and valueless, they can obviously do that though as well.

It's not trite at all. People can be brainwashed, I already agreed with you. But they are doing what they normally wouldn't do because they want to do it, not because they don't want to do it. There is evidence that people will not act out of character even if they are hypnotized. Therefore, just a suggestion to do something doesn't compel them to go and do it. It would take a lot of brainwashing for this to occur.

It sounds contrived the way you put it, as if he created this knowledge instead of uncovering it.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

He did create it because no one else has made such a paradoxical argument, it is not a discovery. It sounds contrived because it is.

Wrong, I can see by your refutations that you could not understand this discovery whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

It doesn't matter though does it, as I've already said if you have read it (and yes I have read the whole of the first chapter)

The first chapter doesn't even contain the discovery, so what are you saying Sidhe? That because you read the first chapter you understand the entire book?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

If you don't accept it then you are one of the conspiracy to keep the truth locked down. If you haven't read it and you don't accept it you can't make a judgment and if you have read it and you accept it you are you, the one and only person who has ever been convinced by his argument. Due to the VJC keeping the man down.

I don't think it's fair of you to pretend you understand this knowledge when you haven't studied the book in its entirety. I don't think I'm being unfair charging you with ignorance. How can anyone give a synopsis of a book when they have not read it?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, I'm not brainwashed. You are the one that can't even listen long enough to see that this knowledge is genuine. You are so sure it's not. Now who is the one filled to the brim with false knowledge? We are suggestible, I never said we weren't Sidhe.

It's not trite at all. People can be brainwashed, I already agreed with you. But they are doing what they normally wouldn't do because they want to do it, not because they don't want to do it. There is evidence that people will not act out of character even if they are hypnotized. Therefore, just a suggestion to do something doesn't compel them to go and do it. It would take a lot of brainwashing for this to occur.

Wrong, I can see by your refutations that you could not understand this discovery whatsoever.

The first chapter doesn't even contain the discovery, so what are you saying Sidhe? That because you read the first chapter you understand the entire book?

I don't think it's fair of you to pretend you understand this knowledge when you haven't studied the book in its entirety. I don't think I'm being unfair charging you with ignorance. How can anyone give a synopsis of a book when they have not read it?

We've all read it, you keep posting it.

Yeah no one can understand it except you and your father. And you are not brainwashed? And he was not insane.

Funny that aint it.

They do say though if you are mad you often think you are the only sane person, I wonder if that works for brainwashing too. If you are brain washed you think you are the only person who isn't and everyone else is a slave?

Perhaps ironically everyone has free will except you and your dad?

There is evidence that people will not act out of character even if they are hypnotized. Therefore, just a suggestion to do something doesn't compel them to go and do it. It would take a lot of brainwashing for this to occur.

You admit it does occur though, and I can assure you it does. Have you thought about the insane? Have they gained free will by losing their minds perhaps?

Man I should not of tried to silence my demons, but then the blackouts would come back, and the blood! sooo much blood, where could it all of come from?!

That's an interesting postulate actually, schizophrenia is more common in those people who are retarded and geniuses, it's been clearly linked with intelligence by way of creativity and there is a genetic theory that it appeared as a mental disorder around the time we became sentient but some time before we became homo sapiens. Is insanity an advantage to cognition? Is being able to hear voices a sign of free will? If I hear God talking to me should I talk back?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because the premise and conclusion match doesn't make it circular reasoning.

They don't just match, they are identical. You said you don't need to use "people always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" as a premise to prove your conclusion that "people always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" but you keep doing it anyway.

Nowhere in the book does he show that this is happening, save by preemptively defining any choice or movement we make as being in the direction of greater satisfaction. We could just as easily be moving constantly in the direction of greater dissatisfaction, he provides exactly as much supportive reasoning for that as for the former. Which is to say, none.

If we watch a bunch of people for a period of time, can you actually demonstrate or explain that every decision they made during that time was in the direction of greater satisfaction, without assuming that at the outset?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

They don't just match, they are identical. You said you don't need to use "people always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" as a premise to prove your conclusion that "people always move in the direction of greater satisfaction" but you keep doing it anyway.

But that comes after his demonstration. You're way off base Kael.

Originally Posted by Kael

Nowhere in the book does he show that this is happening, save by preemptively defining any choice or movement we make as being in the direction of greater satisfaction. We could just as easily be moving constantly in the direction of greater dissatisfaction, he provides exactly as much supportive reasoning for that as for the former. Which is to say, none.

Oh my goddddd, Kael, if that's all you got from these pages, I am at a loss. Please move on because this is doing me or you no good.

Originally Posted by Kael

If we watch a bunch of people for a period of time, can you actually demonstrate or explain that every decision they made during that time was in the direction of greater satisfaction, without assuming that at the outset?

That just confirms his premise; it doesn't mean it is a tautology. But I refuse to keep arguing over this. Take it or leave it. I'm sure you will leave it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that everything man does, or does not do, is in the direction of greater satisfaction.

I know you have told me that, but you have not provided any proof that the claim is true. You could tell me that the earth is flat, but if you could not provide convincing evidence for the claim I would not believe you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never ever implied that a person has to have a preference. There are plenty of times we are faced with decisions that we're not sure about because they are both equally valuable. You don't know what you're talking about.

I was using preference as a shorthand for having a reason to choose one option over another. Preferred option is the equivalent of choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, only not quite so cumbersome.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that every choice must be a physical movement.

LOL, I never suggested that he did. I use the phrase 'movement in the direction of greater satisfaction' because that is the way he frames it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He also said if there is a favorable difference, then a person is compelled to choose the one that is the most favorable (the one that is the most satisfying) based on his circumstances. But if there are two equal choices, he may decide to do nothing. That is a choice as well, and it's in the direction of greater satisfaction. If he picks a choice randomly because he doesn't care which choice it is, that is also in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Quotations please. In Lessans own words, remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The analogy about moving from "here" to "there" includes every thought and every action. It includes the tiniest movements even if we're on the same spot. For example, I'm sitting here typing. I am not physically moving off of the spot called "here", but I am still doing something that is a movement away from my previous position. I'm reading; I'm thinking about how to answer you; I'm wiping sweat off my brow because it's already hot here; I'm listening to music. All these things I'm doing are moving in the direction of satisfaction. Soon I will feel dissatisfied, and in order to gain satisfaction, I will choose to get up and do something else. Everything we do is in this direction. You are too narrow in your understanding of what he means by "here" to "there".

It is quite clear to me that Lessans is using the movement from "here" to "there" as a metaphore and is not necessarily referring to physical movement. I have not, for a single moment, been the least bit confused about that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It clearly shows nothing. It's a triviality as far as "greater" satisfaction is concerned. The choices become part of our next decision, whether it's choosing something rather than nothing (in the direction of greater satisfaction), or choosing nothing because of insecurity that one will make the wrong choice. There are plenty of choices that I find equally compelling. Just because I don't know if I want a tuna fish sandwich for lunch, or a salad, doesn't negate the direction I must go. If you can't let go of this, then as I said earlier, you will leave thinking he was wrong, just like Vivisectus did, but it was your reasoning that was wrong.

You certainly have not shown where my reasoning is in error. If anything, you have just made my point about your own inability to honestly address the issues because your own personal experience of reality contradicts the priniciples of Lessans' system and you just can't stand that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The word ‘choice’ itself
indicates there are preferable differences otherwise there would be no
choice in the matter at all as with A and A.

Is that a quote from Lessans or is it just some random text in italics? If you are quoting from Lessans you would be well advised to include chapter and verse when doing so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You better think about this a little more deeply because there is nothing in your refutation that negates this knowledge.

Physician, heal thyself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't have to because it is taken for granted that when he says, "Nothing can make you do what you don't want to do: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"; we are not talking about physical force by another. Of course you can make a horse drink if you shove water down his throat, but that is someone else's will imposed on the horse. Why do you think that idiom has come to mean what it does? If you can't accept this, then please move on. You keep saying his system is incomplete, but it's not incomplete. And it's not a system; it's a psychological law of of man's nature. It sounds contrived the way you put it, as if he created this knowledge instead of uncovering it.

I am certainly not taking anything Lessans claims for granted, nor do I think anyone else is either. If, by the phrase "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink", you (or Lessans - it is not clear who is speaking here) mean that it is not possible to compel someone to voluntarily do that which they are not willing to do, I won't argue the point. I have never taken issue with that claim (I am glad to leave that argument to Sidhe). Nevertheless, that completely fails to address the question of overwhelming physical force. You can, as you have acknowledged, lead a horse to water and force it to ingest water. If I were to drench a horse I would have effectively caused the horse to do something (i.e. ingest water or any other liquid) that it did not want to do. I am still waiting for evidence, in Lessans' own words, that this sort of compulsion was specifically excluded from his claim that nothing in the entire universe can make a man do that which he does not want to do.

I refer to Lessans' system because he uses the phrase "mankind system" in reference to his "discovery".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're giving me an ultimatum. If I can't give you an excerpt that addresses your questions, then his "system", according to you is incomplete. That sounds like it's over for you. I'm sorry that this disturbs you so much that you wouldn't move forward with the investigation.

Call it an ultimatum, if you like. I prefer to think of it as a challenge and I will continue to issue the challenge until it has been met. I am not the least disturbed and it will not be over for me until you start singing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every thought or action is movement. If I'm weighing two choices and I'm not sure which choice to make, that doesn't mean that I'm moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. We can't move in this direction; it's impossible.

This is precisely the claim that is being challenged. Repeated assertions do not an argument make.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When it comes to having two choices of equal value, greater satisfaction might come from doing nothing; it might come from flipping a coin; it might come from having someone else make the decision for me; but it's still in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Can we get a reference to this in Lessans' own words?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this already. Please scroll back.

You didn't answer it. You hand-waved it away by saying that it doesn't matter, it's trivial, it is taken for granted that this is not what he was talking about, etc. I repeat, denying that it is a problem does not constitute an adequate response.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl has repeatedly stated that people are not reading the book correctly, she believes that we should read it 'Tabula Rasa', with a blind faith, accepting everything Lessans writes without question, so the entire book will then make sense. I must agree that if read in that manner the book would make more sense than with the knowledge of science and the real world in mind. But even Peacegirl is mistaken in the way she is reading to book, the book is not ment to be read literally, but like the Bible is a metaphor or a parable where the connotation is more important than the denotation. Peacegirl is reading the book literally and is becoming lost in the detail and not seeing the meaning concealed in the pages. Much as the Biblical Mythology should be read for the meaning of the story and not the details of people, time or place, Lessans book has much that can be learned if we can overlook the details that were not ment to be taken seriously. For example efferent vision is nonsense but the idea that the mind projects values onto what is being observed is a valid one. Apparently Lessans, without knowledge of how the eye really worked, devised a fiction to illustrate the point, which is the real message there. This different way of reading the book might enable some to derive the real meaning and the lessons Lessans was trying to convey. Indeed if these principles were incorporated into peoples lives the right way, there could be an elimination of evil from the world, but the scope and scale of the book is a fantasy, intended merely to inspire people to be better people.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't see his proof, and I can't do anything about it.

You could post the proof.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl has repeatedly stated that people are not reading the book correctly, she believes that we should read it 'Tabula Rasa', with a blind faith, accepting everything Lessans writes without question, so the entire book will then make sense. I must agree that if read in that manner the book would make more sense than with the knowledge of science and the real world in mind. But even Peacegirl is mistaken in the way she is reading to book, the book is not ment to be read literally, but like the Bible is a metaphor or a parable where the connotation is more important than the denotation. Peacegirl is reading the book literally and is becoming lost in the detail and not seeing the meaning concealed in the pages. Much as the Biblical Mythology should be read for the meaning of the story and not the details of people, time or place, Lessans book has much that can be learned if we can overlook the details that were not ment to be taken seriously. For example efferent vision is nonsense but the idea that the mind projects values onto what is being observed is a valid one. Apparently Lessans, without knowledge of how the eye really worked, devised a fiction to illustrate the point, which is the real message there. This different way of reading the book might enable some to derive the real meaning and the lessons Lessans was trying to convey. Indeed if these principles were incorporated into peoples lives the right way, there could be an elimination of evil from the world, but the scope and scale of the book is a fantasy, intended merely to inspire people to be better people.

Bible 2: this time it's efferant you mean?

Still Lessans got away more lightly than Jesus did, there's a lesson there.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Bible 2: this time it's efferant you mean?

Still Lessans got away more lightly than Jesus did, there's a lesson there.

What do I get banned for a misspelling?

However Lessans wasn't preaching in public and telling the leaders how bad they were, that law suit didn't get much publicity, and was more of a joke.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What do I get banned for a misspelling?

I hope not I am dyslexic. I spelled efferent wrong so...

However Lessans wasn't preaching in public and telling the leaders how bad they were, that law suit didn't get much publicity, and was more of a joke.

Not a particularly funny one but sure.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

It is not incomplete. Somewhere along the line you are missing the fact that choosing between A and A doesn't negate that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. , we move in the direction of greater satisfaction by picking one, even if it's a random choice. Randomly choosing one or the other is an effort (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to resolve the issue. You must constantly bear in mind that no matter what we do from one moment to the next, it is a movement in this direction. Sometimes we don't weigh options. We just move off the spot "here" to "there". Subtle movements, such as wiping sweat off our brow, or a movement to make our sitting position more comfortable, are all part of this desire to move away from a position that has grown dissatisfying.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Not choosing or choosing between A and A are the same thing though, neither is a choice per se but it is a choice not to chose in the first case and a choice not to chose in the second case also, the first is not acting the second is acting not to chose eg if I am given the choice of either being kicked in the nads or being kicked in the nads, that is not a choice. Choosing between A and B and A and C aren't the same and they actually are choices. As for saying not making a choice and choosing not to chose are moving in some mystical direction of "sataisfaction" whatever the hell that nonsense means, well you're completely off the map there in a world of fairy tales.

You're getting all mixed up because of the word "choice". We really don't have a choice at all because we can only go in one direction.

No matter what we do or whatever example I give it is conveniently movement in the direction of greater satisfaction (because I say so) and so I am just right by default. Great argument there. Not a priori or based on an untestable axiom at all that.

It has nothing to do with convenience. This knowledge can be tested.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

People who have religious convictions that you have witnessed the fundamental truth and are absolutely and inviolately just right usually end up in the mental asylum or nailed up. There is no black or white there is no TRUTH or UNTRUTH, just shades of grey. Good/Evil,Yin/Yang, right/wrong, wang/chung it's all subjective.

Trust me, I won't end up in a mental asylum or nailed up. This is a fundamental truth whether you see it or not.

I was his daughter. This is not a fundamental issue because it was assumed people understood that in the statement "Nothing can make you do anything against your will", it is not someone else's will we're talking about. When someone forces you physically, it is not your will. We can't control a situation where someone is physically stronger, and therefore can push you off a ledge. I already clarified this, and I also clarified that even with physical force, no one can make you talk, or do anything that requires your will, if you don't want to do it. If you get stuck on this, we can't move forward, just like Vivisectus got stuck on one comment, and we never moved forward.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Yeah but that is horsehit, I can be made to do something against my will with or without physical force, happens all the time.

If you think that, you're being dishonest with yourself.

I've done the best I could. As in Chapter Four, just because he didn't directly address all of the empirical studies that are already in existence, doesn't mean his work was incomplete. These questions are not fundamental to this knowledge, so you are asking something that is not a requirement.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Actually if he doesn't address objections it does.

You can make up anything and say he didn't address your objections. I think I answered your questions adequately.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

All empirical studies contradicting your pet theory doesn't help either.

What empirical studies are you talking about? On the eyes?

That's why I called it trivial.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

It's definitely not trivial and the fact you can't answer it just goes to show why.

It doesn't even relate.

I have tried to do the best I could in explaining this. Even if you aren't totally satisfied with my answer, if you can't let me finish, then this is done. Sidhe did not let me finish. He went on an attack and I'm not willing to be subjected to that. It will be your loss, not mine, if you use this to discredit Lessans and never really grasp the value of this knowledge.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Aww bless.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

How convenient though, if someone makes an argument that makes you wrong you claim they attacked you and refuse to attack that argument. It's so brilliant I am going to steal it and do that from now on whenever I lose any argument!

Sidhe, you attacked me which is not necessary.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

The default position is Lessans being discreditted whatever happens. The only person this will ever effect in any appreciable way is you.

He can't be discredited if he's right. And he is.

Sidhe, you're all washed up, but I can't talk you with your belligerence. Could you at least calm down?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I think it is you that is all washed up and I am calm, perfectly calm, you're the one who is getting wound up, you said so yourself.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You are not calm.

Are you trying to tell me how I feel. Interesting...

Ironic but interesting, I am being forced to be something I am not against my will.

You aren't being forced to be anything, so stop using that argument.