A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

True your actual law is far more ridiculous and nonsensical and smacks of insanity. Mine at least is rational and makes sense; I think red does make anything you say true I shall do that from now on.

Yes basically as people are saying your immutable laws are not so, and all the rest smacks of dressing ethics up differently and then preaching some religion as if it hasn't been said before by much better thinkers and since the dawn of time. Although those thinkers at least had the courtesy to present a logically consistent argument.

This is coming from someone who doesn't have a clue as to what his discovery is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Everyone wants to be right, including you peacegirl. The difference is that some will accept what can be demonstrated as true by themselves or others with adiquate verification. Some will embrace a fantasy based on wishful thinking and "wouldn't it be nice". Lessans had a few ideas that possibly were true, and a lot that sounded nice but cannot be verified or tested, and unfortunately mixed in with several concepts that were clearly wrong.

And pray tell, what are they?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

In you desparate attempt to be right you are clinging to every word in the book often without a shread of evidence, and in many cases in direct contradiction to what is known and has been verified. Your denials will not change what is known to be true.

Sounds like Christian apologetics does it not?

I'm clinging to every word in the book because his observations are correct, and one day this discovery will come to pass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Viv, I get that that is what it always resolves down to for peacegirl. Since you already have that objection nailed down pretty firmly I chose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, a different approach to demonstrating Lessans' fundamental error.

One thing is for sure, when I leave this thread you will always think in terms of "greater satisfaction." I think it's imprinted in everybody's brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I am amazed that people are still feeding this stupid, dishonest little troll.

For new people like Sidhe: all of this free-will discussion is just a sad regurgitation of her pathetic presentation nearly 400 (!) pages back. In a nutshell:

1. Her argument is circular.

2. It commits a formal fallacy of logic, which was pointed out repeatedly to the little idiot. It confuses contingent truth with necessary truth. No need to explain again; it's all there at the beginning!

She will be in this thread until FF goes offline or until she dies. She is that crazy.

I thought you left David. It was so peaceful here after you were gone. For your information, this IS a necessary truth, but you are too blind to see it because you don't want it to be true. Will the real troll please stand up? And what's it to you how long I stay here? It's none of your dam business.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One thing is for sure, when I leave this thread you will always think in terms of "greater satisfaction."

'Greater Satisfaction' would be that you had come to your senses and realized the truth that everyone was trying to tell you.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but in the new world there will be no legal or illegal, so evil will only mean hurting someone in a concrete way.

True, but what stops people from doing anything that could lead to a hurt is the fact that all advance judgment will no longer be.

.

He said early on that good and bad are relative terms. Dog food is good to someone who is starving.

First of all, there are no rules, so how can there be rules of the road? There is no legislation Angakuk. It actually is that simple because we all know what evil (hurt) is, and if there was any question we would simply find out.

None of the above posts that you ascribe to me were written by me. They were, if I am not mistaken, Vivisectus' posts.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing religious about this book just because I say the conditions need to be met in order for these principles to work. I gave the example of astronauts trusting that mathematical precision will get them to their destination. How do they know for sure? Because the conditions that allow them to reach their destination have been met. The same principle applies here.

Astronauts did not know for sure that they would reach their destinations. Some did not. They took what they considered to be reasonable risks. They considered the risks to be reasonable because there was sufficient experimental evidence to support such a conclusion. They did not have to put their trust in a promise of some proof to be delivered in the future. Lessans offers no comparable evidence.

If Seymour Lessans had been a NASA official.

John Glenn: I am not sure that I want to let you stuff me in a rocket and shoot me in to space. It could be dangerous.

Lessans: Don't worry. It will be perfectly safe.

John Glenn: Why should I believe that?

Lessans: Because after we shoot you into space, and you return safely, you will see that we were right.

John Glenn: What if I don't return safely?

Lessans: That can't happen.

John Glenn: Why can't it happen?

Lessans: Because, according to my astute observations and my unique ability to see relations that no one else can see, I know, with scientific and mathematical certainty, that when we shoot you into space you will return safely.

John Glenn: Could I have a look at the math and the science, please?

Lessans: There isn't any actual math or science. When I say mathematical or scientific certainty what I really mean is that it is undeniably true.

John Glenn: Why should I believe that?

Lessans: Because after we shoot you into space, and you return safely, you will see that we were right.

John Glenn: But that is just circular reasoning.

Lessans: No, it is an undeniable law of nature that I have arrived at after years of astute observation and accurate reasoning.

John Glenn: To hell with that shit. I'm not going. Send Yeager.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is wrong. It's not an opinion that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and he didn't offer a tautlology.

It is an opinion. In the absence of proof it will remain an opinion and only an opinion. Did I say anthing about a tautology? I don't recall doing so. I think that is someone else's argument.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the argument is assailable

I am glad that there is something we can agree on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I objected to how you used the term because you are implying that if there is no preference then we can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction, thus you conclude Lessans was incorrect. Wrong.

That is precisely how Lessans uses the term. He states, repeatedly, that of the available options we will always prefer the one that moves us in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, but he never said that every choice has to have a preference which would make the choice easy. If two choices are preferred equally, what you do with that knowledge becomes the new set of options. It's not so much that one likes two or more things equally; it's the fact that one must choose that which gives him greater satisfaction in determining what to do with this quandary.

First of all, he never says anything like that. If he had I am sure you would have produced the relevant passage by now. That is just your attempt to say what you think he would have said if he had ever bothered to address the issue. Which he apparently never did.

Secondly, there is no new set of options. You have before you multiple competing options. Among those options are always the option to do nothing or the option to choose based on some consideration other than preference. The point being that the option to do nothing and the option to choose based upon some consideration other than preference are already members of the set of competing options. They are not new options. Consequently, if you choose to do nothing or if you choose based on some consideration other than preference you are still choosing from among a set of options that are of equal value. Therefore you are not choosing in the direction of greater satisfaction because all the aforementioned options present an equal degree of satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're totally missing the point. I'm trying to help you and I hope you soon realize that just because two or more preferences of equal value make it difficult to determine which is preferable, one must handle this conundrum, which might be to ramdomly choose one of the options, not choose any, or learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of those options so that a preference will be determined.

As I pointed out above, all of the those options already exist among the set of options that are of equal value. Therefore, no one of them is more likely than another to result in a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it is utterly
impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled by
their very nature to prefer A; and how can they be free when the
favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their
choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction?
To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able
to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he
doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what
he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative
is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction.

If you follow his reasoning, you will see that you are concluding that we always have to like one thing over another, but that's ridiculous and does not negate that we always move in the direction of "greater satisfaction" even if it's not to choose anything.

Do us both a favor. Go back and re-read the passage from Lessans that you quoted and re-read my response. After doing that, try actually answering the questions that I asked. Your response does not even come close to doing that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To repeat: This does not negate "greater satisfaction". What we do with our choices can never be in the direction of dissatisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. Therefore, the choice not to choose anything versus the choice to choose something may be the best choice for me considering that I don't know enough about those choices to determine which one I find preferable.

Unless the choice to do nothing is a less desirable option it is already included among the options of equal value. That being the case, your response is simply not germane to the question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What? Making a random choice might give me great satisfaction. I love to flip coins especially when I have no preference.

That being the case, the option to flip coins is already one of the options of equal value. Again, your response is not germane.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you're missing the point again. I don't have to have a preference. This knowledge of equal value compels me, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to figure out how to resolve it. I'm still moving toward greater satisfaction, but I'm given a difficult choice to make because it's not so obvious which option I like the most. So what?

You can't resolve it. The option to try and figure out how to resolve the issue is already included among the options of equal value. Again, not germane to the discussion. You are just hand-waving.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the act of choosing randomly gives me greater satisfaction than not choosing randomly. My choice then becomes "should I choose randomly" or "should I not." If I choose the former, then that means choosing randomly was my choice in the direction of greater satisfaction.

The act of choosing randomly may well give you greater satisfaction than not choosing randomly. In that case, not choosing randomly is not among the options of equal value and is already disqualified from consideration. However, the option of choosing randomly is already among the options of equal value and so the problem of choosing among options of equal value remains.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being in a state of fear or angst can render one incapable of rational thought.

That is one possible explanation for your failure to exercise rational thought.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Correct, but it has no bearing on this natural law of "greater satisfaction", which you seem to believe.

It seems to me that it does. Why don't you try explaining why you think it doesn't, as opposed to just saying that it doesn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The refutations will naturally fall away as you begin to see that this law is immutable.

First you will have demonstrate that it is a law, then you will have to demonstrate that it is also immutable. Until you do that my refutations stand unanswered.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But nothing can force you to do something if you don't want to. In other words, no one can force you to kill someone if you don't want to, even if you were going to be tortured as a result. That is what he is talking about.

Suppose that I put a loaded pistol in your hand. Then, using my superior strength I physically force you to point the gun at another person and pull the trigger. Have I not just forced you to do something that you did not want to do?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fine, but you are including something that is a non issue because it's obvious that this is not what he is referring to. It's a false dilemma.

It may be obvious that he is not referring to the use of overwhelming physical force, but it is not obvious that he is excluding that from consideration. It is not a false dilemma. Look up the meaning of the term before you start tossing it about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's true. How can we make two choices at the same time? Even if we combine A (e.g., taking a bite from an apple) and B (e.g., taking a bite from a banana), we are still making only one choice at that particular moment in time.

I grant you that we cannot make two choices at the same time. However, that does not mean that among the array of choices available that one, and only one, can be in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the whole point of talking about options of equal value. That one is faced with multiple options of equal value means that each one of those options represents a choice in the direction of satisfaction to the same degree. In other words, among a set of options of equal value there is no choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. There are only choices in the direction of the same degree of satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he is being charged with something that has no truth to it. It's like refuting that apples can only be red when we're talking about oranges.

It is nothing like that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not in error. I'm just trying to you help you because you seem to think this is a deal breaker.

It is a deal breaker. One of many.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry if he didn't explain this to your satisfaction, but it was taken for granted that you understood that he was talking about your will, not someone else's. You might not like what someone else is doing, and it might be against your will, but you have no control over this. The only thing you have control over is what you choose, or don't choose, to do in any given situation.

Taken for granted by whom. Certainly not by me. If you mean that Lessans took if for granted that others would assume that he did not mean to include overwhelming physical force, without having specifically excluded it, then that was just damn sloppy on his part. I am certainly not going to just take your word for what he may or may not have meant. The only thing that I am going to take for granted is that Lessans meant what he wrote, nothing more and nothing less.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all depends what you call proof. His observations were spot on.

Your saying it does not make it so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because if you understood that liking two things equally doesn't negate this natural law in any way, shape, or form, then this wouldn't be an issue.

I have trouble understanding things as true that are not true. Must be a flaw in my character.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what. It's a real scenario of what occurs in the real world. This isn't some kind of phoney intellectual debate. This is what happens in real life, and how people deal with this type of scenario.

Indeed, in real life people are able to choose among options that are of equal value. They can do this because they are not constrained by some fictional natural law that requires them to always choose that, and only that, which moves them in the direction of greater satisfaction. If they were so constrained they would not be able to make those sorts of choices. Sort of the point of this whole demonstration.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, I am only showing you that when confronted with a scenario like this, people have to choose between another set of options to determine what to do about it. I'm not doing anything except to try to get you to understand that what you think is a snag, is not.

No, what you are trying to do is introduce a new set of options which are not actually present. You wouldn't feel the need to engage in this sort of subterfuge if you were not trying defend an untenable position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said numerous times that it doesn't have to be greater. You can love two things, but if you can't have both, then you have to find a way to choose one or the other. This in no way discredits this natural law of man's nature.

Indeed, one must find a way to choose one or the other. The problem is that Lessans system makes no allowance for doing this. His failure to take this problem into consideration does seriously discredit his alleged "natural law of man's nature".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't have to. You keep setting this up as a discredit to Lessans' "system" because it doesn't meet the definition of what you believe is meant by "greater satisfaction". But it does, and I hope you eventually get it because it would be unfortunate if you gave up thinking that somehow your objections discredited this discovery.

If that is the case, then surely you can correct my misunderstanding by explaining what you think Lessans means by "greater satisfaction" and how my understanding of the term is in error.

[Sidhe]

It's more like

Peacegirl: I am right and you are wrong
Someone else: about what
Peacegirl: everything
Someone: I'm not even talking to you
Peacegirl: doesn't matter
Someone: er ok
Peacegirl: see
Someone: ok bye now

Thinks what a fucking nutjob*

Angakuk, I am only showing you that when confronted with a scenario like this, people have to choose between another set of options to determine what to do about it.

If I say the same nonsense over and over again eventually it magically becomes true and everyone else is mental not me and particularly not the overwhelmingly nonsensical bullshit of my father who was clearly disturbed and not able to reason.

Alrighty then.

I'm not doing anything except to try to get you to understand that what you think is a snag, is not.

I'm not expecting you to understand why I am a fruitcake, but I am fucking nuts, old naval huts.

Ooooooooooooooookay you go with that.

Wrong?

What is?

What you just said?

It was a statement it had no qualifiers

It's still wrong

Ermm I'm going to stop talking to you now

Wrong

Well okay bye

wrong

Yeaaasssssssssssssss*

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you left David. It was so peaceful here after you were gone. For your information, this IS a necessary truth, but you are too blind to see it because you don't want it to be true. Will the real troll please stand up? And what's it to you how long I stay here? It's none of your dam business.

Irony it's so ironic.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but in the new world there will be no legal or illegal, so evil will only mean hurting someone in a concrete way.

And hey presto! Invoke the magical new world, and all makes sense, because things are different there from our current reality. But wait a moment - What we are discussing is the very reasoning that tries to convince us that the new world is possible? This does not deal in any way with the fact that even in the new world, harmfulness is a relative rather than an absolute term, which means that we have not in fact dealt with new harm at all, we have merely attempted to oversimplify it into a binary proposition. This does not correspond with reality, hence you invoke a different reality.

True, but what stops people from doing anything that could lead to a hurt is the fact that all advance judgment will no longer be.

So you say - but this is based on the belief that unfree will + no blame = perfect conscientiousness, which remains an item of faith. Also the problem remains that what is harmful to one person can be beneficial to another, and that "a hurt" is not always a simple interaction between 2 people. An action can affect numerous people, some of whom interpret it as a hurt, others as something neutral, others as something good. This is not covered in the system, which reduces everything to simple, one on one exchanges that are considered either harmful or not harmful.

To an extent this is true. What's good to me might not be good to you. But most of us can agree that we don't want to be shot at, or stolen from

.

He said early on that good and bad are relative terms. Dog food is good to someone who is starving.

He did say that, but he did not realize the full implications - IE that it is not possible to reduce all interactions to simple exchanges that are either harmful or not harmful. Nor does he deal with the problem of an action being good for some, bad for others, and neutral for yet more.

First of all, there are no rules, so how can there be rules of the road? There is no legislation Angakuk. It actually is that simple because we all know what evil (hurt) is, and if there was any question we would simply find out.

But there is - in the part about marriage, there is a lot of talk about who has right of way. And it was me, not Anga, who said that. In that part, the writer simply decides which interpretation of who is in the right is correct and presents that as the only logical outcome. That is simply deciding on what is considered correct - a form of legislation.

It is true that there are many overlapping motives, but the motive to hurt someone under the changed conditions will not be one of them. You need to understand that all the causes that lead someone to desire hurting another will be eliminated. It's difficult to envision a world where no such motive exists because it's so different than the world we live in.

In stead of coming up with a logical response, you invoke the Happy Hunting Grounds, even though what we are discussing is actually the possibility of that happy hunting ground.

Also, I have repeatedly shown that the motives to hurt have not been eliminated - they have merely been represented in an overly simple way that does not correspond with how it works in reality. Your response to that it, invariably - yes, but in this OTHER reality it does work.

We're back to square one. It all boils down to whether his observations are accurate, which they are.

Which you BELIEVE they are, without having any evidence. That is a religious belief.

.

I don't know what else he could have done other than demonstrate what he observed. I told everyone that if they can't move forward just because he didn't discover this knowledge through empirical testing, then we're at the end of the road. His observation regarding conscience is accurate, even though I understand that it's difficult to see, especially when the connection between childhood hurt that leads to criminal behavior is not always obvious.

But he did not demonstrate it - he merely stated that it was so and left it at that. It is not demonstrated, proven, supported at all. Nowhere in the book is it explained A) why conscience works this way, and your response to that is invariably "it just does", or B) why we should assume conscience works this way, to which you always reply "It was an astute observation". However, he did not share this observation - not even his examination of his own conscience. He just says it is so, and expects us all to believe it. For you it is an item of faith, but I remain unconvinced, because I am not given any reason to believe it is so.

There is nothing religious about this book just because I say the conditions need to be met in order for these principles to work. I gave the example of astronauts trusting that mathematical precision will get them to their destination. How do they know for sure? Because the conditions that allow them to reach their destination have been met. The same principle applies here.

It is essentially religious. You have to believe that the book is correct for it to make sense, because you are asked to accept certain things without proof or a compelling reason to believe, except for your desire to believe it. Only if you believe does it make sense. One of the key things to believe without proof is that unfree will + no blame = perfect universal conscientiousness.

And the astronauts, should they wish to, can find the evidence that leads us to believe that their mission will be a success. It would be hard, as it requires a lot of specialist knowledge, but at no point are they required to just assume that "This navigation system just works, trust me on that, it is based on an acute observation that only one person has ever made and did not share".

There is nothing mathematically precise about "Conscience just works this way".

In the world of free will it is true that we may retaliate thinking someone struck us a first blow. But in the new world these things will rarely come up since no one will misinterpret what someone does. How can they when no one will be blaming or judging what another person does? That's what I mean when I say it's difficult to envision all of the changes that are going to take place which will eliminate these problems.

Ah. So not only perfect conscientiousness, but supra-human understanding of all possible motives in a complex web of human interactions as well? This new world is becoming more and more bizarre. Once again - reality conflicts, so in stead of dealing with this, you simply move the problem into this other reality and declare that in that other reality, the problem does not exist.

...but what we are discussing is the possibility of that reality, and the possibility of attaining it. That is circular.

And I answered that. If you like getting whipped during sex, then it's not evil, but I think we can all agree that no one wants to be shot, robbed, or killed. Those are pretty standard evils, don't you agree?

I do not agree at all - it is just not that simple.

A man slowly dying of gangrene, with no possibility of help, would welcome being shot. That same man, bearing an infectious disease that we cannot cure or stop from spreading, might not want to be shot, while for everyone else it might be the only solution to prevent larger-scale suffering. That same man's son might believe a cure could be come up with in time. Others may not want to take the chance, but change their mind once one of their own loved-ones gets infected. Others may feel that that whole group of people should be destroyed to make absolutely sure no risk to the world at large is tolerated. All these people have a point, and there is no clear right or wrong answer - and it is just a single, really simple problem! Imagine hundred of more complex issues, all interacting and overlapping.

There's more to it than that. All hurt must be removed from the environment which involves the economic system, before these principles will work.

That is still all just based on the same faith-based principle.

I don't know what else he could have done to describe how conscience works.

He could have shown why it must necessarily work in that way. He could have shown what he observed to lead him to the conclusion. He did neither of these things - he merely stated that it was so, and requires us to accept it. This is an article of faith.

No, that's incorrect. Please read this again.

There is nothing there that contradicts what I just said. What do you think it says that makes a point?

The former is not a fallacy. Under the changed conditions responsibility goes up, not down.

It is - it assumes that because what happens, happens, it must have been necessary for it to happen.

Some people would never do harm, so they don't need to be threatened, but for those who would do harm, threats of punishment may keep them from doing harm. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop a person who doesn't care about the possible consequences.

But the point remains that you oversimplify a complex web of motives and interaction to simple, absolute statements. This does not correspond with reality, to which your response is "but it will correspond with the NEW reality" even though what we are discussing is the possibility OF that new reality.

I believe he was correct. When all advance blame is removed from the environment, and a child grows up in an atmosphere of love, there is no way he could develop into a psychopath or sociopath as we see in today's world.

Yes - you BELIEVE it. But you do so on the basis of your fathers say-so, not on the basis of any evidence.

There are harmful/not harmful choices. Can you agree that there is a general standard as to what is harmful and what is not? I don't think anyone wants to get harmed in a car accident, or the victim of a medical mistake.

There are some things that are almost universally considered as harmful, sure. There are also simple harm / not harm choices. But there are also many things which are much more subjective, and many things that are not simple choices at all. Only the simple choices are dealt with in your system is a gross oversimplification.

No, we know this because once we make a choice, it renders all other choices impossible because they gave less satisfaction under the circumstances.

I'm sorry it's not a fallacy. Just because it's been endlessly pointed out doesn't make it right.

It states that that which happened, must have necessarily happened, because it happened. The necessity, however, has not been proven. We have not shown that it was necessary for it to happen before it happened, which is needed to make the event a necessity. We have merely shown THAT it happened. This is a classic example of a modal fallacy.

That's why reading the book in its entirety would have allowed you to see how this new world is not just a dream. When you see how different this world is going to be, it isn't a far cry to see why our conscience would never allow the things it allows in a free will environment.

Basically you are saying that if I would only believe, it would be so clear, because I would believe it was clear. This is not the case - I have no reason to make that leap of faith. You do, because you worship your father in a religious way.

There is only one outcome in a world where there is no blame, no judgment, no criticism, and complete economic security, and that is someone who could never take advantage of another for his personal gain.

You miss the point. The fact that you can see me being convinced as the only valid outcome is telling - it means you see the possibility of someone disagreeing with the book as having a valid point. The holy writing, to you, is the infallible word of god.

What can I say? The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but probably not for another 1000 years.

You can say "For this I have no proof, either empirical, logical, or even anecdotal, but I believe it nevertheless because I choose to." if you were feeling particularly honest.

The Christians have a similar dilemma - their holy book said the promised land was just about to happen 2000 years ago.

[Sidhe]

The Israelite nation was a shit hole, if I was Jesus I would of been fucking livid.

Promised land, where's that milk and fucking honey then?

Still no use crying over spilt milk I suppose.

Which is just what Jesus said.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is coming from someone who doesn't have a clue as to what his discovery is.

This coming from a fruit cake.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but in the new world there will be no legal or illegal, so evil will only mean hurting someone in a concrete way.

True, but what stops people from doing anything that could lead to a hurt is the fact that all advance judgment will no longer be.

.

He said early on that good and bad are relative terms. Dog food is good to someone who is starving.

First of all, there are no rules, so how can there be rules of the road? There is no legislation Angakuk. It actually is that simple because we all know what evil (hurt) is, and if there was any question we would simply find out.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

None of the above posts that you ascribe to me were written by me. They were, if I am not mistaken, Vivisectus' posts.

I get it mixed up. I thought it was you because it says your name on the very first post. Sorry Vivisectus.

[Vivisectus]

no biggy - i fixed most of them in my reply

[peacegirl]

The truth is I'm drunk, and I can't seem to pull myself together to answer these ridiculous questions. Maybe later, who knows. If not, I will be saying goodbye. It depends on how many glasses it takes for me to forget all of you.

[LadyShea]

You're drunk before noon and worrying about how to respond to this thread? I told you I was worried about your stress levels here, and you assured me you would be fine. This doesn't sound fine.

You really need to leave and focus on other things.

[Sidhe]

If she lives in Hawaii it's probably late.

But that's exactly what I thought.

Genuinely alarming, and I am not being sarcastic.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is I'm drunk, and I can't seem to pull myself together to answer these ridiculous questions. Maybe later, who knows. If not, I will be saying goodbye. It depends on how many glasses it takes for me to forget all of you.

By the way I'm unforgettable baby, there aint enough liquor in the world.



Drunk posting ftw.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're drunk before noon and worrying about how to respond to this thread? I told you I was worried about your stress levels here, and you assured me you would be fine. This doesn't sound fine.

You really need to leave and focus on other things.

I know you would respond this way. So much for being truthful. I have no idea why I told you this.

[LadyShea]

What kind of response would you expect when you expressed such a level of concern and sadness at a forum thread that you supposedly wrote off as a bad investment long ago?

Why does my being truthful make you lament being truthful?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What kind of response would you expect when you expressed such a level of concern and sadness at a forum thread that you supposedly wrote off as a bad investment long ago?

I guess I didn't expect this LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why does my being truthful make you lament being truthful?

Huh? I am not lamenting anything except the lack of true interest in this discovery.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess I didn't expect this LadyShea.

Jesus expected crucifixion but then he was omniscient and it made a philosophical point albeit a bad one IMHO. What would you expect?

Huh? I am not lamenting anything except the lack of true interest in this discovery. I should have left long ago. Actually, I need another drink.

Actually another drink is probably a bad idea.

And I mean that sincerely but hey you have free will and it's your life.

People are thinking its more of an invention than a discovery therein lies the problem. I know I don't know what this discovery is as I haven't read the book. Trust me I get that.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Angakuk;969435]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing religious about this book just because I say the conditions need to be met in order for these principles to work. I gave the example of astronauts trusting that mathematical precision will get them to their destination. How do they know for sure? Because the conditions that allow them to reach their destination have been met. The same principle applies here.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Astronauts did not know for sure that they would reach their destinations. Some did not. They took what they considered to be reasonable risks. They considered the risks to be reasonable because there was sufficient experimental evidence to support such a conclusion. They did not have to put their trust in a promise of some proof to be delivered in the future. Lessans offers no comparable evidence.

You keep saying that but there is enough evidence.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If Seymour Lessans had been a NASA official.

John Glenn: I am not sure that I want to let you stuff me in a rocket and shoot me in to space. It could be dangerous.

Lessans: Don't worry. It will be perfectly safe.

John Glenn: Why should I believe that?

Lessans: Because after we shoot you into space, and you return safely, you will see that we were right.

John Glenn: What if I don't return safely?

Lessans: That can't happen.

John Glenn: Why can't it happen?

Lessans: Because, according to my astute observations and my unique ability to see relations that no one else can see, I know, with scientific and mathematical certainty, that when we shoot you into space you will return safely.

John Glenn: Could I have a look at the math and the science, please?

Lessans: There isn't any actual math or science. When I say mathematical or scientific certainty what I really mean is that it is undeniably true.

John Glenn: Why should I believe that?

Lessans: Because after we shoot you into space, and you return safely, you will see that we were right.

John Glenn: But that is just circular reasoning.

Lessans: No, it is an undeniable law of nature that I have arrived at after years of astute observation and accurate reasoning.

John Glenn: To hell with that shit. I'm not going. Send Yeager.

What else can I do but laugh?