 |
  |
08-22-2011, 12:38 PM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
basic science is confusing to you.
|
What the hell are you talking about, all basic knowledge confuses her. She is so caught up in her fathers fantasy she has no sense of reality. |
Is she Smurfette? |
This is getting old. You don't have a clue what the discovery is, so how can you judge? You are the one that isn't in touch with reality. Is there anyone else who has any legitimate questions, because Sidhe is never going to carefully analyze or even contemplate the possibility of this knowledge being correct. It becomes a lost cause to converse with someone who is so biased that there is no hope for a give and take discussion. |
I do I read a few chapters and you've cut and pasted the argument.
It sounds like sloppily reasoned non argument. When the premises don't even stand up what point is there reading he whole thing, clearly it is just going to be faulty anyway.
|
08-22-2011, 12:52 PM
|
 |
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest.
|
08-22-2011, 01:08 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
basic science is confusing to you.
|
What the hell are you talking about, all basic knowledge confuses her. She is so caught up in her fathers fantasy she has no sense of reality. |
Is she Smurfette? |
This is getting old. You don't have a clue what the discovery is, so how can you judge? You are the one that isn't in touch with reality. Is there anyone else who has any legitimate questions, because Sidhe is never going to carefully analyze or even contemplate the possibility of this knowledge being correct. It becomes a lost cause to converse with someone who is so biased that there is no hope for a give and take discussion. |
I do I read a few chapters and you've cut and pasted the argument.
It sounds like sloppily reasoned non argument. When the premises don't even stand up what point is there reading he whole thing, clearly it is just going to be faulty anyway. |
Sounds can be deceiving Sidhe. It is not a sloppily reasoned non argument. Since you're so knowledgeable, tell me what the premises are and show me what doesn't follow. This has become a one-sided conversation. 
|
08-22-2011, 01:10 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test?
|
08-22-2011, 01:24 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations?
|
I see no reason to accept it, since without logical or empirical proof, the only reason I have to accept it is that it was your fathers opinion. To you that holds a lot of weight, but after reading his work I do not see a lot of reason to accept his authority.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peaegirl
The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test?
|
So I am to believe it proven now because in a world where everyone believes it is proven, it will be proven to work? And that is a convincing case to you?
One of the requirements for the brave new world is that people believe in it, remember?
|
08-22-2011, 01:27 PM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment.
|
08-22-2011, 03:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Absolutely categorically wrong Sidhe. If that is what you believe to be true, I am not arguing with you. Just go to another thread. There are many free will threads. Why stay here? I have no idea what your intentions are.
Last edited by peacegirl; 08-22-2011 at 10:20 PM.
|
08-22-2011, 03:13 PM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Absolutely categorically wrong Sidhe. If that is what you believe to be true, I am not arguing with you. Just go to another thread. There are many free will threads. Why stay here? Because there are a lot of hits? I have no idea what your intentions are. |
Do you think if you tell me to go away enough times I actually will. I post here because you are just deluded and there's something fascinating about a train wreck thread. It's kind of like the phenomena assosciated with freaks at the circus.
Let me end the suspense though I am going nowhere, you can either bitch about how science is totally wrong and that all evidence is false because your dad says so, or you can tell me to fuck off again: knock yourself out, you have free will I presume.
My intention is to get a decent argument for why free will exists or does not from you or Lessans, I'll settle for just watching you prevaricate though and throw up firewalls.
I started a free will thread myself called The Fear, it has no posts except mine. I probably should of made it clearer that the subject was free will at the start. Lol.
|
08-22-2011, 03:24 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Absolutely categorically wrong Sidhe. If that is what you believe to be true, I am not arguing with you. Just go to another thread. There are many free will threads. Why stay here? Because there are a lot of hits? I have no idea what your intentions are. |
Do you think if you tell me to go away enough times I actually will. I post here because you are just deluded and there's something fascinating about a train wreck thread. It's kind of like the phenomena assosciated with freaks at the circus.
Let me end the suspense though I am going nowhere, you can either bitch about how science is totally wrong and that all evidence is false because your dad says so, or you can tell me to fuck off again: knock yourself out, you have free will I presume.
My intention is to get a decent argument for why free will exists or does not from you or Lessans, I'll settle for just watching you prevaricate though and throw up firewalls.
I started a free will thread myself called The Fear, it has no posts except mine. I probably should of made it clearer that the subject was free will at the start. Lol. |
What the *#($ are you talking about when you start a thread about fear? I hate saying this, but you give me no choice.  You know what? Go to your thread about fear, and leave this thread alone. You say you have a choice, so use it and don't come back. I know you can't control yourself because YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE TO DO OTHERWISE.
Last edited by peacegirl; 08-22-2011 at 10:21 PM.
|
08-22-2011, 03:26 PM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Absolutely categorically wrong Sidhe. If that is what you believe to be true, I am not arguing with you. Just go to another thread. There are many free will threads. Why stay here? Because there are a lot of hits? I have no idea what your intentions are. |
Do you think if you tell me to go away enough times I actually will. I post here because you are just deluded and there's something fascinating about a train wreck thread. It's kind of like the phenomena assosciated with freaks at the circus.
Let me end the suspense though I am going nowhere, you can either bitch about how science is totally wrong and that all evidence is false because your dad says so, or you can tell me to fuck off again: knock yourself out, you have free will I presume.
My intention is to get a decent argument for why free will exists or does not from you or Lessans, I'll settle for just watching you prevaricate though and throw up firewalls.
I started a free will thread myself called The Fear, it has no posts except mine. I probably should of made it clearer that the subject was free will at the start. Lol. |
What the *#($ are you talking about when you start a thread about fear. Are you a nut case? I hate saying this, but you give me no choice. You know what? Go to your thread about fear, and leave this thread alone. You say you have a choice, so use it and don't come back. I know you can't control yourself because YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE TO DO OTHERWISE. |
Christ its a song you dumbass, at least read the thread before you fucking go mental. It makes perfect sense.
If I have to stay as I have no free will what the hell do you keep telling me to fuck off for?
|
08-22-2011, 10:32 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Absolutely categorically wrong Sidhe. If that is what you believe to be true, I am not arguing with you. Just go to another thread. There are many free will threads. Why stay here? Because there are a lot of hits? I have no idea what your intentions are. |
Do you think if you tell me to go away enough times I actually will. I post here because you are just deluded and there's something fascinating about a train wreck thread. It's kind of like the phenomena assosciated with freaks at the circus.
Let me end the suspense though I am going nowhere, you can either bitch about how science is totally wrong and that all evidence is false because your dad says so, or you can tell me to fuck off again: knock yourself out, you have free will I presume.
My intention is to get a decent argument for why free will exists or does not from you or Lessans, I'll settle for just watching you prevaricate though and throw up firewalls.
I started a free will thread myself called The Fear, it has no posts except mine. I probably should of made it clearer that the subject was free will at the start. Lol. |
What the *#($ are you talking about when you start a thread about fear. Are you a nut case? I hate saying this, but you give me no choice. You know what? Go to your thread about fear, and leave this thread alone. You say you have a choice, so use it and don't come back. I know you can't control yourself because YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE TO DO OTHERWISE. |
Christ its a song you dumbass, at least read the thread before you fucking go mental. It makes perfect sense.
If I have to stay as I have no free will what the hell do you keep telling me to fuck off for? |
You have no free will, and neither do I, but that doesn't mean I will let you call me names and belittle this work like so many others. If you stop being condescending, maybe I won't be so quick to react.
|
08-22-2011, 11:00 PM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Absolutely categorically wrong Sidhe. If that is what you believe to be true, I am not arguing with you. Just go to another thread. There are many free will threads. Why stay here? Because there are a lot of hits? I have no idea what your intentions are. |
Do you think if you tell me to go away enough times I actually will. I post here because you are just deluded and there's something fascinating about a train wreck thread. It's kind of like the phenomena assosciated with freaks at the circus.
Let me end the suspense though I am going nowhere, you can either bitch about how science is totally wrong and that all evidence is false because your dad says so, or you can tell me to fuck off again: knock yourself out, you have free will I presume.
My intention is to get a decent argument for why free will exists or does not from you or Lessans, I'll settle for just watching you prevaricate though and throw up firewalls.
I started a free will thread myself called The Fear, it has no posts except mine. I probably should of made it clearer that the subject was free will at the start. Lol. |
What the *#($ are you talking about when you start a thread about fear. Are you a nut case? I hate saying this, but you give me no choice. You know what? Go to your thread about fear, and leave this thread alone. You say you have a choice, so use it and don't come back. I know you can't control yourself because YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE TO DO OTHERWISE. |
Christ its a song you dumbass, at least read the thread before you fucking go mental. It makes perfect sense.
If I have to stay as I have no free will what the hell do you keep telling me to fuck off for? |
You have no free will, and neither do I, but that doesn't mean I will let you call me names and belittle this work like so many others. If you stop being condescending, maybe I won't be so quick to react. |
Ok I'm starting to think either you are mental or this really is just troll, if you are mental fair enough: no worries many of my friends are: if it's a troll it's hopeless and the lulz brigade should get a fucking life and some friends.
I am not insulting anyone though I will say that, I am just inquiring.
This could all just be a lolz brigade (AKA Clown Patrol: a bunch of simpletons that are so easy to mess with that it's not even funny, and they should stop living in their mothers basement and get a life wank/frot fest, where they don't go off and gobble each other off every night and pretend they matter), it could not. But frankly either way it's as lame as they are. They aint human either, to be human they would actually have to matter a damn to someone somewhere presumably at some point. Scum is scum. You get played every day, at what point are you going to realise you are worthless? You never had any point you never will. You just don't. You are useless.
OT though: Seriously though Peacegirl you need to STFU. Because if you are a troll you're lame and if you aint you're lame.
There for the first time I actually insulted you not your argument, do as you want with that.
|
08-22-2011, 11:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Lessans was not out of touch with current information and experiment. His observations were accurate and his reasoning was sound. An invariable law doesn't change with more experiments. It is a necessary truth, not a contingent truth. Determinism does not remove one's freedom to choose, nor does it decrease one's responsibility; it increases it. Most philosophers believe the opposite only because they haven't extended these principles thoroughly.
|
08-22-2011, 11:33 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Absolutely categorically wrong Sidhe. If that is what you believe to be true, I am not arguing with you. Just go to another thread. There are many free will threads. Why stay here? Because there are a lot of hits? I have no idea what your intentions are. |
Do you think if you tell me to go away enough times I actually will. I post here because you are just deluded and there's something fascinating about a train wreck thread. It's kind of like the phenomena assosciated with freaks at the circus.
Let me end the suspense though I am going nowhere, you can either bitch about how science is totally wrong and that all evidence is false because your dad says so, or you can tell me to fuck off again: knock yourself out, you have free will I presume.
My intention is to get a decent argument for why free will exists or does not from you or Lessans, I'll settle for just watching you prevaricate though and throw up firewalls.
I started a free will thread myself called The Fear, it has no posts except mine. I probably should of made it clearer that the subject was free will at the start. Lol. |
What the *#($ are you talking about when you start a thread about fear. Are you a nut case? I hate saying this, but you give me no choice. You know what? Go to your thread about fear, and leave this thread alone. You say you have a choice, so use it and don't come back. I know you can't control yourself because YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE TO DO OTHERWISE. |
Christ its a song you dumbass, at least read the thread before you fucking go mental. It makes perfect sense.
If I have to stay as I have no free will what the hell do you keep telling me to fuck off for? |
You have no free will, and neither do I, but that doesn't mean I will let you call me names and belittle this work like so many others. If you stop being condescending, maybe I won't be so quick to react. |
Ok I'm starting to think either you are mental or this really is just troll, if you are mental fair enough: no worries many of my friends are: if it's a troll it's hopeless and the lulz brigade should get a fucking life and some friends.
I am not insulting anyone though I will say that, I am just inquiring.
This could all just be a lolz brigade (AKA Clown Patrol: a bunch of simpletons that are so easy to mess with that it's not even funny, and they should stop living in their mothers basement and get a life wank/frot fest, where they don't go off and gobble each other off every night and pretend they matter), it could not. But frankly either way it's as lame as they are. They aint human either, to be human they would actually have to matter a damn to someone somewhere presumably at some point. Scum is scum. You get played every day, at what point are you going to realise you are worthless? You never had any point you never will. You just don't. You are useless.
OT though: Seriously though Peacegirl you need to STFU. Because if you are a troll you're lame and if you aint you're lame.
There for the first time I actually insulted you not your argument, do as you want with that. |
|
08-22-2011, 11:36 PM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Absolutely categorically wrong Sidhe. If that is what you believe to be true, I am not arguing with you. Just go to another thread. There are many free will threads. Why stay here? Because there are a lot of hits? I have no idea what your intentions are. |
Do you think if you tell me to go away enough times I actually will. I post here because you are just deluded and there's something fascinating about a train wreck thread. It's kind of like the phenomena assosciated with freaks at the circus.
Let me end the suspense though I am going nowhere, you can either bitch about how science is totally wrong and that all evidence is false because your dad says so, or you can tell me to fuck off again: knock yourself out, you have free will I presume.
My intention is to get a decent argument for why free will exists or does not from you or Lessans, I'll settle for just watching you prevaricate though and throw up firewalls.
I started a free will thread myself called The Fear, it has no posts except mine. I probably should of made it clearer that the subject was free will at the start. Lol. |
What the *#($ are you talking about when you start a thread about fear. Are you a nut case? I hate saying this, but you give me no choice. You know what? Go to your thread about fear, and leave this thread alone. You say you have a choice, so use it and don't come back. I know you can't control yourself because YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE TO DO OTHERWISE. |
Christ its a song you dumbass, at least read the thread before you fucking go mental. It makes perfect sense.
If I have to stay as I have no free will what the hell do you keep telling me to fuck off for? |
You have no free will, and neither do I, but that doesn't mean I will let you call me names and belittle this work like so many others. If you stop being condescending, maybe I won't be so quick to react. |
Ok I'm starting to think either you are mental or this really is just troll, if you are mental fair enough: no worries many of my friends are: if it's a troll it's hopeless and the lulz brigade should get a fucking life and some friends.
I am not insulting anyone though I will say that, I am just inquiring.
This could all just be a lolz brigade (AKA Clown Patrol: a bunch of simpletons that are so easy to mess with that it's not even funny, and they should stop living in their mothers basement and get a life wank/frot fest, where they don't go off and gobble each other off every night and pretend they matter), it could not. But frankly either way it's as lame as they are. They aint human either, to be human they would actually have to matter a damn to someone somewhere presumably at some point. Scum is scum. You get played every day, at what point are you going to realise you are worthless? You never had any point you never will. You just don't. You are useless.
OT though: Seriously though Peacegirl you need to STFU. Because if you are a troll you're lame and if you aint you're lame.
There for the first time I actually insulted you not your argument, do as you want with that. |
|
Peacegirl. Just give up now.
Now we know.
|
08-23-2011, 04:29 AM
|
 |
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are still missing the entire point. If there is no preference, that doesn't mean a decision can't be made to break the paralysis. The choice then becomes do I pick one (even though it doesn't matter which one; this happens all the time Angakuk) or not choosing any, and deciding (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to move onto something else. If you were paralyzed, you would have never moved off of the spot called "here" to "there". But you did move off the spot because you are not in the same position as you were before.
|
Of course it happens all the time, in the real world. Thus my astute observation that Lessans' claims bear no relation to what actually happens in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I mentioned before that you aren't getting it because you don't realize that every single movement (not just when choosing between two alternatives) is in one direction ONLY. We are determined; we are under a compulsion to move in one direction ONLY, so to say determinism doesn't enter into it doesn't even make logical sense.
|
I don't realize it because it has not been demonstrated to be the case. You keep trying to use Lessans claims as evidence for the truth of those same claims. It doesn't work that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This is going to prevent you from understanding the rest of this discovery. How unfortunate. How can the statement "nothing can make me do anything against my will" have anything to do with someone else's will?
|
Let me remind you that Lessans' made a very specific claim. To whit, nothing in the entire universe can make a man do something he does not want to do. If, through the exercise of overwhelming physical force, I can make you do something you do not want to do, then it follows that Lessans' claim is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It becomes a lost cause to converse with someone who is so biased that there is no hope for a give and take discussion.
|
You are talking about yourself now, aren't you? Go ahead and admit it. You will feel better. The truth shall make you free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking.
|
There is indeed "something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world" and it is true that "observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world". However, in the absence of replicable experiments and properly documented methodology and data, there is no reason to believe that Lessans' descriptions of and observations about the real world are accurate, reliable, astute, useful or, in any way, meaningful.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. 
|
08-23-2011, 05:05 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are still missing the entire point. If there is no preference, that doesn't mean a decision can't be made to break the paralysis. The choice then becomes do I pick one (even though it doesn't matter which one; this happens all the time Angakuk) or not choosing any, and deciding (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to move onto something else. If you were paralyzed, you would have never moved off of the spot called "here" to "there". But you did move off the spot because you are not in the same position as you were before.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Of course it happens all the time, in the real world. Thus my astute observation that Lessans' claims bear no relation to what actually happens in the real world.
|
Please stop making fun of this expression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I mentioned before that you aren't getting it because you don't realize that every single movement (not just when choosing between two alternatives) is in one direction ONLY. We are determined; we are under a compulsion to move in one direction ONLY, so to say determinism doesn't enter into it doesn't even make logical sense.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
I don't realize it because it has not been demonstrated to be the case. You keep trying to use Lessans claims as evidence for the truth of those same claims. It doesn't work that way.
|
I did not use his claims as evidence for the truth; the demonstration as to why we can only go in one direction was the proof of determinism. Whether you see the proof or not is another story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This is going to prevent you from understanding the rest of this discovery. How unfortunate. How can the statement "nothing can make me do anything against my will" have anything to do with someone else's will?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Let me remind you that Lessans' made a very specific claim. To whit, nothing in the entire universe can make a man do something he does not want to do. If, through the exercise of overwhelming physical force, I can make you do something you do not want to do, then it follows that Lessans' claim is false.
|
Here again, you are bringing something unrelated into the discussion. Does anybody in this thread understand that he meant "your will", not someone else's? 
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It becomes a lost cause to converse with someone who is so biased that there is no hope for a give and take discussion.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
You are talking about yourself now, aren't you? Go ahead and admit it. You will feel better. The truth shall make you free.
|
I really don't know why you are so stuck on that one statement. It is obvious he didn't mean physical force because that is someone else's will being forced on you. But when it comes to your will, nothing can make you do something against it. You could die before lifting a finger to do something you don't want to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
There is indeed "something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world" and it is true that "observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world". However, in the absence of replicable experiments and properly documented methodology and data, there is no reason to believe that Lessans' descriptions of and observations about the real world are accurate, reliable, astute, useful or, in any way, meaningful.
|
I'm sorry you feel that way. These observations can be tested in a controlled situation. I am not denying that evidence is crucial. Eventually it will be demonstrated that when all blame is removed from the environment, man will only be able to go in one direction which is not to hurt others with a first blow. My question to you is why give up just because you aren't sure whether his insights are correct? Why not assume he is right for the time being. If you do give up (along with everyone else) it will just take longer for this new world to become a reality, but eventually this discovery will be tested and verified. 
Last edited by peacegirl; 08-23-2011 at 05:17 AM.
|
08-23-2011, 05:42 AM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
My question to you is why give up just because you aren't sure whether his insights are correct? Why not assume he is right for the time being.
|
Because, for some unaccountable reason, I seem to require some reason to believe that a thing is true. The belief, in and of itself, does not need to be reasonable, but I need a reason to believe it. Thus far I have been given no reason to believe that Lessans' claims are true. On the contrary, I can see a number of reasons to believe that they are not true. That they may, possibly, at some indeterminate future date, be proven true simply does not cut the mustard for me. As it stands now, the pudding has not been eaten, neither have the cows come home.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
08-23-2011, 07:04 AM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
|
My question to you is why give up just because you aren't sure whether his insights are correct? Why not assume he is right for the time being. If you do give up (along with everyone else) it will just take longer for this new world to become a reality, but eventually this discovery will be tested and verified.
|
So - while trying to find out if he is right, if you cannot find a reason to believe he is, why not believe it anyway, because that way you will be convinced quicker?
I can see why the particular brand of "logic" of this book appeals to you.
|
08-23-2011, 07:14 AM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
It is simply Pascal's Wager with Lessans' Golden Age substituted for Heaven.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
08-23-2011, 08:30 AM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I never got Pascals Wager. What if you back the wrong God? I don't want to piss off Thor!
|
08-23-2011, 08:35 AM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I never got Pascals Wager. What if you back the wrong God? I don't want to piss off Thor!
|
Which is why it is bs. 
You have a habit of stating something self evident as if it is a matter of some doubt; work on it.
|
08-23-2011, 08:37 AM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.
I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.
She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?
|
Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge. |
I wish he had deigned to define it at all. He just stated it was all sorted and left it at that, as usual. |
That's not what he did. He did not just state it was all sorted and left it at that. There is absolutely no basis for communication because you keep accusing him of things he hasn't done. |
We covered this. You yourself admitted that he was right because, and I quote, "Human conscience just works that way", and that this had been discovered through "astute observation".
Which is basically saying "Trust me, it just is like this" without baking it up in the slightest. |
Vivisectus, there is something to be said for an accurate description of what is happening in the real world. Observation is a very important key to understanding the natural world. Just because he didn't test his observations in a laboratory, or collect empirical data, does not mean his observations are lacking. If you can't get beyond this, there is absolutely no point in continuing. How can I make headway at all if you can't even accept, temporarily, that he was spot on in his observations? The proof that he was right will one day be seen because these principles work. Isn't that the ultimate test? |
When all empirical evidence flatly contradicts everything Lessans is saying then empirical evidence aught to lead you to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately though you've skipped straight over the real evidence and just substituted a fantasy conclusion for rigorous argument. I doubt you even understand why determinism is questionable at best let alone why such a case means free will is entirely possible. And in fact why Lessans was woefully out of touch with the current information and experiment. |
Lessans was not out of touch with current information and experiment. His observations were accurate and his reasoning was sound. An invariable law doesn't change with more experiments. It is a necessary truth, not a contingent truth. Determinism does not remove one's freedom to choose, nor does it decrease one's responsibility; it increases it. Most philosophers believe the opposite only because they haven't extended these principles thoroughly. |
I've already shown you where they weren't.
ok what experiment confirms Lessans conclusions? And please while you are trolling on about how I should fuck off and how I have not read it so could not possibly understand it, and whatever other lame shit counts as an opinion, please make sure you answer the question.
Cheers.
|
08-23-2011, 09:09 AM
|
|
Banned for death threats
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe
basic science is confusing to you.
|
What the hell are you talking about, all basic knowledge confuses her. She is so caught up in her fathers fantasy she has no sense of reality. |
Is she Smurfette? |
This is getting old. You don't have a clue what the discovery is, so how can you judge? You are the one that isn't in touch with reality. Is there anyone else who has any legitimate questions, because Sidhe is never going to carefully analyze or even contemplate the possibility of this knowledge being correct. It becomes a lost cause to converse with someone who is so biased that there is no hope for a give and take discussion. |
I do I read a few chapters and you've cut and pasted the argument.
It sounds like sloppily reasoned non argument. When the premises don't even stand up what point is there reading he whole thing, clearly it is just going to be faulty anyway. |
Sounds can be deceiving Sidhe. It is not a sloppily reasoned non argument. Since you're so knowledgeable, tell me what the premises are and show me what doesn't follow. This has become a one-sided conversation. |
That science is trying to keep him down (its all a vast conspiracy of intellectuals), that light is efferent, and that this somehow equates with us having no free will and that this in turn means that if anyone will join the Godhead then humanity will be saved by his divine mandate.
That about cover it?
- Since no scientist has peer reviewed his work, the first premise is the paranoid ramblings akin to Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf
- light cannot be efferent it would break all fundamental natural laws, including special relativity, quantum mechanical laws et al. Not to mention the fact and this is in fact key: it does not and is not supported by any known experiment, and cannot be by the nature of its premises
- free will is not decided on determinism existing or not for a start and even if it were just stating that it does not exist is in conflict with sound logical reasoning, especially when set up as either an axiom or what he calls a mathematical argument. Sure if we agree on the axiom that white is black then white is black: news flash: we do not. His argument about us not being able to be forced to do anything against our will is a tautology also, another way of saying axiomatically untouchable.
- yes David Koresh, we know.
- but you assume humanity needs some trite Buddhist doctrine that is Zen to save it? Or that it is even now not progressing
- if you strive to save humanity you must first learn to save yourself.
- "To reach Nirvana and break the chains of fate one must learn to free oneself from the chains of desire that bind. Once broken then we are free - what happens next is not written." The Siddhartha Guatma, The Buddha.
"Was Atman then not within him? Was not then the source within his own heart? One must find the source within one's own Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking - a detour, error."
The Siddartha, Hermen Hess.
Last edited by Sidhe; 08-23-2011 at 09:27 AM.
|
08-23-2011, 12:35 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
|
My question to you is why give up just because you aren't sure whether his insights are correct? Why not assume he is right for the time being. If you do give up (along with everyone else) it will just take longer for this new world to become a reality, but eventually this discovery will be tested and verified.
|
So - while trying to find out if he is right, if you cannot find a reason to believe he is, why not believe it anyway, because that way you will be convinced quicker?
I can see why the particular brand of "logic" of this book appeals to you. |
Vivisectus, that is not the reason I am saying this. If you can't understand his reasoning, or you don't have any reason to believe that his premises are correct, the only thing left if we're going to make any headway is to assume that he is right. That's why I said "temporarily". You can always reject his claims if you feel he is wrong, but not until a thorough investigation (which includes testing) is performed.
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 57 (0 members and 57 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM.
|
|
 |
|
Linear Mode
