A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here are some excellent posts made by Kael on this topic, peacegirl

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Exactly. Under modal logic, the modal status of a proposition cannot change. No contingent proposition ever becomes necessary or impossible. It is, was and always will be a contingent fact of history that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

Even possible truths don't really "change into" actual truths. An actual truth is just a possible truth, so its modal status does not change, possibility being a necessary precondition of actuality. There are possible actual truths and possible non-actual truths.

So the claim of peacegirl/Lessans that a contingent proposition becomes a necessary proposition after the fact is logically false.

One interesting question to pursue is whether Lessans ever wrote a single line that was not actually false, often preposterously so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stop right there, because this is the heart of what you are failing to understand. That a different choice could have been made, that there could have been a different outcome then there was is the only point I am trying to make.

What you're failing to understand is that once a choice is made, there couldn't have been a different outcome. That's the entire point.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is where you and Lessans keep making the same fallacious mistake.

If there could have been a different outcome, then you have eliminated the element of necessity.

Do you or do you not understand this point?

You are so obviously wrong, and you're attitude is not helping. There is an absolute element of necessity. You actually think you understood his proof? I can see that you haven't understood the first thing about his proof of determinism. And we haven't even gotten close to the discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but once he made the choice, he could not have gone to college because that was not the choice that was most preferable at that moment of time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He made the choice not to go to college at that moment, he could have made a different choice the next moment, and then a different one the moment after that. He could have changed his mind a million times and chosen to go to college at any one of those moments in time. He could have applied, been admitted, driven to the campus, and decided at the very door to turn around and go home. Choices can be changed. Preferences can change.

Yes, he could have made a different choice if at that moment, something else came into play that made another choice more compelling. Then maybe going to college would have been the preferable choice. But under his circumstances, given the choices that were available, not going to college was the preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. I explained this so clearly in the book. You show me again and again how little you have read or understood.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Only positive actions cannot be undone. Non actions can be done at any time.

You didn't even understand the very first paragraph of his proof, as you clearly demonstrate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This ability to make different choices moment to moment still doesn't make will free, however.

You're right, it makes will not free because of the choices available (assuming for a moment that there is a greater preference), one of them is an impossible choice. I already addressed Angakuk's question about choices that are equal in value. I don't think he understood that this makes no difference.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The reason why we make choices, the stuff about preferences and satisfaction cannot be proven to be a compulsion.

Oh yes it can. I'm not talking about compulsion in the sense of an addiction. But we are compelled to choose that which is most preferable, and we can't get away from it because desire must move in this direction. We cannot choose that which we believe is the least desirable when a better alternative is available. That's the purpose of weighing the pros and cons of each choice when making a decision. We don't weigh options to pick what we believe is the least desirable choice.

You're right that what gives me greater satisfaction cannot be objectively measured. That's not what Lessans is even saying. What he is saying is that whatever choice we make is always in the direction of greater satisfaction because whatever the options are, we cannot move in the direction of what gives us less satisfaction by comparison. It's true that we may not have considered all possibilities, or we might not have carefully considered the consequences of our choice at that moment, but this doesn't change the fact that, of the knowledge we had at that moment, we made the best possible choice that we could possibly make under the circumstances.

First of all, where did he describe himself as a genius? He never used that word; he said that people would either see him as a genius or a crackpot. Holding Lessans to high standards is not where the snobbery is coming from, and you know it.

Then leave.

And I will repeat that "greater satisfaction" cannot be observed, but it can be inferred. It makes no difference whether an action is observed by others, or not, because it doesn't change the direction each individual is compelled to move. I know you don't see the proof which I gave to you months ago. You were so intent on finding flaws that it went right over your head.

Yes it does.

Fact not in evidence. You cannot prove there is a compulsion, you can think there is and you can assume there is only.

Absolutely wrong. This has nothing to do with an assumption. From the moment we are born to the moment we die, we are under a compulsion to choose the alternative that is most preferable at each moment in time. But what each person considers preferable is different depending on his heredity and environment. I'm sure this won't help you, but for others I will post it again:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

I will now put the conclusive proof that man’s
will is not free to a mathematical test.
Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage
and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two
exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by
having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing
small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely
necessary to know which is preferable. The difference which is
considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of
greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes one of them
an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less
satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an
impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly
possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your
decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any
way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could
you prefer the other alternative?”

“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t
given me any choice.”

“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you
should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In
other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of
alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A.
It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it
could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as
an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice you are
not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of
the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control.”
The definition of free will states that good or evil can be chosen
without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is
a tremendous amount of compulsion.

The word ‘choice’ itself
indicates there are preferable differences otherwise there would be no
choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are
confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading for it assumes
that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion
because the direction of life, always moving towards greater
satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he
considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are
presented he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not that one
which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being
better for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of
man’s nature but to reiterate this important point...he is compelled
to prefer of alternatives the one he considers better for himself
and even though he chooses various things all through the course
of his life he is never given any choice at all. Although the definition
of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion
or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when
choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the
most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable while other differences need a more careful consideration
does not change the direction of life which moves always towards
greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must
bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that a
juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that affect
choice.”

“I think I found a flaw. I can show you where I’m moving in the
direction of dissatisfaction. Let us imagine that of two apples, a red
and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the
red, consequently my taste lies in the direction of the latter which
gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the
red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it
to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the
yellow apple — I can definitely move in the direction of
dissatisfaction.”

“In response to this demonstration, isn’t it obvious that regardless
of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it
would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment of
time gave you greater satisfaction otherwise you would have definitely
selected and eaten the yellow? The normal circumstances under which
you frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by your
desire to prove a point, therefore it gave you greater satisfaction to eat
what you did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be
made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since
B (eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice at that moment,
you were not free to choose A.”

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results
will always be the same because this is an invariable law. From
moment to moment, all through life, man can never move in the
direction of dissatisfaction, and that his every motion, conscious or
unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or
move to greater satisfaction, otherwise, as has been shown, not being
dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of
life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is
the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch — as
urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking,
talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life
pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction.

It is easy, in
many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when
funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to
comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible
for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises
from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means
that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment; and
your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of
dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable.
This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not
free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it
offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

to be cont...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise.

That's the modal fallacy, right there. If there was more than one possible truth, it could have been otherwise.

Do you understand after the last several posts why you are being charged with the modal fallacy?

Do you understand why what you are saying and how you are saying at least appears fallacious to others?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's the modal fallacy, right there. If there was more than one possible truth, it could have been otherwise.

Do you understand after the last several posts why you are being charged with the modal fallacy?

Do you understand why what you are saying and how you are saying at least appears fallacious to others?

You're wrong though. That's the standard definition of determinism but that's not the more accurate definition Lessans is proposing. In the standard definition, the forces controlling behavior don't allow for choice (or the ability to contemplate). Choice is relegated to a free will position; in fact, that's what people believe free will is; the ability to make choices. That's the crux of the problem and why there is so much confusion. In Lessans' definition, we are able to make choices, but that doesn't make our will free, and until you get this you will continue to say it's a modal fallacy. Moreover, just because there is more than one possibility doesn't change the fact that once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise rendering all the other choices less satisfying at that moment in time. That doesn't mean you don't learn from previous experience. Don't you see the flaw in your thinking? Of course not, because it's not your thinking. It's group think.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From the moment we are born to the moment we die, we are under a compulsion to choose the alternative that is most preferable at each moment in time.

That premise is not empirically testable, it is not subject to being disproven, therefore it remains an assumption.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong though. That's the standard definition of determinism but that's not the more accurate definition Lessans is proposing.

Who said anything about definitions of determinism? Where did I say anything at all about determinism?

I am only talking about Lessans premises and supporting arguments for his conclusions. His reasoning is fallacious. Your statement "Once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise." is fallacious.

It is possible that he was correct, however there is nothing in his arguments to support that he was.

The whole rest of this post was completely irrelevant to the discussion of the modal fallacy as employed by you and Lessans, so I deleted it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That premise is not empirically testable, it is not subject to being disproven, therefore it remains an assumption.

You're wrong. As I said, I gave you the excerpt that showed exactly where his observations came from and what led him to this revelation. You can deny and deny to your heart's content. It doesn't change the fact that these observations were spot on. And if you read the book, you would get a much clearer picture of how this knowledge will help our world; not hurt it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

just because there is more than one possibility doesn't change the fact that once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise rendering all the other choices less satisfying at that moment in time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you're failing to understand is that once a choice is made, there couldn't have been a different outcome.

The fact that there are multiple possibilities means that none of the choices are impossible. Options do not become impossible or non-options just because they were not chosen.

So it remains that yes given that there were possible other options, the outcome could absolutely have been otherwise

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong. As I said, I gave you the excerpt that showed exactly where his observations came from and what led him to this revelation.

How did he observe greater satisfaction in other people?
How can preference or satisfaction be empirically observed or measured?
How can there be an objective test of satisfaction levels or preferences?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong though. That's the standard definition of determinism but that's not the more accurate definition Lessans is proposing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything about definitions of determinism? Where did I say anything at all about determinism?

I am only talking about Lessans premises and supporting arguments for his conclusions. His reasoning is fallacious. Your statement "Once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise." is fallacious.

But that is the definition of determinism LadyShea. If you could not have chosen otherwise, then choice is an illusion. And that is a true statement. You can call it fallacious but it doesn't change the truth. Itt's unfortunate that you are have so quickly decided that he is wrong before really understanding the whole of his discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is possible that he was correct, however there is nothing in his arguments to support that he was.

But his argument does support it. I don't even think you remember where I copied and pasted this part. This came from careful observation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The whole rest of this post was completely irrelevant to the discussion of the modal fallacy as employed by you and Lessans, so I deleted it.

There is no modal fallacy in this presentation, and for you to accuse Lessans of being wrong without fully understanding his reasoning is extremely presumptuous. It makes me think that this thread is going be another futile effort that should never have started to begin with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The fact that there are multiple possibilities means that none of the choices are impossible. Options do not become impossible or non-options just because they were not chosen.

So it remains that yes given that there were possible other options, the outcome could absolutely have been otherwise

No, it could not have been once the choice was made. That's where you're extremely mixed up.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes me think that this thread is going be another futile effort that should never have started to begin with

This is the same group of people with the same questions and criticisms you have been unable to adequately respond to all this time, did you think those questions and criticisms would change just because you decide to drop topics when you can't respond?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it could not have been once the choice was made. That's where you're extremely mixed up.

This is where you are mixed up

Originally Posted by Kael

Whether a truth is necessary does not change before or after the event. If it was not a necessary truth before the event it cannot be a necessary truth after the event. Possible and actual truths are the only ones that change before and after an event.

Originally Posted by davidm

No contingent proposition ever becomes necessary or impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did he observe greater satisfaction in other people?
How can preference or satisfaction be empirically observed or measured?
How can there be an objective test of satisfaction levels or preferences?

I told you that you can't observe greater satisfaction directly, but once you understand where his observations came from, it is not hard to see that this underlying principle is always at work.

[LadyShea]

Again, I could agree with Lessans assumption about greater satisfaction, a million people could agree with the assumption about greater satisfaction, all of science could agree with his assumption about greater satisfaction and 99% of human beings could actually make their decisions that way that still would not make it a proven fact or a law. It remains an assumption if it can't be disproven - it is not a law of nature if there could be exceptions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is where you are mixed up

Absolutely not. That's the standard definition which is not a false dichotomy and separates our ability to make choices as free, and our inability to make choices as determined.

This is absolutely false. Contingent only means that before the fact, we are able to weigh possible outcomes. But this does not in any way indicate that our final choice in this comparison of possibilities, was not a necessary choice.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not. That's the standard definition which is not a false dichotomy and separates our ability to make choices as free, and our inability to make choices as determined.

Standard definition of what? Kael was only discussing necessary, actual, and possible truths, it need not be related to the free will or determinism topic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is absolutely false. Contingent only means that before the fact, we are able to weigh possible outcomes. But this does not in any way indicate that our final choice in this comparison of possibilities, was not a necessary choice.

Contingent doesn't meant that, it simply means "possible" and "not logically necessary" in this context.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This came from careful observation.

Observation of who or what? You don't even know what exactly he observed happening or being done, let alone who he observed doing it.

You still don't get it do you? You think by changing "conclusion" or "assumption" to "observation" makes it all okay? When you redefine words like that, you're going to get called on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Exactly. Under modal logic, the modal status of a proposition cannot change. No contingent proposition ever becomes necessary or impossible. It is, was and always will be a contingent fact of history that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

Even possible truths don't really "change into" actual truths. An actual truth is just a possible truth, so its modal status does not change, possibility being a necessary precondition of actuality. There are possible actual truths and possible non-actual truths.

So the claim of peacegirl/Lessans that a contingent proposition becomes a necessary proposition after the fact is logically false.

One interesting question to pursue is whether Lessans ever wrote a single line that was not actually false, often preposterously so.

A possible non-actual truth is not of concern because, although it's possible, it hasn't occurred. The actual truths, the truths that are manifested not just in possibility but in actuality, are what matter. Call them whatever names you like. I am not getting into semantic games with you, and that's what this is to you. You are so confused with your logic, that you can't even follow what Lessans is saying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, I could agree with Lessans assumption about greater satisfaction, a million people could agree with the assumption about greater satisfaction, all of science could agree with his assumption about greater satisfaction and 99% of human beings could actually make their decisions that way that still would not make it a proven fact or a law. It remains an assumption if it can't be disproven - it is not a law of nature if there could be exceptions.

No LadyShea, this is not an assumption. This is an observation which is why it's not a tautology. There are no exceptions to this law of our nature. We are compelled to desire choosing what is the most preferable option given our particular circumstances, even though others might judge it to be the worst possible choice. Lessans writes:

The reason you are
confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading for it assumes
that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion
because the direction of life, always moving towards greater
satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he
considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are
presented he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not that one
which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being
better for the particular set of circumstances involved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Standard definition of what? Kael was only discussing necessary, actual, and possible truths, it need not be related to the free will or determinism topic.

This has everything to do with determinism, which is what this conversation is about. Once a choice is acted upon, it becomes a necessary truth because it could not have been otherwise, as we cannot choose an alternative that is the least satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is present. But what one judges to be of greater satisfaction cannot be measured by others. There are many factors that come into play but this doesn't change the direction we are compelled to go.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is absolutely false. Contingent only means that before the fact, we are able to weigh possible outcomes. But this does not in any way indicate that our final choice in this comparison of possibilities, was not a necessary choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Contingent doesn't meant that, it simply means "possible" and "not logically necessary" in this context.

I know what it means, and what I'm saying is that once an actual (not possible) choice is made, it could not have been otherwise since any other choice at that moment would have given less satisfaction under the conditions, rendering those other choices impossibilities because we cannot move in this direction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no exceptions to this law of our nature. We are compelled to desire what we believe to be the most preferable choice even though it might look like it's the worst possible choice to others

That simply cannot be known. It is not testable. The very most you could ever say is that there is a consensus amongst many people or whatever. This is no different than saying that God exists.

There are many things we cannot know, peacegirl. If they cannot be known and tested they cannot be called laws without exception.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has everything to do with determinism, which is what this conversation is about. Once a choice is acted upon, it becomes a necessary truth because it could not have been otherwise

That is the modal fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

as we cannot choose an alternative that is the least satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is present. But what one judges to be of greater satisfaction cannot be measured by others. There are many factors that come into play but this doesn't change the direction we are compelled to go.

And this is the idea being challenged, as you're so fond of saying when it comes to testable data like the properties of light. You can't use your own assumptions and idiosyncratic beliefs to prove the point you are trying to make to others who don't share your assumptions or beliefs.

If you don't have any objective observations or empirical evidence supporting this idea, it remains an unsupported assertion. Nothing more.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the same group of people with the same questions and criticisms you have been unable to adequately respond to all this time, did you think those questions and criticisms would change just because you decide to drop topics when you can't respond?

It's not that I haven't been answering them; it's that you have a confrontational style which prevents the conversation from moving forward. As I keep repeating, you don't ask, you tell. You're not being receptive, which will prevent you from understanding these concepts. And as a result you'll continue to call them assertions.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A possible non-actual truth is not of concern because, although it's possible, it hasn't occurred.

Exactly. But since it possibly could have occurred, as you now admit, Lessans is wrong.

The actual truths, the truths that are manifested not just in possibility but in actuality, are what matter. Call them whatever names you like. I am not getting into semantic games with you, and that's what this is to you. You are so confused with your logic, that you can't even follow what Lessans is saying.

These are not semantic games, it's a whole branch of logic called modal logic, of which you are utterly ignorant, as you are of pretty much everything, just like Lessans. You're a chip off the old blockhead, as I have remarked in the past.