A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the second thread. The first one is even longer.

The IIDB threads (4 or 5?) were really long, but they closed them. Other forums have closed her threads too. We don't close threads here...so indefinite lifespan.

Well it's not going to last much longer. I've been voted off!

[LadyShea]

As I already told you, what you do with the stats from the poll is up to you

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I figured that he was from India, but that's not the point LadyShea. I cannot believe what some people say having not asked a question or participated at all. To say that this thread is pointless is pure ignorance.

Are you so dim that you think that all Buddhists live in India? This has got to be up with all the other stupid things you have posted.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And his satisfaction principle? Are there any nonactual but possible counterfactual circumstances where it would be false, or is this also a tautology?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the changed environmental conditions that Lessans claims would prevent someone from striking a first blow did not work in the way he proposed, it would prove that man can choose to hurt others in a no blame society, and this would be evidence that he was wrong.

That would show his reasoning as a whole to be flawed, but not necessarily his satisfaction principle. It could be any number of other aspects of his reasoning responsible for the failure, such as his assumptions about conscience for instance. I am asking you what possible counterfactual circumstances would specifically show his satisfaction principle to be false. Can you state such circumstances, or is this principle an unfalsifiable tautology?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge has empirical content because it came from observation. It can be falsified because it can be empirically tested.

Since a law claim is universal in scope (in simplest form, "All As everywhere and everywhen are Bs"), it cannot possibly be verified: there are always actual or potential instances beyond those so far observed. Yet a universal claim can be falsified by a single negative instance.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/9302/...fiability.html

What is a possible "negative instance" regarding the greater satisfaction principle?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That would show his reasoning as a whole to be flawed, but not necessarily his satisfaction principle. It could be any number of other aspects of his reasoning responsible for the failure, such as his assumptions about conscience for instance. I am asking you what possible counterfactual circumstances would specifically show his satisfaction principle to be false. Can you state such circumstances, or is this principle an unfalsifiable tautology?

It doesn't matter whether the principle of "greater satisfaction" is proved true by setting up a counterfactual example where it could be falsified. What is key here is whether these principles work in the real world. Isn't that the point Spacemonkey or are you losing sight of what this discovery is all about? If the conditions were such that conscience became stronger and no one could move in the direction of hurting others, I think that would be proof enough.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether the principle of "greater satisfaction" is proved true by setting up a counterfactual example where it could be falsified.

Then you retract your statement "This knowledge has empirical content because it came from observation. It can be falsified because it can be empirically tested."?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't that the point Spacemonkey or are you losing sight of what this discovery is all about? If the conditions were such that conscience became stronger and no one could move in the direction of hurting others, I think that would be proof enough.

You are appealing to proof from a future that could only come to pass if the whole world accepts the principles now with no current evidence at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since a law claim is universal in scope (in simplest form, "All As everywhere and everywhen are Bs"), it cannot possibly be verified: there are always actual or potential instances beyond those so far observed. Yet a universal claim can be falsified by a single negative instance.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/9302/...fiability.html

What is a possible "negative instance" regarding the greater satisfaction principle?

There are no "negative instances" regarding the greater satisfaction principle. That is why it's a universal law. He demonstrated that even if someone should decide to kill himself, he is not moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, but is choosing the lesser of two evils when living under his present circumstances appears to him to be the worst possible choice in comparison.

[LadyShea]

Then the greater satisfaction principle cannot possibly be verified: there will always actual or potential instances beyond those so far observed


Hmm, seems to me that you recently threw a fit at me because I said the principle was not possible to prove because it was not testable at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you retract your statement "This knowledge has empirical content because it came from observation. It can be falsified because it can be empirically tested."?

It came from seeing a pattern which was inferred from observing many people throughout history.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't that the point Spacemonkey or are you losing sight of what this discovery is all about? If the conditions were such that conscience became stronger and no one could move in the direction of hurting others, I think that would be proof enough.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are appealing to proof from a future that could only come to pass if the whole world accepts the principles now with no current evidence at all.

Regardless of how you judge this work and how you can't entertain the possibility that he could be right, this comment doesn't mean it won't come to pass or that the world won't accept these principles once it is accepted by science. Realizing that the kind of world that is now possible is so much better than what we have now, I don't think the majority of mankind would hesitate becoming a citizen of this coming Golden Age. I don't think anyone in his right mind would want to risk becoming a victim of war, crime, poverty, or any of the other evils plaguing our lives, if it can be avoided.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether the principle of "greater satisfaction" is proved true by setting up a counterfactual example where it could be falsified.

It certainly does matter. Because without these possible counterfactual falsifying circumstances, it is not falsifiable. And if it is not falsifiable then it is a tautology. Do you agree that his satisfaction principle is a tautology?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you retract your statement "This knowledge has empirical content because it came from observation. It can be falsified because it can be empirically tested."?

You are appealing to proof from a future that could only come to pass if the whole world accepts the principles now with no current evidence at all.

Yes, this is an appeal to proof from a future that could easily come to pass when this knowledge is recognized by science. Who in his right mind would want to remain in a world of poverty, physical and mental illness, war, accidents, murder, heinous crimes that threats of punishment have not eliminated, and hatred of such magnitude that we could end up in World War III? You think there is no evidence but those who understand these principles will know that this knowledge is valid. Some will just have to wait until the new world gets here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this is an appeal to proof from a future that could easily come to pass when this knowledge is recognized by science.

Do you think it is rational to believe something on the basis of non-existent future evidence?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think there is no evidence but those who understand these principles will know that this knowledge is valid.

If that were true then you wouldn't need to keep appealing to non-existent future evidence.

[LadyShea]

Do you retract your statement "This knowledge has empirical content because it came from observation. It can be falsified because it can be empirically tested."?

Do you retract your repeated statements that Lessans claim was not tautological?

How can science go about recognizing something that cannot be scientifically verified?

[LadyShea]

Also, Pascal's Wager, still failing after 400 years

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then the greater satisfaction principle cannot possibly be verified: there will always actual or potential instances beyond those so far observed


Hmm, seems to me that you recently threw a fit at me because I said the principle was not possible to prove because it was not testable at all.

You can't see someone moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can test it indirectly, which I already mentioned. If under the changed conditions we cannot desire hurting another as a preferable choice when it is more preferable not to hurt them, then this is proof enough that will is not free because if it was free we could choose to hurt others in spite of the changed antecedent conditions, which is impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, Pascal's Wager, still failing after 400 years

This has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager because the truth of our ultimate nature is now known. This is not probability theory.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't see someone moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can test it indirectly, which I already mentioned.

No, you can't test it indirectly. Because if it fails your test there is no way of knowing if this is due to the satisfaction principle or some other part of his reasoning. This was already explained to you before. Until you provide falsification criteria specifically for his satisfaction principle, that principle remains an unfalsifiable tautology.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no "negative instances" regarding the greater satisfaction principle. That is why it's a universal law. He demonstrated that even if someone should decide to kill himself, he is not moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, but is choosing the lesser of two evils when living under his present circumstances appears to him to be the worst possible choice in comparison.

Real knowledge is always limited by reality, but stupidity knows no bounds.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It came from seeing a pattern which was inferred from observing many people throughout history.

Really! Lessans had some kind of 'Time Machine' that allowed him to observe these people directly, or was he relying on written accounts that are biased by the writers opinions?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this is an appeal to proof from a future that could easily come to pass when this knowledge is recognized by science. Who in his right mind would want to remain in a world of poverty, physical and mental illness, war, accidents, murder, heinous crimes that threats of punishment have not eliminated, and hatred of such magnitude that we could end up in World War III? You think there is no evidence but those who understand these principles will know that this knowledge is valid. Some will just have to wait until the new world gets here.

Freedom is always better than slavery.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't see someone moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can test it indirectly, which I already mentioned. If under the changed conditions we cannot desire hurting another as a preferable choice when it is more preferable not to hurt them, then this is proof enough that will is not free because if it was free we could choose to hurt others in spite of the changed antecedent conditions, which is impossible.

There are some people I could choose to hurt, no matter what the conditions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't see someone moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can test it indirectly, which I already mentioned. If under the changed conditions we cannot desire hurting another as a preferable choice when it is more preferable not to hurt them, then this is proof enough that will is not free because if it was free we could choose to hurt others in spite of the changed antecedent conditions, which is impossible.

But in order to get that future evidence you believe will exist, the whole world must first assume the proposition as true without any evidence at all. That's faith.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager because the truth of our ultimate nature is now known. This is not probability theory.

It is not known, it is believed by exactly one person, YOU, based on faith.