Right, so now you are going to let Peacegirl jump in and via quoting Lessans explain it all to us?
Nah, I figured she probably wouldn't even try to respond. And if she did, that it would probably be with some random gibberish -- thus demonstrating the point that she has no real idea what the word "logic" means, much less any conception of how to construct and defend a logical argument.
The third most-likely response would be for her to post a poorly-chosen cut-and-paste from Wikipedia that again did nothing except demonstrate that she doesn't know what she's talking about.
In deductive logic, one reasons from the general to the specific. I might argue, for example: "All ravens are black. That bird is a raven. Therefore, that bird is black."
Inductive logic does the opposite; you use specific examples to draw a general conclusion. I might argue: "I examined 100 ravens yesterday, and all were black. I examined 1,000 ravens the day before yesterday, and all of them were black, too. In fact, every single raven I've ever seen or heard of was black. Therefore, my conclusion is that all ravens are black."
Notice that, technically, you're seldom if ever going to be able to actually prove anything true using induction alone. That's because just a single counterexample destroys your conclusion. All anybody has to do is produce a single raven that isn't black, and my conclusion is proved false.
Long story short, Lessans has a very serious logical problem on his hands: You can't use deductive logic to demonstrate that the behavior you think you've observed in a limited number of individuals is truly "universal," because that's a logical impossibility. Deductive logic works in the opposite direction.
And you can't use inductive logic to demonstrate that the alleged behavior is "universal," because you can never be sure you haven't missed counterexamples that would prove the behavior is not universal.
Conceivably, you could solve the problem by conducting observations of every single human who has ever lived, and every single person who ever will live. Doing that, you could indeed demonstrate that this law is "universal" -- so far.
But it's going to be really tough to get funding for that particular research project.
So if peacegirl thinks that Lessans' arguments are both valid and sound, she's going to have to do more than just say "his arguments are valid and sound." She could make a start by telling us what the premises are, and what kind of logic Lessans was using to construct his arguments.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Last edited by The Lone Ranger; 12-18-2012 at 07:47 AM.
Right, so now you are going to let Peacegirl jump in and via quoting Lessans explain it all to us?
Nah, I figured she probably wouldn't even try to respond. And if she did, that it would probably be with some random gibberish -- thus demonstrating the point that she has no real idea what the word "logic" means, much less any conception of how to construct and defend a logical argument.
The third most-likely response would be for her to post a poorly-chosen cut-and-paste from Wikipedia that again did nothing except demonstrate that she doesn't know what she's talking about.
In deductive logic, one reasons from the general to the specific. I might argue, for example: "All ravens are black. That bird is a raven. Therefore, that bird is black."
Inductive logic does the opposite; you use specific examples to draw a general conclusion. I might argue: "I examined 100 ravens yesterday, and all were black. I examined 1,000 ravens the day before yesterday, and all of them were black, too. In fact, every single raven I've ever seen or heard of was black. Therefore, my conclusion is that all ravens are black."
Notice that, technically, you're seldom if ever going to be able to actually prove anything true using induction alone. That's because just a single counterexample destroys your conclusion. All anybody has to do is produce a single raven that isn't black, and my conclusion is proved false.
Long story short, Lessans has a very serious logical problem on his hands: You can't use deductive logic to demonstrate that the behavior you think you've observed in a limited number of individuals is truly "universal," because that's a logical impossibility. Deductive logic works in the opposite direction.
And you can't use inductive logic to demonstrate that the alleged behavior is "universal," because you can never be sure you haven't missed counterexamples that would prove the behavior is not universal.
Conceivably, you could solve the problem by conducting observations of every single human who has ever lived, and every single person who ever will live. Doing that, you could indeed demonstrate that this law is "universal" -- so far.
But it's going to be really tough to get funding for that particular research project.
So if peacegirl thinks that Lessans' arguments are both valid and sound, she's going to have to do more than just say "his arguments are valid and sound." She could make a start by telling us what the premises are, and what kind of logic Lessans was using to construct his arguments.
You are so vindictive Lone, that even if I showed you where you may be wrong, you would never even consider it, which leave me in a no-win situation. When you are ready to consider the possibility that Lessans could be right, we'll talk again. Okay?
You're the one claiming that Lessans has an argument that is both logically-valid and sound.
If that were actually true, you should certainly be able to tell us what the premises are, and show us the logic chain. And if you truly wanted us to accept that Lessans has a logically-defensible claim, you would do so.
Because no one is going to just accept that claim merely on your say-so. Why on Earth should we?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Right, so now you are going to let Peacegirl jump in and via quoting Lessans explain it all to us?
Nah, I figured she probably wouldn't even try to respond. And if she did, that it would probably be with some random gibberish -- thus demonstrating the point that she has no real idea what the word "logic" means, much less any conception of how to construct and defend a logical argument.
The third most-likely response would be for her to post a poorly-chosen cut-and-paste from Wikipedia that again did nothing except demonstrate that she doesn't know what she's talking about.
In deductive logic, one reasons from the general to the specific. I might argue, for example: "All ravens are black. That bird is a raven. Therefore, that bird is black."
Inductive logic does the opposite; you use specific examples to draw a general conclusion. I might argue: "I examined 100 ravens yesterday, and all were black. I examined 1,000 ravens the day before yesterday, and all of them were black, too. In fact, every single raven I've ever seen or heard of was black. Therefore, my conclusion is that all ravens are black."
Notice that, technically, you're seldom if ever going to be able to actually prove anything true using induction alone. That's because just a single counterexample destroys your conclusion. All anybody has to do is produce a single raven that isn't black, and my conclusion is proved false.
Long story short, Lessans has a very serious logical problem on his hands: You can't use deductive logic to demonstrate that the behavior you think you've observed in a limited number of individuals is truly "universal," because that's a logical impossibility. Deductive logic works in the opposite direction.
And you can't use inductive logic to demonstrate that the alleged behavior is "universal," because you can never be sure you haven't missed counterexamples that would prove the behavior is not universal.
Conceivably, you could solve the problem by conducting observations of every single human who has ever lived, and every single person who ever will live. Doing that, you could indeed demonstrate that this law is "universal" -- so far.
But it's going to be really tough to get funding for that particular research project.
So if peacegirl thinks that Lessans' arguments are both valid and sound, she's going to have to do more than just say "his arguments are valid and sound." She could make a start by telling us what the premises are, and what kind of logic Lessans was using to construct his arguments.
What do you think I've been trying to do for two years Lone Ranger? There are no counter-examples in determinism because life itself is constantly moving away from that which dissatisfies, whether it is a conscious movement or an unconscious one, and it can only go in one direction each and every moment of time.
p. 45 In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for
man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
Right, so now you are going to let Peacegirl jump in and via quoting Lessans explain it all to us?
Nah, I figured she probably wouldn't even try to respond. And if she did, that it would probably be with some random gibberish -- thus demonstrating the point that she has no real idea what the word "logic" means, much less any conception of how to construct and defend a logical argument.
The third most-likely response would be for her to post a poorly-chosen cut-and-paste from Wikipedia that again did nothing except demonstrate that she doesn't know what she's talking about.
In deductive logic, one reasons from the general to the specific. I might argue, for example: "All ravens are black. That bird is a raven. Therefore, that bird is black."
Inductive logic does the opposite; you use specific examples to draw a general conclusion. I might argue: "I examined 100 ravens yesterday, and all were black. I examined 1,000 ravens the day before yesterday, and all of them were black, too. In fact, every single raven I've ever seen or heard of was black. Therefore, my conclusion is that all ravens are black."
Notice that, technically, you're seldom if ever going to be able to actually prove anything true using induction alone. That's because just a single counterexample destroys your conclusion. All anybody has to do is produce a single raven that isn't black, and my conclusion is proved false.
Long story short, Lessans has a very serious logical problem on his hands: You can't use deductive logic to demonstrate that the behavior you think you've observed in a limited number of individuals is truly "universal," because that's a logical impossibility. Deductive logic works in the opposite direction.
And you can't use inductive logic to demonstrate that the alleged behavior is "universal," because you can never be sure you haven't missed counterexamples that would prove the behavior is not universal.
Conceivably, you could solve the problem by conducting observations of every single human who has ever lived, and every single person who ever will live. Doing that, you could indeed demonstrate that this law is "universal" -- so far.
But it's going to be really tough to get funding for that particular research project.
So if peacegirl thinks that Lessans' arguments are both valid and sound, she's going to have to do more than just say "his arguments are valid and sound." She could make a start by telling us what the premises are, and what kind of logic Lessans was using to construct his arguments.
What do you think I've been trying to do for two years Lone Ranger? There are no counter-examples in determinism because life itself is constantly moving away from that which dissatisfies, whether it is a conscious movement or an unconscious one, and it can only go in one direction each and every moment of time.
p. 45 In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for
man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
I think it is cute the way that peacegirl keeps quoting from the book as if the words actually meant something.
__________________ 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.
There is an interesting dualism going on here. Peacegirl disputes the standard model of vision, and because she disputes it's OK for her to use the efferent model as evidence for proof of the efferent model. But when anyone disputes anything that Lessans has written in the book, it's not OK to use anything outside the book as evidence or proof of anything.
That wasn't very clear.
To Peacegirl it's OK to dispute the afferent model, but it's not OK for anyone to dispute Lessans.
You keep saying that his claims are not unsupported assertions because they are supported by accurate observations, but when asked for these accurate observations they keep turning out to be the exact same assertions you are being asked to support.
His observations are not only accurate but so clearly demonstrated that anyone who carefully reads this book cannot deny that a no blame environment will bring about what no amount of blame or punishment could ever achieve. But we had to go through the necessary stages of development to get to this point. If no one will listen, I can't do more. I will just keep putting this knowledge out there and eventually someone with influence will read it and see the treasure that is right under our noses.
Lessans says X
We say X is an unsupported assertion.
You say that X is supported by accurate observations.
We ask for these accurate observations.
You give us X.
Do you really not see what is wrong with that, Peacegirl?
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
I'm sorry but I disagree. It's an underlying principle that was observed. To say it's invalid because it's a necessary truth is crazy.
I didn't say it was invalid because it is a necessary truth. I said that you haven't shown it to be falsifiable, because the falsification conditions you keep trying to give are not specific to the satisfaction principle in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But he got this knowledge through observation (empiricism) and then through reasoning.
If it is an empirical truth with empirical content then his satisfaction principle must have falsification criteria specific to that principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are putting me in a no win situation, and there is something very wrong with this reasoning. So even if it cannot be falsified by counterfactual examples, this does not mean it cannot be proven true by observation alone.
No, Lessans put you in a no-win situation, by basing his reasoning on an unfalsifiable tautology. If his satisfaction principle cannot be falsified by counterfactual examples, then that DOES mean that it cannot be proven true by observation, for it is then not an empirical truth and lacks any empirical content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If we could achieve a world in which no one desires to hurt others, are you telling me this is not possible, or are you telling me it wouldn't prove man's will is not free? I am not sure what you are trying to negate. It seems like you are trying to say that this world could not be achieved because we can't prove that the greater satisfaction principle is true. Is that what you're saying? Are you giving up on these principles because of this belief?
After all this time and everything I've explained, you still have no idea what the problem even is. Amazing. I'm saying that his satisfaction principle is an unfalsifiable tautology, and that therefore his reasoning from this principle to empirical conclusions about compulsion and causation is UNSOUND. It is a simple fact of logic that you cannot validly infer empirical conclusions from tautological necessary truths. It's like arguing from 'All apples are apples' or 'Five apples minus two apples leaves three apples' to the conclusion that 'Apples at tomorrows market will cost $2.50'. Unsound. This means that even if his new world were put into practice, and everything he predicted came true, it wouldn't be due to the reasoning he gave, for that is unsound and fallacious no matter what is discovered by empirical testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Accurate observations based on hundreds and hundreds of accounts do matter, even if the conclusion inferred can't be empirically tested in that way. You can't just throw it out and say it's invalid Spacemonkey. 1 + 1 = 2 is valid, although we can't validate it by finding counterfactual examples where it would be falsified.
Of course '1+1=2' is valid. But because it is a necessary truth, you cannot infer any empirical claims from this truth alone. The same holds for his unfalsifiable satisfaction principle. You cannot soundly infer empirical conclusions from purely tautological necessary truths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His reasoning is valid Spacemonkey. We can apply empirical conclusions to "greater satisfaction" which is an observable event to those who have the perception, and from this observation we can prove it to be true through the use of reason and observation albeit indirectly.
Wrong. You cannot validly infer empirical conclusions from an unfalsifiable principle. To do so is to engage in unsound reasoning. I could explain why in terms of possible worlds semantics, but I don't see the point as we both know you won't comprehend it.
Oh, what the hell... An inference from unfalsifiable principle S to some empirical conclusion E is only sound if E is true in every possible world in which S is true. (A possible world is some conceivable global way that things might have been.) But if E is an empirical truth, then it is true in some worlds (including the actual one) yet false in some other counterfactual possible worlds. But S, being an unfalsifiable necessary truth, is true in all possible worlds. So if S is true in all worlds, and E is false in some, then E cannot be true in all worlds where S is true. There will be at least one possible world where S is true but E is false. And that renders the inference from S to E invalid and unsound.
Nice guess, but no. This has nothing to do with rationalism vs. empiricism. The point I am making is agreed to by both sides of that debate. No informed person anywhere could consider Lessans' reasoning from an unfalsifiable and tautological first principle to be sound. And as per usual, everyone gets that but you.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
You keep saying that his claims are not unsupported assertions because they are supported by accurate observations, but when asked for these accurate observations they keep turning out to be the exact same assertions you are being asked to support.
His observations are not only accurate but so clearly demonstrated that anyone who carefully reads this book cannot deny that a no blame environment will bring about what no amount of blame or punishment could ever achieve. But we had to go through the necessary stages of development to get to this point. If no one will listen, I can't do more. I will just keep putting this knowledge out there and eventually someone with influence will read it and see the treasure that is right under our noses.
Lessans says X
We say X is an unsupported assertion.
You say that X is supported by accurate observations.
We ask for these accurate observations.
You give us X.
Do you really not see what is wrong with that, Peacegirl?
Bump.
I've offered his observations. They are accurate. People want more testing, so that's what will have to happen. I'm not going to defend this book anymore. Take it or leave it.
I'm sorry but I disagree. It's an underlying principle that was observed. To say it's invalid because it's a necessary truth is crazy.
I didn't say it was invalid because it is a necessary truth. I said that you haven't shown it to be falsifiable, because the falsification conditions you keep trying to give are not specific to the satisfaction principle in question.
It is not necessary that it be specific (we can still see that a person can only go in one direction, which negates free will). Furthermore, the majority of neuroscientists believe that man's will is not free. If it bothers you so much you can skip over the idea of greater satisfaction and go right to the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which you also fallaciously reject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But he got this knowledge through observation (empiricism) and then through reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If it is an empirical truth with empirical content then his satisfaction principle must have falsification criteria specific to that principle.
It does meet the falsification criteria specific to that principle (conscience is an unrelated principle and would not interfere with testing). If we can only choose one option which is not to hurt others under the changed conditions, we can conclude that man's will is not free because free will states we would be able to choose otherwise under those same conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are putting me in a no win situation, and there is something very wrong with this reasoning. So even if it cannot be falsified by counterfactual examples, this does not mean it cannot be proven true by observation alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, Lessans put you in a no-win situation, by basing his reasoning on an unfalsifiable tautology. If his satisfaction principle cannot be falsified by counterfactual examples, then that DOES mean that it cannot be proven true by observation, for it is then not an empirical truth and lacks any empirical content.
There are no situations where it can be falsified because it's a universal law, but it can still be proven true indirectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If we could achieve a world in which no one desires to hurt others, are you telling me this is not possible, or are you telling me it wouldn't prove man's will is not free? I am not sure what you are trying to negate. It seems like you are trying to say that this world could not be achieved because we can't prove that the greater satisfaction principle is true. Is that what you're saying? Are you giving up on these principles because of this belief?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
After all this time and everything I've explained, you still have no idea what the problem even is. Amazing. I'm saying that his satisfaction principle is an unfalsifiable tautology, and that therefore his reasoning from this principle to empirical conclusions about compulsion and causation is UNSOUND.
But that's not true Spacemonkey. This law can be proven without having to falsify it, number one, and number two, accurate inferences can be drawn based on this knowledge. His empirical conclusions are extremely sound. You don't like it because it disrupts your justification to blame, not realizing that the compatibilist notion that free will and determinism are not incompatible in an effort to support blameworthiness is completely 100% flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It is a simple fact of logic that you cannot validly infer empirical conclusions from tautological necessary truths. It's like arguing from 'All apples are apples' or 'Five apples minus two apples leaves three apples' to the conclusion that 'Apples at tomorrows market will cost $2.50'. Unsound. This means that even if his new world were put into practice, and everything he predicted came true, it wouldn't be due to the reasoning he gave, for that is unsound and fallacious no matter what is discovered by empirical testing.
You are trying desperately to discredit the satisfaction principle, but you cannot do it. This is an empirical observation, thus it can be proven true indirectly, and from this observation, empirical conclusions can be inferred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Accurate observations based on hundreds and hundreds of accounts do matter, even if the conclusion inferred can't be empirically tested in that way. You can't just throw it out and say it's invalid Spacemonkey. 1 + 1 = 2 is valid, although we can't validate it by finding counterfactual examples where it would be falsified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Of course '1+1=2' is valid. But because it is a necessary truth, you cannot infer any empirical claims from this truth alone. The same holds for his unfalsifiable satisfaction principle. You cannot soundly infer empirical conclusions from purely tautological necessary truths.
If I have two people present and I give one apple to one person and another apple to the other, I can conclude based on this observation that there will be enough apples to go around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His reasoning is valid Spacemonkey. We can apply empirical conclusions to "greater satisfaction" which is an observable event to those who have the perception, and from this observation we can prove it to be true through the use of reason and observation albeit indirectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Wrong. You cannot validly infer empirical conclusions from an unfalsifiable principle. To do so is to engage in unsound reasoning. I could explain why in terms of possible worlds semantics, but I don't see the point as we both know you won't comprehend it.
Boy are you smug. This principle can be proven to be true, and I explained how. Something is wrong with your logic or the logic of Popper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Oh, what the hell... An inference from unfalsifiable principle S to some empirical conclusion E is only sound if E is true in every possible world in which S is true. (A possible world is some conceivable global way that things might have been.) But if E is an empirical truth, then it is true in some worlds (including the actual one) yet false in some other counterfactual possible worlds. But S, being an unfalsifiable necessary truth, is true in all possible worlds. So if S is true in all worlds, and E is false in some, then E cannot be true in all worlds where S is true. There will be at least one possible world where S is true but E is false. And that renders the inference from S to E invalid and unsound.
Nice guess, but no. This has nothing to do with rationalism vs. empiricism. The point I am making is agreed to by both sides of that debate. No informed person anywhere could consider Lessans' reasoning from an unfalsifiable and tautological first principle to be sound. And as per usual, everyone gets that but you.
I told you I do not care about Popper's definition of what is considered sound. If you are so sure he is wrong, and the only reason you are here is to prove that he is wrong, you're wasting your time because he isn't wrong, and I really don't care if you think I'm a faith filled fundamentalist nutcase either.
That does not matter Spacemonkey that it is not specific. It actually does prove determinism true if we can only go in direction, which is unrelated to conscience per se.
It does matter that you have no falsification criteria specific to his satisfaction principle, because without them it is a mere tautology from which no empirical conclusions can be soundly derived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It does meet the falsification criteria specific to that principle (conscience is an unrelated principle and would not interfere with testing). If we can only choose one option which is not to hurt others under the changed conditions, we can conclude that man's will is not free because free will states we would be able to choose otherwise under those same conditions.
No, Peacegirl. You still have no falsification criteria specific to his satisfaction principle. You just admitted this in your previous comment, saying it doesn't matter. Now in your following comment you immediately contradict that admission.
On being able to choose otherwise, consider the situation where a person does X after considering doing Y instead. You said that in all possible and all counterfactual situations, his satisfaction principle remains true. That means in the actual world where he does X he was moving in his direction of greater satisfaction. And it also means that in the counterfactual logically possible world where he instead does Y, he would also have been moving in his direction of greater satisfaction. That means the truth of this principle does NOTHING AT ALL to prevent him from having chosen Y over X, as there was no particular direction of satisfaction in which he was compelled to move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no situations where it can be falsified because it's a universal law, but it can still be proven true indirectly.
Wrong. We're not even talking about whether his principle can be proved. The question is whether or not it is falsifiable. And universal laws do have counterfactual circumstances which would falsify them. Gravity is a universal law, but would be falsified if planets were to repel each other. Universal laws are true across all actual but not all counterfactually possible circumstances. Principles which are true across BOTH all actual AND all logically possible circumstances are tautologies with no empirical content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But that's not true Spacemonkey. This law can be proven without having to falsify it, number one, and number two, accurate inferences can be drawn based on this knowledge. His empirical conclusions are extremely sound. You don't like it because it disrupts your justification to blame, not realizing that the compatibilist notion that free will and determinism are not incompatible in an effort to support blameworthiness is completely 100% flawed.
Number one, we are not talking about whether or not his principle can be proven, but rather whether or not it is falsifiable. And number two, the topic is his satisfaction principle and falsifiability, not compatibilism, free will, and determinism. So long as his principle is an unfalsifiable tautology, it has no empirical content and no empirical conclusions can be validly derived from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are trying desperately to discredit the satisfaction principle, but you cannot do it. This is an empirical observation, thus it can be proven true indirectly, and from this empirical conclusions can be inferred.
Again, the question isn't whether it can be proven true. And you can't validly derive empirical conclusions from it if it is a tautology true across all possible circumstances. That is straightforwardly fallacious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If I have two people present and I give one apple to one person and another apple to the other, I can conclude based on this observation that there will be enough apples to go around.
Of course, but that is not a case of deriving empirical conclusions from only the unfalsifiable necessary truth that 1+1=2, so it is irrelevant to my point. The inference also depends upon the empirical knowledge that there are two people present and that you have given one apple to each of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Boy are you smug. This principle can be proven to be true, and I explained how. Something is wrong with your logic or the logic of Popper.
Again, the issue is not whether or not the principle can be proven true. And you are again dogmatically assuming that there must be something wrong with what I am saying just because it would prove you and Lessans wrong. And as for being smug, I was right, wasn't I? I predicted I would be wasting my time explaining exactly why you can't soundly infer empirical conclusions from an unfalsifiable principle, and all you could offer in response was three glaring smilies. It went straight over your head without a glimmer of comprehension. What a joke.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
You're the one claiming that Lessans has an argument that is both logically-valid and sound.
If that were actually true, you should certainly be able to tell us what the premises are, and show us the logic chain. And if you truly wanted us to accept that Lessans has a logically-defensible claim, you would do so.
Because no one is going to just accept that claim merely on your say-so. Why on Earth should we?
You don't even know by now what the two principles are? I know there is contention over free will versus determinism, but the first principle is that man's will is not free. It was an astute observation which has no exceptions. All of life moves in the direction of greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. Life does not move in the direction of lesser satisfaction than what the present position offers. Just because we can contemplate in order to decide which choice is most preferable (and animals are incapable of this) does not change the direction all life is moving. This has confused even the most regarded philosophers. That is why it took someone with unusual perceptive abilities to observe how this law operates.
That does not matter Spacemonkey that it is not specific. It actually does prove determinism true if we can only go in direction, which is unrelated to conscience per se.
It does matter that you have no falsification criteria specific to his satisfaction principle, because without them it is a mere tautology from which no empirical conclusions can be soundly derived.
I really do not care what the criteria is, if the criteria that is supposed to determine the soundness of this principle is in itself not sound. I know this principle is sound and I will not concede just because you want to be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It does meet the falsification criteria specific to that principle (conscience is an unrelated principle and would not interfere with testing). If we can only choose one option which is not to hurt others under the changed conditions, we can conclude that man's will is not free because free will states we would be able to choose otherwise under those same conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, Peacegirl. You still have no falsification criteria specific to his satisfaction principle. You just admitted this in your previous comment, saying it doesn't matter. Now in your following comment you immediately contradict that admission.
I get to rethink my answers, and give a different response if I think my original response was lacking. This is all a game to you, isn't it? You aren't really interested to know if this knowledge is accurate. You just want to win at all costs. What would your schooling be worth if you weren't right after all this training?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
On being able to choose otherwise, consider the situation where a person does X after considering doing Y instead. You said that in all possible and all counterfactual situations, his satisfaction principle remains true. That means in the actual world where he does X he was moving in his direction of greater satisfaction. And it also means that in the counterfactual logically possible world where he instead does Y, he would also have been moving in his direction of greater satisfaction. That means the truth of this principle does NOTHING AT ALL to prevent him from having chosen Y over X, as there was no particular direction of satisfaction in which he was compelled to move.
But you are presupposing that he can do Y under the new antecedent conditions. But he can't. If he could, yes, this law of greater satisfaction would prove nothing, but it is mathematically impossible for him to move in the direction of hurting others under these changed conditions, which proves conclusively that man does not have free will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no situations where it can be falsified because it's a universal law, but it can still be proven true indirectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Wrong. We're not even talking about whether his principle can be proved. The question is whether or not it is falsifiable.
I'm sorry Spacemonkey, I am not buying into this. I told you that there are other ways to prove that man does not have free will. I don't have to find a counterfactual example in which it could be falsified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And universal laws do have counterfactual circumstances which would falsify them. Gravity is a universal law, but would be falsified if planets were to repel each other. Universal laws are true across all actual but not all counterfactually possible circumstances. Principles which are true across BOTH all actual AND all logically possible circumstances are tautologies with no empirical content.
If you want a pretend counterfactual example, then we could offer an example where you could choose to kill someone you love very much. How could you when not to do this is the more preferable choice? This would be a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction, which is impossible when a more satisfying option is available, which is not to kill the person you love. If you could choose this in spite of being presented with a more preferable choice which is not to do this, then we could say Lessans' observations were wrong and will is free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But that's not true Spacemonkey. This law can be proven without having to falsify it, number one, and number two, accurate inferences can be drawn based on this knowledge. His empirical conclusions are extremely sound. You don't like it because it disrupts your justification to blame, not realizing that the compatibilist notion that free will and determinism are not incompatible in an effort to support blameworthiness is completely 100% flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Number one, we are not talking about whether or not his principle can be proven, but rather whether or not it is falsifiable. And number two, the topic is his satisfaction principle and falsifiability, not compatibilism, free will, and determinism. So long as his principle is an unfalsifiable tautology, it has no empirical content and no empirical conclusions can be validly derived from it.]
As I stated before, this criteria of falsifiability is in and of itself flawed in my opinion. There are other ways to prove the validity of these principles, and for you to tell me that from these accurate observations about human nature and where they lead, we cannot make accurate inferences, is completely off the mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are trying desperately to discredit the satisfaction principle, but you cannot do it. This is an empirical observation, thus it can be proven true indirectly, and from this empirical conclusions can be inferred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, the question isn't whether it can be proven true. And you can't validly derive empirical conclusions from it if it is a tautology true across all possible circumstances. That is straightforwardly fallacious.
This is bullshit Spacemonkey. Total and utter bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If I have two people present and I give one apple to one person and another apple to the other, I can conclude based on this observation that there will be enough apples to go around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Of course, but that is not a case of deriving empirical conclusions from only the unfalsifiable necessary truth that 1+1=2, so it is irrelevant to my point. The inference also depends upon the empirical knowledge that there are two people present and that you have given one apple to each of them.
So what, I am making an inference based on the knowledge that one apple and one apple equals two apples. It is an empirical conclusion based on a necessary truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Boy are you smug. This principle can be proven to be true, and I explained how. Something is wrong with your logic or the logic of Popper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, the issue is not whether or not the principle can be proven true. And you are again dogmatically assuming that there must be something wrong with what I am saying just because it would prove you and Lessans wrong. And as for being smug, I was right, wasn't I? I predicted I would be wasting my time explaining exactly why you can't soundly infer empirical conclusions from an unfalsifiable principle, and all you could offer in response was three glaring smilies. It went straight over your head without a glimmer of comprehension. What a joke.
So end the conversation Spacemonkey. You can't. You are under an extreme compulsion to be here but you want me to be the one to stop the conversation so you don't have to admit to yourself how obsessed you really are. If I left and went to another forum, you'd find me.
then we could offer an example where you could choose to kill someone you love very much. How could you when not to do this is the more preferable choice? This would be a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction, which is impossible when a more satisfying option is available, which is not to kill the person you love. If you could choose this in spite of being presented with a more preferable choice which is not to do this, then we could say Lessans' observations were wrong and will is free.
The problem peacegirl, is that if someone chose to kill someone they love very much, you (and Lessans) would simply say that choice was in the direction of greater satisfaction for that person.
Because you label all actions AFTER THE FACT, you can label them all as in the direction of greater satisfaction, no matter how unreasonable it seems to others for one to be satisfied by that action.
Lessans even used such a thing as an example...he said if someone chose to do something "to prove a point" that proving their point was in the direction of greater satisfaction.
There is no empirical claim there, only tautology, because Lessans definition includes all actions! If they perform action A or B or C or D it's always the same under Lessans "law"!
I really do not care what the criteria is, if the criteria that is supposed to determine the soundness of this principle is in itself not sound. I know this principle is sound and I will not concede just because you want to be right.
As I pointed out several times in the post you just replied to, the issue is not whether the principle is sound, but whether or not it is falsifiable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I get to rethink my answers, and give a different response if I think my original response was lacking. This is all a game to you, isn't it? You aren't really interested to know if this knowledge is accurate. You just want to win at all costs. What would your schooling be worth if you weren't right after all this training?
If you change your answer to something from one sentence to the next within the same post, the rational thing to do is to go back and revise what you wrote so as not to contradict yourself. Or you could at least have indicated in your next reply which answer was correct and which was not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But you are presupposing that he can do Y under the new antecedent conditions. But he can't. If he could, yes, this law of greater satisfaction would prove nothing, but it is mathematically impossible for him to move in the direction of hurting others under these changed conditions, which proves conclusively that man does not have free will.
This example was not about hurting others. Actions X and Y could simply be drinking a glass of water vs. not doing so. And you don't get to assert that he couldn't have done otherwise, because that is what the principle is meant to prove, and I just explained why it doesn't do that. If both actions X and Y would have been in the direction of greater satisfaction if performed, then that we must always move in the greater satisfaction does not by itself determine that only one and not the other action could be performed. If you are claiming that only one of the actions is causally possible, then you are relying upon the regular definition of determinism rather than on Lessans' satisfaction principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm sorry Spacemonkey, I am not buying into this. I told you that there are other ways to prove that man does not have free will. I don't have to find a counterfactual example in which it could be falsified.
Yet again, the issue is not whether his principle can be proved, but whether or not it is falsifiable. Pay attention! I explained this repeatedly in my last post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you want a pretend counterfactual example, then we could offer an example where you could choose to kill someone you love very much. How could you when not to do this is the more preferable choice? This would be a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction, which is impossible when a more satisfying option is available, which is not to kill the person you love. If you could choose this in spite of being presented with a more preferable choice which is not to do this, then we could say Lessans' observations were wrong and will is free.
People can and do kill the ones they love. This is not at all uncommon. Therefore, by your own criteria, his principle is already falsified. Besides, you need more than just a single example. For his principle to have empirical content, you need to specify the class of observations where it would be true and of those where it would be falsified. Otherwise the only content of his principle is that people don't kill those they love. It is also no good trying to say that people don't kill those they love when there is a more satisfying alternative. For then you are back with the problem of specifying how to empirically observe greater satisfaction. Your specified falsification criteria cannot themselves mention satisfaction, because the empirical content of moving in that direction is precisely what these criteria are supposed to be explaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
As I stated before, this criteria of falsifiability is in and of itself flawed in my opinion. There are other ways to prove the validity of these principles, and for you to tell me that from these accurate observations about human nature and where they lead, we cannot make accurate inferences, is completely off the mark.
Again, the question is NOT the validity of his principle, but its falsifiability. What is flawed about the criterion of falsifiability? (Other than that it is causing you and Lessans great difficulties.) How can an unfalsifiable principle have empirical content?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This is bullshit Spacemonkey. Total and utter bullshit.
Is that your idea of a rational response? Please explain in detail what is wrong with what I just said: You can't validly derive empirical conclusions from his principle if it is a tautology true across all possible circumstances. That is straightforwardly fallacious. I explained in detail why this is the case, and you answered with nothing but glaring smilies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So what, I am making an inference based on the knowledge that one apple and one apple equals two apples. It is an empirical conclusion based on a necessary truth.
No, it isn't. It is an empirical conclusion derived from other empirical premises, as I just explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So end the conversation Spacemonkey. You can't. You are under an extreme compulsion to be here but you want me to be the one to stop the conversation so you don't have to admit to yourself how obsessed you really are. If I left and went to another forum, you'd find me.
The compulsion is all yours. I've never expressed any desire to end the conversation, so I am not compelled to be here against my desires. You on the other hand couldn't even take a planned break for your own birthday. I also did take a break after you said you were only here because of me. I took a break to see if this was true, and it turned out to be complete bollocks.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
I really do not care what the criteria is, if the criteria that is supposed to determine the soundness of this principle is in itself not sound. I know this principle is sound and I will not concede just because you want to be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
As I pointed out several times in the post you just replied to, the issue is not whether the principle is sound, but whether or not it is falsifiable.
Oh my god, you just told me his reasoning wasn't sound. Seriously Spacemonkey, I really don't think you know whether you're coming or going. I also explained why I don't believe the falsibility claim is accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I get to rethink my answers, and give a different response if I think my original response was lacking. This is all a game to you, isn't it? You aren't really interested to know if this knowledge is accurate. You just want to win at all costs. What would your schooling be worth if you weren't right after all this training?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If you change your answer to something from one sentence to the next within the same post, the rational thing to do is to go back and revise what you wrote so as not to contradict yourself. Or you could at least have indicated in your next reply which answer was correct and which was not.
Um, I did not change my answer from one sentence to the next. I answered your questions adequately which required revisiting my original answer, but you cannot in all seriousness use this against me. I get to answer questions the way I feel is appropriate according to how I perceive the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But you are presupposing that he can do Y under the new antecedent conditions. But he can't. If he could, yes, this law of greater satisfaction would prove nothing, but it is mathematically impossible for him to move in the direction of hurting others under these changed conditions, which proves conclusively that man does not have free will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
This example was not about hurting others. Actions X and Y could simply be drinking a glass of water vs. not doing so. And you don't get to assert that he couldn't have done otherwise, because that is what the principle is meant to prove, and I just explained why it doesn't do that.
And I answered you correctly that from one instance this would prove nothing, but when you see the pattern of human behavior, it proves everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If both actions X and Y would have been in the direction of greater satisfaction if performed, then that we must always move in the greater satisfaction does not by itself determine that only one and not the other action could be performed. If you are claiming that only one of the actions is causally possible, then you are relying upon the regular definition of determinism rather than on Lessans' satisfaction principle.
I don't care if you understand the validity of greater satisfaction, okay? So if this is going to stop you from understanding why scientists are just beginning to recognize that we do not have free will (which Lessans recognized 50 years ago), then you are being obstinate just so you can win the debate. You are the one that needs other scientists to agree with Lessans, so there you have it. Now are you going to give him the benefit of the doubt, or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm sorry Spacemonkey, I am not buying into this. I told you that there are other ways to prove that man does not have free will. I don't have to find a counterfactual example in which it could be falsified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Yet again, the issue is not whether his principle can be proved, but whether or not it is falsifiable. Pay attention! I explained this repeatedly in my last post.
Don't patronize me! I know what you're saying and it doesn't matter whether it is falsifiable although I gave a legitimate example to that effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you want a pretend counterfactual example, then we could offer an example where you could choose to kill someone you love very much. How could you when not to do this is the more preferable choice? This would be a movement in the direction of dissatisfaction, which is impossible when a more satisfying option is available, which is not to kill the person you love. If you could choose this in spite of being presented with a more preferable choice which is not to do this, then we could say Lessans' observations were wrong and will is free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
People can and do kill the ones they love. This is not at all uncommon. Therefore, by your own criteria, his principle is already falsified. Besides, you need more than just a single example. For his principle to have empirical content, you need to specify the class of observations where it would be true and of those where it would be falsified. Otherwise the only content of his principle is that people don't kill those they love. It is also no good trying to say that people don't kill those they love when there is a more satisfying alternative. For then you are back with the problem of specifying how to empirically observe greater satisfaction. Your specified falsification criteria cannot themselves mention satisfaction, because the empirical content of moving in that direction is precisely what these criteria are supposed to be explaining.
No, this is a joke. I was asking you personally because no one else has the same heredity and environment. I will repeat the question: Would you be able, given your circumstance, to kill a loved one when you have an option not to do this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
As I stated before, this criteria of falsifiability is in and of itself flawed in my opinion. There are other ways to prove the validity of these principles, and for you to tell me that from these accurate observations about human nature and where they lead, we cannot make accurate inferences, is completely off the mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, the question is NOT the validity of his principle, but its falsifiability. What is flawed about the criterion of falsifiability? (Other than that it is causing you and Lessans great difficulties.) How can an unfalsifiable principle have empirical content?
Everything we know comes from some type of empirical content or something that has been observed in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This is bullshit Spacemonkey. Total and utter bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Is that your idea of a rational response?
No, but it sure felt good. Sometime these responses are a way to release built up frustration. Don't tell me you are always self-composed in every single situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Please explain in detail what is wrong with what I just said: You can't validly derive empirical conclusions from his principle if it is a tautology true across all possible circumstances. That is straightforwardly fallacious. I explained in detail why this is the case, and you answered with nothing but glaring smilies.
Something is wrong in the way this knowledge is being analyzed, whether it's the criteria that is being used, or the way it's being categorized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So what, I am making an inference based on the knowledge that one apple and one apple equals two apples. It is an empirical conclusion based on a necessary truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, it isn't. It is an empirical conclusion derived from other empirical premises, as I just explained.
But they come from the original tautology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So end the conversation Spacemonkey. You can't. You are under an extreme compulsion to be here but you want me to be the one to stop the conversation so you don't have to admit to yourself how obsessed you really are. If I left and went to another forum, you'd find me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The compulsion is all yours. I've never expressed any desire to end the conversation, so I am not compelled to be here against my desires.
I am not here against my desires. It's just that this desire takes precedence over the other desires. You are a poster child for a person who can't stop what he's doing.
Quote:
It does not matter whether you've expressed a desire to end the conversation, the point is you are totally, if not more, driven to be part of this conversation. Prove me otherwise. If you stop coming here, that would be some kind of evidence that this is not a compulsion of yours. But trust me, you will come back. You cannot help it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You on the other hand couldn't even take a planned break for your own birthday. I also did take a break after you said you were only here because of me. I took a break to see if this was true, and it turned out to be complete bollocks.
You were the only one that I felt doesn't just yell assertion all the time. But I don't think you will ever accept the fact that your logic is faulty, not Lessans'. I appreciate that you went to the thread and I got to know you a little better. I had good intentions but my heart is not it, so why should I have to sit there and fake it just to prove to you that I don't have a compulsion?
You say that X is supported by accurate observations.
We ask for these accurate observations.
You give us X.
Do you really not see what is wrong with that, Peacegirl?
I've offered his observations. They are accurate.
Were these 'observations' you've given us identical to, or distinct from, the very claims we have been asking you to support?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
People want more testing, so that's what will have to happen. I'm not going to defend this book anymore. Take it or leave it.
And how many times have you said this already without it being true?
Your entire argument is false Spacemonkey because of the claim that truth cannot be ascertained without falsification.
So far you've eliminated the ability to verify Lessans claims via empiricism and any kind of codified logic.
Which epistemological category should we use?
How can this codified logic be the judge of the book's soundness if the criteria that is being used is itself unsound? The only way to determine this work's validity without getting caught up in a maze of contradiction, is to follow the rationale to see exactly where it leads. If that's not good enough then it has to be empirically tested. One thing is for certain; it cannot be discredited through falsely constructed epistemological categories.
How can this codified logic be the judge of the book's soundness if the criteria that is being used is itself unsound? The only way to determine this work's validity without getting caught up in a maze of contradiction, is to follow the rationale to see exactly where it leads. If that's not good enough then it has to be empirically tested. One thing is for certain; it cannot be discredited through falsely constructed epistemological categories.
'Lessans is right, the whole rest of the world is wrong.'
Also everything man has discovered, in the way of knowledge for many thousands of years, must be thrown out, because it contradicts Lessans.
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Sometime these responses are a way to release built up frustration. Don't tell me you are always self-composed in every single situation.
Linear Mode
