A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 444

Spacemonkey · #**11076** 01-11-2013, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that whatever one happens to choose is what he chooses, but if what he chooses is in the direction of greater satisfaction, as Lessans states, then it can be said that there is only one choice that can be made. There are no other logical possibilities. You are making it sound like he can choose this or that equally, which is not possible when comparing meaningful differences. It is possible to have no compulsion to choose milk over juice because either of them quenches your thirst, so you may just grab for whichever is in front of you. That is like choosing between A and A. If the choice that you make has important consequences, you are compelled to choose the one that you consider better for yourself, not worse. This is not a free choice whatsoever.

The problem isn't just that it is true that we always choose what we choose, but rather that Lessans' satisfaction principle doesn't SAY or MEAN anything other than this. If that is all it means or says, then it DOESN'T say ANYTHING about any kind of compulsion, so it doesn't say ANYTHING about free choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you can infer empirical conclusions from this principle; that's where you're wrong. I don't know what else to tell you.

No, you CAN'T infer empirical conclusions from this principle IF it is unfalsifiable. That's what the passage you just replied to explains and PROVES. If you think otherwise then you have to address that explanation instead of just denying it. Here it is again:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is no counterfactual logically possible world where he chooses Y Spacemonkey. You're all confused here.

The confusion is yours. Counterfactual logical possibilities are completely unconstrained by causality. There are logically possible worlds where causal determinism is true, and others where it is false, and even possible worlds where sneezes cause earthquakes. So both choices X and Y ARE counterfactual logical (but not necessarily causal) possibilities, and that is all my point requires. Remember this has nothing to do with harm or with prediction. Here it is again:

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.

I give up. Your logic may be valid but it's not sound. Sorry.

Bump.

But · #**11077** 01-11-2013, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to consider the source. He is not a laughingstock and will be proven right one day. The more the laughter, the sweeter will be the day when he is vindicated. I am not worried because this is not his law; it's God's law. So let people laugh at God all they want. Who cares? :laugh:

It will never be proven right that the eyes are not a sense organ, it will be never be proven right that anyone sees in real time, the assumptions about conscience, blame, punishment, all the details in the book will never be proven right because they are ass-backwards and wrong.

But there may come a time when war and conflict will be eliminated and the planet will become a spiritually enlightened super-organism. But however it's going to play out, it won't have efferent vision in it, because there is no such thing. The same goes for the other details.

Let people laugh at God. Do you think it cares? Why not laugh at this clever ploy, this joke, where Lessans turns himself into an incredible, pontificating buffoon that gets his conclusions and goals right, because that's what God wants to achieve with its plan, but Lessans' job isn't actually to explain the detailed mechanism, because he hasn't got the tools to describe it all by himself, but to write fascinating nonsense that all the relevant eggheads will be attracted and provoked by.

They will be seduced by the stubborn, foolish crusade of his daughter to go through every detail of their own and other philosophies, examining science, the foundations of science, conscience, hurt, suffering, blame and punishment, all the factors that will be involved. The important people your father mentions, instead of being bored or turned off by another philosophical, abstract discussion, are constantly entertained while they sharpen their own and other minds, paving the way to the spiritual revolution Lessans had in mind.

Subconsciously, he knew this, although he couldn't get the whole picture of course, he just played a part in it. The other beings on this planet and wherever else have the other puzzle pieces. They are working on their parts.

peacegirl · #**11078** 01-11-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that whatever one happens to choose is what he chooses, but if what he chooses is in the direction of greater satisfaction, as Lessans states, then it can be said that there is only one choice that can be made. There are no other logical possibilities. You are making it sound like he can choose this or that equally, which is not possible when comparing meaningful differences. It is possible to have no compulsion to choose milk over juice because either of them quenches your thirst, so you may just grab for whichever is in front of you. That is like choosing between A and A. If the choice that you make has important consequences, you are compelled to choose the one that you consider better for yourself, not worse. This is not a free choice whatsoever.

The problem isn't just that it is true that we always choose what we choose, but rather that Lessans' satisfaction principle doesn't SAY or MEAN anything other than this. If that is all it means or says, then it DOESN'T say ANYTHING about any kind of compulsion, so it doesn't say ANYTHING about free choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you can infer empirical conclusions from this principle; that's where you're wrong. I don't know what else to tell you.

No, you CAN'T infer empirical conclusions from this principle IF it is unfalsifiable. That's what the passage you just replied to explains and PROVES. If you think otherwise then you have to address that explanation instead of just denying it. Here it is again:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is no counterfactual logically possible world where he chooses Y Spacemonkey. You're all confused here.

The confusion is yours. Counterfactual logical possibilities are completely unconstrained by causality. There are logically possible worlds where causal determinism is true, and others where it is false, and even possible worlds where sneezes cause earthquakes. So both choices X and Y ARE counterfactual logical (but not necessarily causal) possibilities, and that is all my point requires. Remember this has nothing to do with harm or with prediction. Here it is again:

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.

I give up. Your logic may be valid but it's not sound. Sorry.

There is something wrong extremely fishy with your reasoning Spacemonkey, not with these principles. I cannot even deal with this faulty conclusion you have drawn which says it does not matter what we choose because no matter what it is is in the direction of greater satisfaction. And that is your answer? It is so inadequate that I'm taken aback not only with the incorrectness of your answer, but with your arrogance that this supposedly proves Lessans wrong, no doubt because your degree in philosophy adds weight to anything you have to say, however fallacious it may be.

LadyShea · #**11079** 01-11-2013, 03:20 PM

Quote:

I cannot even deal with this faulty conclusion you have drawn which says it does not matter what we choose because no matter what it is is in the direction of greater satisfaction

How is it faulty? Is every choice made in the direction of greater satisfaction according to Lessans and you? Yes, it is, as you have stated many times. How do you "prove" all choices are made in the direction of greater satisfaction? Because the choice was made, and all choices are in the direction of greater satisfaction according to you. This is the tautology.

peacegirl · #**11080** 01-11-2013, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I cannot even deal with this faulty conclusion you have drawn which says it does not matter what we choose because no matter what it is is in the direction of greater satisfaction

How is it faulty? Is every choice made in the direction of greater satisfaction according to Lessans and you? Yes, it is, as you have stated many times. How do you "prove" all choices are made in the direction of greater satisfaction? Because the choice was made, and all choices are in the direction of greater satisfaction according to you. This is the tautology.

You are being extremely stubborn, I believe for its own sake. That's all I can think of as to why you don't want to understand, or even care to open your mind just a tad in the event that you are wrong. All you do is keep reverting back to the same ridiculous refutation as if this proves him wrong. How can I talk to someone who continues to shut out as a possibility anything Lessans is describing from his observations. It's true that anything we choose will be in the direction of greater satisfaction, but this is not how he came to his first premise, which is what you're assuming. It is much more than we choose what we choose. I also said that you cannot observe "greater satisfaction" directly but this does not make his observation any less astute or accurate. Lastly, he did not say that we can predict behavior through this observation. It is the gateway that leads to his discovery which indirectly proves that man's will is not free because we can only move in one direction which is not to hurt others with a first blow. If will was free we could hurt others under any condition, which is impossible when every bit of justification is removed.

Spacemonkey · #**11081** 01-11-2013, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is something wrong extremely fishy with your reasoning Spacemonkey, not with these principles. I cannot even deal with this faulty conclusion you have drawn which says it does not matter what we choose because no matter what it is is in the direction of greater satisfaction. And that is your answer? It is so inadequate that I'm taken aback not only with the incorrectness of your answer, but with your arrogance that this supposedly proves Lessans wrong, no doubt because your degree in philosophy adds weight to anything you have to say, however fallacious it may be.

More pathetic weaseling. All you've done is call my reasoning faulty, inadequate, incorrect, arrogant, and fallacious - all while admitting that you can't actually support any of these claims by actually addressing the reasoning itself. That means all you are doing is making faith claims. And you have overlooked the whole reason I bumped that post which was because of the little bit I put in red from you at the bottom, showing you to have been lying again yesterday.

:weasel:

Spacemonkey · #**11082** 01-11-2013, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you are. Your last response was to insincerely claim to be 'giving up'.

I never said I was giving up, or even suggested that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up. Your logic may be valid but it's not sound. Sorry.

Liar.

peacegirl · #**11083** 01-11-2013, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you are. Your last response was to insincerely claim to be 'giving up'.

I never said I was giving up, or even suggested that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up. Your logic may be valid but it's not sound. Sorry.

Liar.

I hope you understand that my saying I give up does not mean I am giving up in general. In addition, many people use this phrase but do not mean they are literally giving up. It's a figure of speech. You cannot seem to read between the lines. That being said, I may actually give up in here because we're at a dead end.

Spacemonkey · #**11084** 01-11-2013, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you are. Your last response was to insincerely claim to be 'giving up'.

I never said I was giving up, or even suggested that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up. Your logic may be valid but it's not sound. Sorry.

Liar.

I hope you understand that my saying I give up does not mean I am giving up in general. In addition, many people use this phrase but do not mean they are literally giving up. It's a figure of speech. You cannot seem to read between the lines. That being said, I may actually give up in here because we're at a dead end.

I know you weren't being sincere. That's why I described it as an insincere claim. You were still lying when you claimed never to have said or even suggested exactly what you very definitely did say. General or not, and literal or not, you said EXACTLY what you denied having ever said or suggested. And you've been at a dead end since you arrived. This hasn't stopped you yet.

LadyShea · #**11085** 01-12-2013, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I cannot even deal with this faulty conclusion you have drawn which says it does not matter what we choose because no matter what it is is in the direction of greater satisfaction

How is it faulty? Is every choice made in the direction of greater satisfaction according to Lessans and you? Yes, it is, as you have stated many times. How do you "prove" all choices are made in the direction of greater satisfaction? Because the choice was made, and all choices are in the direction of greater satisfaction according to you. This is the tautology.

You are being extremely stubborn, I believe for its own sake.

Why are you making ad homs and speculating on my motivations instead of answering my questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all I can think of as to why you don't want to understand, or even care to open your mind just a tad in the event that you are wrong.

I have asked you to explain the greater satisfaction principle to me, in a non-circular way, for months and months. You have failed to do so. How long should I keep an open mind when you can't explain anything or answer any pertinent questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you do is keep reverting back to the same ridiculous refutation as if this proves him wrong. How can I talk to someone who continues to shut out as a possibility anything Lessans is describing from his observations.

You can answer questions and explain things and quit having shit fits, that would be helpful

How is my refutation ridiculous? Explain it. Demonstrate my ridiculousness. Don't just assert it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that anything we choose will be in the direction of greater satisfaction, but this is not how he came to his first premise, which is what you're assuming.

I am not assuming anything. I am going by his explanations and your attempts to clarify. How he came to this premise is irrelevant because he never told us how he came to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is much more than we choose what we choose.

Can you support this assertion?

thedoc · #**11086** 01-12-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that anything we choose will be in the direction of greater satisfaction, but this is not how he came to his first premise, which is what you're assuming. It is much more than we choose what we choose. I also said that you cannot observe "greater satisfaction" directly but this does not make his observation any less astute or accurate. Lastly, he did not say that we can predict behavior through this observation. It is the gateway that leads to his discovery which indirectly proves that man's will is not free because we can only move in one direction which is not to hurt others with a first blow. If will was free we could hurt others under any condition, which is impossible when every bit of justification is removed.

Peacegirl, if you had made this statment at the beginning of this thread people could have gotten into a discussion of the real points of Lessans theories instead of wandering around on topics that were peripheral to the main subject. Refusing to give a synopsis, and insisting that people read the whole book just opened the discussion to whatever people found in the book that struck their fancy. You could have directed and lead the discussion in the direction that you felt was important, but instead you allowed others to direct the dialogue into areas that had little bearing on the main points. By pointing out the salient ideas people could have read with a purpose of finding the explinations of those ideas and you could have pointed the way, rather than allowing others to lead the discussion. Several times on this thread you have asked others to do it your way, but you have never given clear direction how to procede, in fact many times you have refused to procede just because people would not accept your claims.

peacegirl · #**11087** 01-13-2013, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I cannot even deal with this faulty conclusion you have drawn which says it does not matter what we choose because no matter what it is is in the direction of greater satisfaction

How is it faulty? Is every choice made in the direction of greater satisfaction according to Lessans and you? Yes, it is, as you have stated many times. How do you "prove" all choices are made in the direction of greater satisfaction? Because the choice was made, and all choices are in the direction of greater satisfaction according to you. This is the tautology.

You are being extremely stubborn, I believe for its own sake.

Why are you making ad homs and speculating on my motivations instead of answering my questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all I can think of as to why you don't want to understand, or even care to open your mind just a tad in the event that you are wrong.

I have asked you to explain the greater satisfaction principle to me, in a non-circular way, for months and months. You have failed to do so. How long should I keep an open mind when you can't explain anything or answer any pertinent questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you do is keep reverting back to the same ridiculous refutation as if this proves him wrong. How can I talk to someone who continues to shut out as a possibility anything Lessans is describing from his observations.

You can answer questions and explain things and quit having shit fits, that would be helpful

How is my refutation ridiculous? Explain it. Demonstrate my ridiculousness. Don't just assert it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that anything we choose will be in the direction of greater satisfaction, but this is not how he came to his first premise, which is what you're assuming.

I am not assuming anything. I am going by his explanations and your attempts to clarify. How he came to this premise is irrelevant because he never told us how he came to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is much more than we choose what we choose.

Can you support this assertion?

You're going to have to let this go because ultimately you will be one of those people who was so sure Lessans was wrong that they felt justified in attacking me, but they will eventually have to admit they were the ones that were wrong when this knowledge is confirmed valid, and that will involve saving face. I am trying to help you Spacemonkey but your arrogance won't let you. I did my best. I just want to say that you are not the best philosopher in the world, although the fact that you have followed me online throughout the years indicates to me that you are searching for answers, and that you have at least a little bit of temperance. That gives me hope for you.

Spacemonkey · #**11088** 01-13-2013, 02:08 PM

That was LadyShea you were replying to, not me.

peacegirl · #**11089** 01-13-2013, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That was LadyShea you were replying to, not me.

The thought remains.

LadyShea · #**11090** 01-13-2013, 02:22 PM

The crackpot motto "Someday I will be vindicated and you will be sorry!"

peacegirl · #**11091** 01-13-2013, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The crackpot motto "Someday I will be vindicated and you will be sorry!"

I don't care what you think LadyShea. Because you have made it appear that I am a fundie, which is the farthest thing from the truth, I have nothing more to say to you.

LadyShea · #**11092** 01-13-2013, 02:42 PM

Then why are you saying things to me? Why are you even here?

Spacemonkey · #**11093** 01-13-2013, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That was LadyShea you were replying to, not me.

The thought remains.

What thought? Certainly not any rational one.

You appear to have returned purely to whine and complain, and yet you still can't be bothered to even pay enough attention to work out who it is you are talking to.

peacegirl · #**11094** 01-14-2013, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why are you saying things to me? Why are you even here?

Why are you?

Spacemonkey · #**11095** 01-14-2013, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole idea of blending free will with determinism is wrong; your belief that greater satisfaction does not prove that we are compelled is wrong, your complete denial that conscience works in a particular way is wrong. You're wrong about everything and yet you get so angry when I say this because you believe that your arguments are sound, and they are not.

You are so utterly full of shit. All you can do is assert like this that my points are wrong, but you can't support these faith-based accusations at all. It's nothing but denial.

And this whole line of response had nothing to do with what you were initially replying to, which was that you had lied by claiming to be unsure what my question was referring to when it was first asked, when in reality it was perfectly clear and this was why you avoided it to the point where you forgot what had been asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I was giving up, or even suggested that.

Yes you did. Liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to consider the source. He is not a laughingstock and will be proven right one day. The more the laughter, the sweeter will be the day when he is vindicated. I am not worried because this is not his law; it's God's law. So let people laugh at God all they want. Who cares? :laugh:

Again, your only efforts on Lessans' behalf have been to waste your time on internet forums where you have done nothing but expose him to ridicule. You haven't achieved anything.

Bump.

Do you know yet why you keep leaving and then coming back?

peacegirl · #**11096** 01-15-2013, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole idea of blending free will with determinism is wrong; your belief that greater satisfaction does not prove that we are compelled is wrong, your complete denial that conscience works in a particular way is wrong. You're wrong about everything and yet you get so angry when I say this because you believe that your arguments are sound, and they are not.

You are so utterly full of shit. All you can do is assert like this that my points are wrong, but you can't support these faith-based accusations at all. It's nothing but denial.

And this whole line of response had nothing to do with what you were initially replying to, which was that you had lied by claiming to be unsure what my question was referring to when it was first asked, when in reality it was perfectly clear and this was why you avoided it to the point where you forgot what had been asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I was giving up, or even suggested that.

Yes you did. Liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to consider the source. He is not a laughingstock and will be proven right one day. The more the laughter, the sweeter will be the day when he is vindicated. I am not worried because this is not his law; it's God's law. So let people laugh at God all they want. Who cares? :laugh:

Again, your only efforts on Lessans' behalf have been to waste your time on internet forums where you have done nothing but expose him to ridicule. You haven't achieved anything.

Bump.

Do you know yet why you keep leaving and then coming back?

What an empty response. I do give up talking to you Spacemonkey. You are a fraud in the most despicable way because you think you are the best at what you do, and sadly you are causing the most difficult problem because people believe in you. Bullshit, you have nothing to offer.

Dragar · #**11097** 01-15-2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What an empty response. I do give up talking to you Spacemonkey. You are a fraud in the most despicable way because you think you are the best at what you do, and sadly you are causing the most difficult problem because people believe in you. Bullshit, you have nothing to offer.

I believe in you, Spacemonkey! :cheerleader:

Spacemonkey · #**11098** 01-15-2013, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What an empty response. I do give up talking to you Spacemonkey. You are a fraud in the most despicable way because you think you are the best at what you do, and sadly you are causing the most difficult problem because people believe in you. Bullshit, you have nothing to offer.

I think the fraud is the person who repeatedly makes claims and accusations they cannot support, lies about what they've said, makes things up about what others believe, and fails to answer any questions that they are asked. I think that person is the fraud.