A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm not sure you have the mental ability to do this, but you could start with looking up the modal fallacy. And then understanding it. From there you will find hundreds if not thousands of modal errors that Lessans makes as easily as breathing.

Oh really? If you're so sure of yourself, then it is up to you to spell out where there is a modal fallacy. You don't even know the first thing about this book. That's the funniest part of all.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? If you're so sure of yourself, then it is up to you to spell out where there is a modal fallacy. You don't even know the first thing about this book. That's the funniest part of all.

I already did that hundreds of pages ago. And your ridiculous "real-time seeing" has been shown to be false in dozens, if not by now perhaps a hundred, different ways.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People must choose that which leads to greater satisfaction. We know this because after the fact we can simply define any choice made as having been that option that led in the direction of greater satisfaction. You chose left instead of right? You had to have chosen that because left led to greater satisfaction.

Notice the ass-begotten "must" and the proof by definition.

But, peacegirl claims this is neither a modal fallacy, nor circular reasoning.

Of course it is "must" after the fact, otherwise the choice would not be determined. It's true that no matter what one chooses it is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but the definition is not the proof, therefore it's not a modal fallacy as everyone is accusing him of making.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Not to mention that it is difficult to know if any given choice will have greater satisfaction. Generally, the road to ruin is the path of greater satisfaction.

That is true. Sometimes people make choices that they know aren't good for them, but they still get greater satisfaction in choosing them. We all see this when people take drugs. They know that what they're doing isn't good for them but they do it anyway because they get more satisfaction getting high than staying sober. When they go through enough misery, the satisfaction of staying sober may outweigh the satisfaction of getting high. Our choices change from moment to moment depending on our circumstances and what we're basing our choices on.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

If you are telling me that when people make a choice they have a preference then so what? The exercise of a choice is the application of a preference. You can redefine this to mean there was "greater satisfaction" but this is zero information. And it is not a "discovery".

It's just obvious useless information.

It is far from useless natural.atheist. If we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, it renders all other choices an impossibility because all of the other choices, at that moment, would have given less satisfaction, and we cannot move in this direction when a more satisfying alternative is available. But you have to remember that what I find as more satisfying may not be what others judge to be the best choice. Do you understand what I just explained? This doesn't explain why this knowledge is not useless, but we have to go step by step. First, you have to understand his definition of determinism before we can move on.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Here is an example of the modal fallacy. Yes people can make choices they find satisfying. But they can also make choices that they do not find satisfying. So saying "we can only..." is wrong. Because people have and do make choices they do not find satisfying.

Lessans does this so much that it looks like he had some sort of congenital mental problem where he "could only" think in fallacies. And it appears he gave it to you.

We do make unsatisfactory choices because the alternative is worse. That means that given two or more choices that are distasteful, we are compelled to choose the one that is least dissatisfying. The point I'm making is that we are always moving toward what is the most satisfying given our particular circumstances, even though we often fall short. I despise posting excerpts out of order, but this is the best --- or the least dissatisfying --- choice I can make under the circumstances, so here goes. Please read the following carefully. For those who already read it, it's a good review whether Davidm thinks so or not.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 57-59

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his
nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality. The truth is that the words
good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to
oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of
having that person kill me.

The reason someone commits suicide is
not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only
because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions
is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life but under
the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the
lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction. Consequently,
when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this
the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced
with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is
compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying.

For
example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off he has three
possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to
sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question
under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives. Even though
he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to work, he
needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on his back or
being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up
and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he
doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing
than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the other
alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu
may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the
other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is
still considered worse under his particular circumstances.

The law of
self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.

All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to.

Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.

Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death...but this
doesn’t mean his will was free, it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will.

What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred as the lesser of
two evils to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed
as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something
fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no
accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt
that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT
MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.
And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or
principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his
will because over this his nature allows absolute control; and that his
will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of
available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will
reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has
been made.

[Vivisectus]

But that is exactly where the fallacy that we described creeps in. Whenever your father invoked "that which leads to the greatest satisfaction" it is interchangeable with "That which people end up choosing"

He considers that proof that will is not free, and does not realize that all he has proven is that people choose things. That they were compelled to choose those particular things is not proven, and yet he later on relies on particular things, covered in his overly vague definition of "That which leads to the most satisfaction" to be what we HAVE to choose.

He then also claims that he can predict what leads to the most satisfaction, using blame in a society where we are not aware of the non-existence of free will as what stands between us and perfect conscientiousness. After all, the world does not work as he describes, so he needs a reason why.

That is where he requires us just to take his word for it, really. He claims that if we are all aware of the absence of free will, and therefor of the futility of blame, we would all become perfectly conscientious. This current climate of believing in free will and blame is what somehow allows people not to take full responsibilities for their actions.

There are a few problems there right away. Perfect conscientiousness requires us to be able to foresee all possible effects of our actions. If this is not so, we can nevertheless hurt another human being, albeit without wanting to. Peacegirl more or less says that this doesn't matter as people would be understanding about it. It also requires all actions to be either good or bad, and not good for some and bad for others. In reality, there is no such black and white yardstick for actions at all, and actions can be ambiguous. This is also largely ignored. Finally, he gives no reason WHY conscience HAS to work this way.

On top of that, for the system to work as Lessans envisaged, we must be compelled by our own nature to act the way he says we will. As was already shown, that compulsion relies on something that is only defined after the fact, and therefor cannot be proven to have existed at all.

If I roll a die which is for all intents and purposes random, and it comes up six, and I then claim I knew it HAD to come up six, and then roll a 4, and then claim that again, it HAD to come up 4, you would want me to prove that it was necessary for them to come up this way.

So as you can see, even though he and you do not realize it, the modal fallacy has crept in, and it is at the base of the whole system, along with a few other problems. For all his and your railing against academia, a few months doing logic 101 in a handy local college that does adult education would have saved him from turning a beginners mistake into a lumbering system of confusion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... when, exactly, are you going to provide us with some examples of his "accurate observations" and "sound reasoning"?

Because so far, his observations have proved most inaccurate, and his reasoning anything but sound.

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Exactly. Man, I'd practically kill for the ability to see the way that peacegirl thinks we see.

I wouldn't want you to go that far, although I do appreciate your effort to understand what Lessans has claimed.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate?

babies can see and dogs can recognize photographs, for starters

[peacegirl]

[quote=naturalist.atheist;985278]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So move on natural.atheist, you're not handcuffed here. Find a different thread that is more interesting. I never did understand why people would stay if it's gotten boring.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

I didn't say I was bored. It's become more interesting. I'm trying to verify that you are mentally deranged by spotting patterns that indicate illness. The more you post the more I have to go on. What makes it more interesting is that it could be congenital.

You said worse. You said Lessans was chasing his own tail. And you also said it is now stupid. Can you deny what you just said?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate?

Have you not been paying attention for the past 400+ pages? How many more examples do you need?


[That's a rhetorical question by the way: we all know that the answer is ∞ + 1.]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

babies can see and dogs can recognize photographs, for starters

Vivisectus, why are you making light of what Lessans has claimed? I really don't get it. What you just said was not part of an experiment, so why are you using this to discredit Lessans? I'm flabbergasted that you are trying to discredit Lessans from nothing, absolutely nothing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Have you not been paying attention for the past 400+ pages? How many more examples do you need?


[That's a rhetorical question by the way: we all know that the answer is ∞ + 1.]

I realize that you don't want a list of examples Lone, but truthfully, you can't say that Lessans is wrong empirically or in any other way. I have to say that the more I talk to people the more I realize that our thoughts about life in general are so similar whether we are atheists, agnostics, or fundamentalists. It's incredible to me.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that you don't want a list of examples Lone, but truthfully, you can't say that Lessans is wrong empirically or in any other way.

Bullshit I can't.


Tell me again about how the optic nerve receives light, why don't you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that is exactly where the fallacy that we described creeps in. Whenever your father invoked "that which leads to the greatest satisfaction" it is interchangeable with "That which people end up choosing"

He considers that proof that will is not free, and does not realize that all he has proven is that people choose things. That they were compelled to choose those particular things is not proven, and yet he later on relies on particular things, covered in his overly vague definition of "That which leads to the most satisfaction" to be what we HAVE to choose.

He then also claims that he can predict what leads to the most satisfaction, using blame in a society where we are not aware of the non-existence of free will as what stands between us and perfect conscientiousness. After all, the world does not work as he describes, so he needs a reason why.

That is where he requires us just to take his word for it, really. He claims that if we are all aware of the absence of free will, and therefor of the futility of blame, we would all become perfectly conscientious. This current climate of believing in free will and blame is what somehow allows people not to take full responsibilities for their actions.

There are a few problems there right away. Perfect conscientiousness requires us to be able to foresee all possible effects of our actions. If this is not so, we can nevertheless hurt another human being, albeit without wanting to. Peacegirl more or less says that this doesn't matter as people would be understanding about it. It also requires all actions to be either good or bad, and not good for some and bad for others. In reality, there is no such black and white yardstick for actions at all, and actions can be ambiguous. This is also largely ignored. Finally, he gives no reason WHY conscience HAS to work this way.

On top of that, for the system to work as Lessans envisaged, we must be compelled by our own nature to act the way he says we will. As was already shown, that compulsion relies on something that is only defined after the fact, and therefor cannot be proven to have existed at all.

If I roll a die which is for all intents and purposes random, and it comes up six, and I then claim I knew it HAD to come up six, and then roll a 4, and then claim that again, it HAD to come up 4, you would want me to prove that it was necessary for them to come up this way.

So as you can see, even though he and you do not realize it, the modal fallacy has crept in, and it is at the base of the whole system, along with a few other problems. For all his and your railing against academia, a few months doing logic 101 in a handy local college that does adult education would have saved him from turning a beginners mistake into a lumbering system of confusion.

promise to get to this post next time I come online...didn't forget you Vivsectus

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, why are you making light of what Lessans has claimed? I really don't get it. What you just said was not part of an experiment, so why are you using this to discredit Lessans? I'm flabbergasted that you are trying to discredit Lessans from nothing, absolutely nothing.

That was an inaccurate observation, as we have since found out. Babies CAN see. They just cannot focus their eyes. So Lessans observation that they first need some other stimulus to allow them to see anything was wrong. These tests, by the way, have not just been done in informal settings, but are confirmed in the lab.

The same with dog sight. We have tested it, and as it turns out, things don't work the way Lessans said.

So they stand as examples of his observations being inaccurate. The fallacies are good examples of his reasoning being unsound.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So move on natural.atheist, you're not handcuffed here. Find a different thread that is more interesting. I never did understand why people would stay if it's gotten boring.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

I didn't say I was bored.

You said in so many words that this thread is bullshit.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

It's become more interesting. I'm trying to verify that you are mentally deranged by spotting patterns that indicate illness. The more you post the more I have to go on. What makes it more interesting is that it could be congenital.

That is a convenient excuse. You know that this conversation is far from over. I actually appreciate your refutation, for without there being a debate Lessans' discovery would die out and our world would suffer as a consequence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Bullshit I can't.


Tell me again about how the optic nerve receives light, why don't you?

Lone Ranger, listen to me carefully. This important thread is going to be condemned because of the discussion on sight. I don't want that to happen. I am asking you kindly to put this aside and listen to his other discoveries. If you truly think it is all bullshit, so be it, but give this man a fighting chance, okay? You are too invested in what you believe to be true to be objective, so how can I make a dent? This is extremely problematic. That is why I'm asking you, once again, to step back, take a deep breath, and let me continue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

If I understand correctly, the argument seems to be:

1.Whatever I do, is simply defined to be what I feel is more satisfying.

2. Therefore, I could not have done, other than what I did.

Of course, 2. does not validly follow from 1., so the argument is a logical botch.

Of course I could have done, other than what I did. But, had I done, other than what I did, then this other thing I did would be defined as that which leads to greater satisfaction, for no matter what I do, I do that which leads to greater satisfaction!

Needless to say, a logically botched argument like this does not disprove free will.

Originally Posted by davidm

Your argument commits the modal fallacy.

Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that all of us invariably do what we think will bring us the greatest satisfaction (a premise that I find highly dubious, but let’s just assume it for argument’s sake.)

Your argument, or the author’s argument, seems to go: If option A is best for me, than I must choose option A (hence, no free will).

This commits the fallacy of modal logic, illicitly assigning necessity to a contingent outcome.

If indeed there is a “necessity” component to your argument (true in all possible worlds,) then the necessity lies, not in the consequent, but in the conjoint relation between the consequent and the antecedent.

Assuming the truth of the claim that we all invariably choose what we think [leads to greater satisfaction]*, the proper logical construction is:

Necessarily, (If I think A is [more satisfying], then I will (Not Must!) choose A)

And NOT:

If I think A is [that which will lead to greater satisfaction], then I must (necessarily) choose A.

The modal fallacy here is plain to see, and the author’s argument against free will is formally logically invalid, and needs no further rebuttal.

For more on the modal fallacy, see here, for example.

Here you go. Please note I changed davids "best for" to some form of "greater satisfaction" to ensure peacegirl understands the example because it uses the wording she is used to

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, listen to me carefully. This important thread is going to be condemned because of the discussion on sight. I don't want that to happen. I am asking you kindly to put this aside and listen to his other discoveries. If you truly think it is all bullshit, so be it, but give this man a fighting chance, okay? You are too invested in what you believe to be true to be objective, so how can I make a dent? This is extremely problematic. That is why I'm asking you, once again, to step back, take a deep breath, and let me continue.

The man is a working scientist. He doesn't merely "believe" it to be true, he has observed and tested multiple aspects of vision under controlled conditions.

That is as objective an opinion as you can get.

N.A. is a working scientist I am pretty sure. Vivisectus' son is an astrophysicist. Do you really, truly believe if these people could even observe instantaneous sight for themselves (and really there are several tests they can do easily), they wouldn't have done so? No matter how angry they may seem to you, scientists all share one common trait...intense curiosity. The mere mention of such a thing got their curiosity up, guaranteed.

[LadyShea]

Of course it is "must" after the fact, otherwise the choice would not be determined. It's true that no matter what one chooses it is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but the definition is not the proof, therefore it's not a modal fallacy as everyone is accusing him of making.

The "must" being assigned IS the modal fallacy, peacegirl.

Originally Posted by davidm

illicitly assigning necessity to a contingent outcome.

The definition as proof of itself is the circular reasoning.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The bottom line is that impulses coming from the optic nerve do not give us normal sight, if Lessans is correct in his observations.

"If" being the operative term. There being no reason to believe that Lessans' is correct in is observations, the only reasonable option is to stick with the accepted theory of sight, there being considerable reason to believe that it is correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FYI, I have no desire to direct the direction and scope of this discussion except when it is leading to nowhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason I want to control the direction and scope of the discussion is because of the importance of his first discovery.

'Nuff said.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And we are not all atheists. Angukuk is a Christian minister and Vivisectus is a Muslim and Wildernesse is a Christian.

Wait! Vivisectus is a Muslim? I did not know that. Here, all this time I have been engaging him in polite and civil conversation. Treating him, in fact, just as I would a normal human being. Man have I got a lot to atone for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

In which case, he's got nothing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are too invested in what you believe to be true to be objective...

Note to liv: You may want to consider investing in some back-up irony meters. I am afraid that this thread is going to wear out the current model.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate?

Begin at Page One, reread thread.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, listen to me carefully. This important thread is going to be condemned because of the discussion on sight. I don't want that to happen. I am asking you kindly to put this aside and listen to his other discoveries. If you truly think it is all bullshit, so be it, but give this man a fighting chance, okay? You are too invested in what you believe to be true to be objective, so how can I make a dent? This is extremely problematic. That is why I'm asking you, once again, to step back, take a deep breath, and let me continue.

No one is stopping you from continuing, and no one is stopping us from pointing out that Lessans' claims about sight, free will, consciousness and all the rest are not just wrong, but utter, demonstrated bullshit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that is exactly where the fallacy that we described creeps in. Whenever your father invoked "that which leads to the greatest satisfaction" it is interchangeable with "That which people end up choosing"

He considers that proof that will is not free, and does not realize that all he has proven is that people choose things. That they were compelled to choose those particular things is not proven, and yet he later on relies on particular things, covered in his overly vague definition of "That which leads to the most satisfaction" to be what we HAVE to choose.

That is right Vivisectus. It is true that "greater satisfaction" is interchangeable with "That which people end up choosing," but that is not the proof. The proof comes from his observations that this is the direction of all life. It was those observations that led him to his conclusions, not this logical construct that appears circular.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He then also claims that he can predict what leads to the most satisfaction, using blame in a society where we are not aware of the non-existence of free will as what stands between us and perfect conscientiousness. After all, the world does not work as he describes, so he needs a reason why.

He never said he can predict what leads to the most satisfaction in others.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation p. 85

For the very first time you fully realize that
I must excuse you because it is now known that man must always
select of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction,
and who am I to know what gives you greater satisfaction.

He is not blaming society for not being aware of the non-existence of free will. He is just showing how this new understanding of man's nature prevents the desire to do the very things for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is where he requires us just to take his word for it, really. He claims that if we are all aware of the absence of free will, and therefor of the futility of blame, we would all become perfectly conscientious. This current climate of believing in free will and blame is what somehow allows people not to take full responsibilities for their actions.

The advance knowledge that if we get caught doing something that we know is considered wrong, we will be blamed and punished, eases our conscience because we know that we can always come up with a reasonable excuse. In other words, knowing we will be punished gives us the advance justification we need in order to act on our desires. Remember, as long as we know we will be blamed for our actions, our conscience will not be working at full throttle.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation p. 70

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not
cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which
his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not
responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a
minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I
hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will
but only because I wanted to do it” because the standards of right and
wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty
when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some
sort for his desires. Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb
part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his
conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases
with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do
what he really didn’t want to do.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are a few problems there right away. Perfect conscientiousness requires us to be able to foresee all possible effects of our actions. If this is not so, we can nevertheless hurt another human being, albeit without wanting to. Peacegirl more or less says that this doesn't matter as people would be understanding about it. It also requires all actions to be either good or bad, and not good for some and bad for others. In reality, there is no such black and white yardstick for actions at all, and actions can be ambiguous. This is also largely ignored. Finally, he gives no reason WHY conscience HAS to work this way.

Perfect conscientiousness requires one thing and one thing only. It requires us to know what is a concrete hurt. Once we know what is a first blow (and it's true that some situations are ambiguous which is why there will be analysts to go over all sorts of scenarios, similar to what a lawyer does to determine who would be at fault), we won't desire to strike it under the changed conditions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On top of that, for the system to work as Lessans envisaged, we must be compelled by our own nature to act the way he says we will. As was already shown, that compulsion relies on something that is only defined after the fact, and therefor cannot be proven to have existed at all.

That's where you're getting confused. It is true that we are compelled, by our very own nature, to act in a certain way. And it's also true that once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise, but this is all about prevention, not after the fact.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation 67-70

We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without
passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have
reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going
through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a
shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery
was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because
of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man
responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was
never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant
assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would
lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other
factors as the cause. “If he committed crimes, society was to blame;
if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a
cog in generating him.” It is also true that if it had not been for the
development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of
right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of
this coming Golden Age.

Yet despite the fact that we have been
brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing
what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law
and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of
the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that
has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind
systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction,
or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these
mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT
FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES.
This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the
mathematic corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to
anything after it is done — only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies to
something before it is done, and not after. Does this mean you can
blame after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the
same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial; how
to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our
penal code?”

“It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The
reason it doesn’t apply to anything after it is done — only before —
is because God’s commandment, Thou Shall Not Blame, has the
power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was
previously necessary as part of our development.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If I roll a die which is for all intents and purposes random, and it comes up six, and I then claim I knew it HAD to come up six, and then roll a 4, and then claim that again, it HAD to come up 4, you would want me to prove that it was necessary for them to come up this way.

He proves the validity of determinism through his keen observations, not through circular reasoning which makes any answer you choose the correct answer.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So as you can see, even though he and you do not realize it, the modal fallacy has crept in, and it is at the base of the whole system, along with a few other problems. For all his and your railing against academia, a few months doing logic 101 in a handy local college that does adult education would have saved him from turning a beginners mistake into a lumbering system of confusion.

Vivisectus, he didn't turn a beginners mistake into a lumbering system of confusion. He knew what he was talking about, and one day you will too hopefully.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these
mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT
FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES.
This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the
mathematic corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to
anything after it is done — only before.

That's just friggin amazing. Lessans was in communication with god and god gave him some "mathematical relations", which don't look at all like mathematics but more like a missing commandment. But Lessans knows this because I guess he could see god with his "efferent vision"?

Really peacegirl? You don't see anything odd about this?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He proves the validity of determinism through his keen observations.

Which "keen observations" are those? Can you name them, and describe them?