A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 453

peacegirl · #**11301** 05-04-2013, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm saying that his principle being a tautology means there can be no compulsion involved, and makes it fallacious for him to infer a contingent conclusion from it.

A principle that rules out nothing doesn't rule out any particular choices, and therefore can't compel in the direction of any given choice. It is meaningless to say we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction if every conceivable choice counts as the direction of greater satisfaction if taken. And if this principle holds no matter what choice one could conceivably take, then it obviously doesn't show that there is only one conceivable choice that could have been chosen.

This principle is not meant to rule out any particular choices or to compel in the direction of a particular choice. It's a descriptive statement; it doesn't have prescriptive power. Again, you're trying to negate the validity of this law by faulty logic. It is not meaningless to say we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. I've said this countless times that "greater satisfaction" means that we can only move in one direction which is not established until the choice is made. It is not the discovery, and doesn't prove anything at this point.

I've highlighted the two contradictory parts here for you. If the principle doesn't rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, then it doesn't show that we can only move in one direction. I don't see how this point could be made any simpler for you.

The principle does rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, that's just the point. It cannot tell you what that choice will be, but the fact is that whatever choice is made when comparing alternatives is the ONLY choice that could have been made at that exact moment in time and under those exact conditions. It's not an empty tautology. It has important implications.

peacegirl · #**11302** 05-04-2013, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then show me a proof. Lay it out in terms of premises, inferential steps, and a conclusion. For instance, you said he proved we are born again and again. Show me the proof. Show me any proof instead of just asserting it's there somewhere in his writings.

I refuse to discuss this. There are more important things on the table than this chapter, so let it be. When this knowledge is brought to light, there will be time enough to understand his reasoning based on observations (clues) while alive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You were the one who brought up his alleged proof that we are born again and again. You introduced it in support of your claims regarding his superior reasoning ability. It is disingenuous in the extreme to introduce something as evidence and then subsequently refuse to defend its probative value.

I discussed this chapter way back when, and I'm not discussing it again. I'm sorry that it appears disingenuous. I only brought it up to defend observation and reasoning as an important means of finding truth; just as important as empiricism, because we cannot get empirical proof of what happens after death after we are gone.

How do you think it accomplishes that (i.e. defending observation and reasoning as an important means of finding the truth) given that none of Lessans' claims about being born again and again are verified or verifiable?

Because his reasoning is accurate. When he says you're born again, he doesn't mean this baby that comes into the world and recognizes his own individuality has any connection to you as you are now; or should I say your consciousness of yourself as Angakuk. These are mathematical relations that are undeniable if you understand his reasoning.

But · #**11303** 05-04-2013, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because his reasoning is accurate. When he says you're born again, he doesn't mean this baby that comes into the world and recognizes his own individuality has any connection to you as you are now; or should I say your consciousness of yourself as Angakuk. These are mathematical relations that are undeniable if you understand his reasoning.

You have to take into account entanglement and postselection.

But · #**11304** 05-04-2013, 10:43 PM

It is not true that there is no connection. It is not true that there is a perfect bijective mapping.

Spacemonkey · #**11305** 05-04-2013, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

I'm talking to you, for example.

Then please either mention my name or quote me when doing so. I use linear mode and otherwise have no idea who you are addressing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Don't change the topic.

This never was the topic between us, as we haven't even been conversing until now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

You asked for a proof. I'm going to construct it for you in a language you understand.

Okay. What are you going to prove for us? If you are asking me to choose which kind of logic for you to use, then I guess first-order predicate logic would be nice. Maybe you could present in a natural deduction format?

peacegirl · #**11306** 05-04-2013, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, so if there is a choice between two alternatives, we are compelled in that direction even though it may appear to others as a less satisfying choice. We may choose to sacrifice our own life for someone else's. To another it may appear as the less satisfying choice, but to the individual making that choice it is the most preferable. This IS an immutable law Spacemonkey, whether you see it or not.

It is an empty tautology from which he fallaciously infers the falsity of free will. There cannot be any kind of compulsion when the direction of greater satisfaction is being defined as whatever choice one happens to make.

Absolutely 100% false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And, yes, his discovery rests upon the knowledge of how conscience works, and under changed environmental conditions it will not permit certain actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.

You keep saying that but he did through his observations. His observations prove that conscience can only move in a direction of hurting no one when there is no possible justification for this hurt. In this society, if someone wants something there are all kinds of excuses he can make to the authorities if he's caught. This eases conscience because he can pay a price, which lets him off the "conscience" hook. This is an absolute spot on observation and the only reason you are resisting it is because you want to believe that man has some degree of free will. It's ironic though that someone of your intellectual calibre can't see this. I believe this is due to how you're trying to disprove these spot on observations with your convoluted logic, as much as you don't want to believe that this is the case.

Spacemonkey · #**11307** 05-04-2013, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because his reasoning is accurate. When he says you're born again, he doesn't mean this baby that comes into the world and recognizes his own individuality has any connection to you as you are now; or should I say your consciousness of yourself as Angakuk. These are mathematical relations that are undeniable if you understand his reasoning.

Show us the reasoning and we'll let you know whether or not it is undeniable.

Spacemonkey · #**11308** 05-04-2013, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The principle does rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, that's just the point. It cannot tell you what that choice will be, but the fact is that whatever choice is made when comparing alternatives is the ONLY choice that could have been made at that exact moment in time and under those exact conditions. It's not an empty tautology. It has important implications.

Again, I've highlighted the contradictory parts for you.

peacegirl · #**11309** 05-04-2013, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to our logic it does, but your logic is much to be desired.

Why thank you. I suppose it probably is, lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.

It is so ironic that a person who is supposed to be well-versed in philosophy is the least well-versed person in here. Next to LadyShea, you are not all that. You cannot place yourself above others unless you hold yourself above others, but you cannot because you haven't proven yourself, and your logic doesn't prove anything either. It is completely and utterly mistaken Spacemonkey. I can't spend that much more time here. I know you feel compelled to argue your points but I am literally freeing you. Go your merry way and enjoy your life. I have nothing against you, but you are wrong on all counts. You will never allow me to show you where you are wrong in your logic because you think your logic proves you right. You have literally backed me against a wall of your own making. It takes a very unthreatened person to admit that he may not have all the answers. As a result, I'm totally burned out, done, finished, and needing to move on. I did enjoy my time here, however challenging. I learned a lot.

Another weaseling ad hominem personal attack in place of any rational response. Lessans failed, and so have you. You are obviously wasting your time here, and you haven't learned a thing.

Oh my god, Lessans did not fail Spacemonkey. You failed and it's all because of your misguided logic. You are the one that is obviously wasting your time here because YOU haven't learned a thing. :sadcheer:

Spacemonkey · #**11310** 05-04-2013, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is an empty tautology from which he fallaciously infers the falsity of free will. There cannot be any kind of compulsion when the direction of greater satisfaction is being defined as whatever choice one happens to make.

Absolutely 100% false.

Assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.

You keep saying that but he did through his observations. His observations prove that conscience can only move in a direction of hurting no one when there is no possible justification for this hurt. In this society, if someone wants something there are all kinds of excuses he can make to the authorities if he's caught. This eases conscience because he can pay a price, which lets him off the "conscience" hook. This is an absolute spot on observation and the only reason you are resisting it is because you want to believe that man has some degree of free will. It's ironic though that someone of your intellectual calibre can't see this. I believe this is due to how you're trying to disprove these spot on observations with your convoluted logic, as much as you don't want to believe that this is the case.

None of these 'observations' support his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And stating or describing an observation still isn't the same thing as supporting it.

Spacemonkey · #**11311** 05-04-2013, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, Lessans did not fail Spacemonkey. You failed and it's all because of your misguided logic. You are the one that is obviously wasting your time here because YOU haven't learned a thing. :sadcheer:

Assertion.

peacegirl · #**11312** 05-04-2013, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The principle does rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, that's just the point. It cannot tell you what that choice will be, but the fact is that whatever choice is made when comparing alternatives is the ONLY choice that could have been made at that exact moment in time and under those exact conditions. It's not an empty tautology. It has important implications.

Again, I've highlighted the contradictory parts for you.

I already answered this Spacemonkey. The principle does rule out any other option than the one that was chosen. As I said previously, this doesn't make it an empty tautology. Any lay person could follow this reasoning. This is what's so unfortunate about someone who has a degree in philosophy. It's so ironic how confused a person can get, especially when the premises upon which he is basing all of his subsequent reasoning is inaccurate, and when the definitions being used only serve to confound the issue rather than clarify it. :doh:

But · #**11313** 05-04-2013, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This never was the topic between us, as we haven't even been conversing until now.

Not exactly true.

Quote:

Okay. What are you going to prove for us?

Let's say that we are (re)born again and again, since you seem to have objections.

Quote:

If you are asking me to choose which kind of logic for you to use, then I guess first-order predicate logic would be nice. Maybe you could present in a natural deduction format?

Why not, sounds good.

Spacemonkey · #**11314** 05-04-2013, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The principle does rule out any choice or compel in any particular direction, that's just the point. It cannot tell you what that choice will be, but the fact is that whatever choice is made when comparing alternatives is the ONLY choice that could have been made at that exact moment in time and under those exact conditions. It's not an empty tautology. It has important implications.

Again, I've highlighted the contradictory parts for you.

I already answered this Spacemonkey.

Only by repeating the fallacy. You haven't actually addressed the problem yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The principle does rule out any other option than the one that was chosen.

Then it can't be the tautologous necessary truth you've said it is, for that rules out nothing at all.

Spacemonkey · #**11315** 05-04-2013, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This never was the topic between us, as we haven't even been conversing until now.

Not exactly true.

Quote:

Okay. What are you going to prove for us?

Let's say that we are (re)born again and again, since you seem to have objections.

Quote:

If you are asking me to choose which kind of logic for you to use, then I guess first-order predicate logic would be nice. Maybe you could present in a natural deduction format?

Why not, sounds good.

Okay.

But · #**11316** 05-04-2013, 10:59 PM

(1) I exist. Right or wrong?

peacegirl · #**11317** 05-04-2013, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is an empty tautology from which he fallaciously infers the falsity of free will. There cannot be any kind of compulsion when the direction of greater satisfaction is being defined as whatever choice one happens to make.

Absolutely 100% false.

Assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that is why it as a rather serious oversight that he completely failed to provide any kind of support whatsoever for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And before you repeat your standard refrain, no, stating or describing an observation is not the same as supporting what one thereby asserts.

You keep saying that but he did through his observations. His observations prove that conscience can only move in a direction of hurting no one when there is no possible justification for this hurt. In this society, if someone wants something there are all kinds of excuses he can make to the authorities if he's caught. This eases conscience because he can pay a price, which lets him off the "conscience" hook. This is an absolute spot on observation and the only reason you are resisting it is because you want to believe that man has some degree of free will. It's ironic though that someone of your intellectual calibre can't see this. I believe this is due to how you're trying to disprove these spot on observations with your convoluted logic, as much as you don't want to believe that this is the case.

None of these 'observations' support his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And stating or describing an observation still isn't the same thing as supporting it.

No way did this man make any assumptions, and the only time you will see this is when it is confirmed valid by those who are able to recognize the validity of these principles. These principles are not based on logic. They are based on accurate observations and sound reasoning, which can only lead to an accurate conclusion regarding the man's will and conscience. We will never get to his discovery because you have dismissed the premises on which his discovery is based. Your logic is so twisted that you could make anything appear true syllogistically. This is what he meant when he said:

There will be no sleight of hand revelation as is dreamed up in
philosophical circles by epistemologists; only a clear undeniable
explanation about facts of man’s nature never before understood.
Knowledge in this context is to truly know ourselves. If you are
coming along on this journey you will need to put on your thinking
caps and try to understand the mathematical relations soon to be
revealed which permit you to see this miracle.

Spacemonkey · #**11318** 05-04-2013, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

(1) I exist. Right or wrong?

You seem to have confused the Socratic method and natural deduction. The above isn't a proof. Provide your proof and we can discuss it.

But · #**11319** 05-04-2013, 11:08 PM

I'm just asking for a premise. If you can't think of a reasonable answer to (1), then what is asking question (1)?

Spacemonkey · #**11320** 05-04-2013, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of these 'observations' support his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience. And stating or describing an observation still isn't the same thing as supporting it.

No way did this man make any assumptions...

Of course he did. He assumed the innate potential perfection of conscience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and the only time you will see this is when it is confirmed valid by those who are able to recognize the validity of these principles.

What validity? The only person on the planet who thinks his reasoning is valid is her own deluded daughter who couldn't reason her way out of a paper bag (or an internet discussion forum).

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These principles are not based on logic. They are based on accurate observations and sound reasoning...

Sound reasoning is logic, Peacegirl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We will never get to his discovery because you have dismissed the premises on which his discovery is based.

And we will continue to dismiss them until you can support them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If you are coming along on this journey you will need to put on your thinking caps and try to understand the mathematical relations soon to be revealed which permit you to see this miracle.

Lessans' problem was that he only ever wore his red and green thinking hats, and never learned to wear his black thinking hat.

Spacemonkey · #**11321** 05-04-2013, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

I'm just asking for a premise. If you can't think of a reasonable answer to (1), then what is asking question (1)?

You can choose your own premises. Let us know when you have a ND proof ready for us to evaluate.

But · #**11322** 05-04-2013, 11:17 PM

Give me a formal grammar for this "ND proof" that you seem to want. In the meantime, what is asking question (1)?

thedoc · #**11323** 05-04-2013, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

(1) I exist. Right or wrong?

No-one here knows if you exist or not, the words on the screen exist, but beyond that we have nothing as proof either way.
BTW, since you didn't address this to anyone in particular, it is now open to anyone.

Spacemonkey · #**11324** 05-04-2013, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Give me a formal grammar for this "ND proof" that you seem to want.

I already told you that first-order predicate logic would be fine. Let me know when your proof is complete and ready for us to evaluate.

But · #**11325** 05-04-2013, 11:25 PM

I'm not going to throw quantifiers together if you can't even handle normal English sentences. What is asking question (1)? I'll help you: Am I a composite system described by a state function?