A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Your example regarding the pregnant woman is ridiculous because a husband would want to support his wife in childbirth. Yes, he has the right-of-way not to support her if he prefers, but why would he prefer this knowing that by supporting her he is showing his love, which will make her love him all the more and offer him the security of a loving relationship? Obviously, you didn't read that part

I am glad you brought his up again! I do not think your objection is a very good one, because we are not talking about preference: that same man might want to stay in and help his wife cook dinner, sure. And he might prefer to attend the birth.

But what we are discussing is an ethical rule: the man's desire gets right of way, so it is ok for him to go see a movie. Or go golfing in stead of attending the birth, or what have you.

You are trying to hand-wave this away, claiming that this would not happen, but that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that as an ethical rule, your right-of-way system is completely silly. It all depends on the situation if it is OK to take the right of way. My desire to go see a movie does not out-weight my wife's desire to have me home to help her cook dinner per se, based on the fact that her desire requires my aid: it all depends on the circumstances. If she had recently had bad news, it would not be OK for me to leave.

The point is that the rule that is proposed is poorly thought out and leads to ridiculous situations that no-one would consider ethical. You admit this, but try to pretend that this would never happen because people would not be capable of doing unethical things... but we are discussing the rule that must be followed to ensure exactly that! Once again you are required to reason in circles to make Lessans seem to make sense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The subforum will be devoted to people who are interested in joining a grassroots movement to bring this knowledge to light. And believe me, there will be plenty of them

What makes you think that and why should we "believe you" that there will be plenty of them? Have you been out searching for people to refer to your site? Marketing or publicizing the site?

Why are you here at instead of out there on the Internet doing SEO and social network marketing?

Remember, "If you build it they will come" is just a line from a movie.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were prescribed drugs that were later shown to cause cancer? Which drug might that be, that has been shown to cause cancer?

Many drugs that are administered in many times the prescribed dose will cause some kind of medical problem, cancer included, and are then taken off the market. My question would be, what condition were the drugs prescribed to treat? that answer might explain Peacegirls behavior, if she didn't take them, but followed her grandmothers example and poured them down the drain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Remember, "If you build it they will come" is just a line from a movie.

Another line from show biz, is "Always leave them laughing." there is a really good chance of that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One day these posts will come back to bite you in the #*(*$! It will be sweet revenge when I get the last laugh!!

You, unsurprisingly, miss the point of my little parody.

None of us here, except for you, has any stake in how reality actually is. If it turned out someday that scientific evidence for ID emerged, for instance, I'm sure The Lone Ranger, a biologist, would tentatively accept that evidence and would actually want to learn MORE about it. He is not wedded to evolution, any more than anyone here is wedded to special relativity or delayed time seeing. We are wedded to HONESTY, to an evidence-based exploration of the universe. We are wedded to REALITY.

Thus nothing can come back and bite us in the ass. We go where the evidence leads, and we let the chips fall where they may. If it turns out we are wrong about something, we admit it, and go on to further explore new evidence that may contradict our old views. That's just part of science.

What about you, though?

Well, for you, this is all PERSONAL -- the exact opposite of the way it is for us. But what you do not consider -- and this is the point of my parody that you so spectacularly missed -- is that your never-ending and always unavailing efforts to promote this crap might eventually succeed, in the following sense: there is always the possibility, given the nature of the Internet, that Lessans' works will go viral. They could be known all over the world.

What then? In your boundless self-delusion, you believe that if this happened, he would acquire legions of admirers and the New World would be ushered in. But what would ACTUALLY happen, on a grand global scale, is the same thing that has happened at this tiny forum, and all the other tiny forums where you have given your song and dance: Lessans would be a laughingstock. Only, instead of us few here at FF laughing at him, he would be a laughing stock from Boca Raton to Beijing.

This is what would happen. I know that you think it impossible, even hypothetically, that Lessans could be wrong; but if you really cared about your father's memory, that is the hypothetical you ought to force yourself to entertain; you ought to ask yourself: "what if my father were wrong -- even laughably wrong, as so many people have told me?"

Then you would know the risk you take. That Lessans would become famous, but for reasons precisely the opposite of the reasons that you assume. His name would become synonymous with "fool." That is the risk you are putting your father's memory at, in continuing to try to make this nonsense go viral. Is that what you want? I suggest you think hard about it, if you can muster any remaining contact at all with that hard place called Reality.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism is not a contingent truth. It is not based on a particular circumstance. It is true in every circumstance.

A necessary truth is one that could not have been otherwise. It would have been true under all circumstances. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true.

necessary/contingent truths: Definition from Answers.com

You still have no idea what the words you are using mean. Posting a definition isn't understanding

From 2010 This guy summed it up to you nicely

Originally Posted by JoeFromChicago

I can choose one of two options: I can either go to the dentist or go to the circus. I love going to the circus but I hate going to the dentist. I know that, for my long-term health, it is better if I go to the dentist than if I go to the circus. Yet, all things considered, I would much prefer to go to the circus.

Now, according to you (or, more properly, to your author/guru/benefactor), if I go to the circus, it's because I believed that was the best alternative and I was, therefore, compelled to make that choice. On the other hand, if I go to the dentist, it's because I believed that was the best alternative, and I was compelled to make that choice. Consequently, either choice was the best choice, depending on which choice I made. Given that any choice that I make is the best choice, it makes no difference which choice I make, since whatever I choose will be the best choice.

In that circumstance, it really doesn't make any sense to talk about a "best choice," as "best choice" and "choice" are synonymous terms. No matter what I choose, I choose the best alternative. And how do we know which is the best alternative? We know because I chose it. It's Pangloss writ small.

That brings up a problem which is common to most deterministic theories: we can only know what is determined ex post rather than ex ante. In other words, we can't know which alternative was "determined" until that alternative is chosen. At that point, we can say "that's the way it had to happen." But we can't say "this is the way it's going to happen." I don't know if I am determined to go to the dentist or to the circus until I go to either the dentist or to the circus. And if we're just left with saying "that's the way it had to happen," then there's really no point in bringing in all of this business about "choosing the best alternative." "Choice," in that scenario, is simply a meaningless term, and should therefore be dropped. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

That kind of ex post determinism really ends up being an explanation of what happens based upon what happens. It has no explanatory power because, in a Popperian sense, it can't be disproved. What happened happened because it had to happen, and we know that because it happened that way and no other. But if what happens happens because it had to happen, then we might as well say that god willed it or that invisible fairies made it happen as say that it was "determined" because people lack free will. It's all the same.

[Spacemonkey]

You're a nutjob, Janis. You can't even break your addiction to posting at a forum where everyone's already convinced you're out to lunch. Everyone can see your mental illness but yourself, yet you keep on parading it around like a badge of honor. I really do hope you eventually find the professional help you need.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Determinism is not a contingent truth. It is not based on a particular circumstance. It is true in every circumstance.

A necessary truth is one that could not have been otherwise. It would have been true under all circumstances. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true.

necessary/contingent truths: Definition from Answers.com

I would ask why you keep posting shit you don't understand, only I can see that you have no choice in the matter. If determinism is true at all, it is a contingent truth, as there is no contradiction or absurdity in the notion of an uncaused event. Necessary truths are not those which are true merely across all actual circumstances (i.e. universality alone does not establish necessity), but are rather those which are true across all possible counterfactual circumstances. Of course you still won't understand what I'm saying because (i) you don't want to; and (ii) you lack the capacity anyway.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I would ask why you keep posting shit you don't understand, only I can see that you have no choice in the matter. If determinism is true at all, it is a contingent truth, as there is no contradiction or absurdity in the notion of an uncaused event. Necessary truths are not those which are true merely across all actual circumstances (i.e. universality alone does not establish necessity), but are rather those which are true across all possible counterfactual circumstances. Of course you still won't understand what I'm saying because (i) you don't want to; and (ii) you lack the capacity anyway.

It's really something, isn't it? I don't actually read her posts anymore, but I do pick up scraps of them in people's replies to them, as here.

Determinism, if it is true, is necessarily a contingent, and not a necessary, truth. This is true, even if determinism obtains in all circumstances.

peacegirl's statement just shows she can't understand the difference between necessity and contingency. Some proposition is necessary, iff (if and only if) its converse instantiates a logical contradiction. Since the converse of determinism does not instantiate a logical contradiction, then by definition determinism, even if it is true in all circumstances, is contingently true.

Some philosophers have speculated that there is a different form of necessity from logical necessity: nomological necessity. That's a whole separate discussion; IMO there is no evidence for such a form of necessity and even if there were, it wouldn't rescue peacegirl's false claim that determinism is necessary, because she is speaking (even if she does not know it) of logical necessity. Perhaps her claim could be recast in terms of nomological necessity, but she has not done that, nor is able to do so.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Many drugs that are administered in many times the prescribed dose will cause some kind of medical problem, cancer included, and are then taken off the market. My question would be, what condition were the drugs prescribed to treat? that answer might explain Peacegirls behavior, if she didn't take them, but followed her grandmothers example and poured them down the drain.

In peacegirl's lifetime, very few drugs have been pulled due to being carcinogenic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am glad you brought his up again! I do not think your objection is a very good one, because we are not talking about preference: that same man might want to stay in and help his wife cook dinner, sure. And he might prefer to attend the birth.

But what we are discussing is an ethical rule: the man's desire gets right of way, so it is ok for him to go see a movie. Or go golfing in stead of attending the birth, or what have you.

It's not a rule where there are external consequences Vivisectus. If you choose not to follow it, that's your decision. You're fighting a losing battle because I'm not trying to convince you to yield to another if you think you're right about demanding that others do for you even when they don't want to. You don't get it at all!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are trying to hand-wave this away, claiming that this would not happen, but that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that as an ethical rule, your right-of-way system is completely silly. It all depends on the situation if it is OK to take the right of way. My desire to go see a movie does not out-weight my wife's desire to have me home to help her cook dinner per se, based on the fact that her desire requires my aid: it all depends on the circumstances. If she had recently had bad news, it would not be OK for me to leave.

Your wife has the right to ask you to aid her in helping to cook dinner, but she would never demand that you stay home if you desired to do something else. The irony is that she would only want you to stay home if it gave you pleasure. Because of this non-judgmental rule, everything takes an about face, and people are more concerned for the other's happiness than their own. But you don't get it at all.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The point is that the rule that is proposed is poorly thought out and leads to ridiculous situations that no-one would consider ethical.

It's the most ethical and fair means of finding a solution when there is a conflict. It can actually save marriages.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You admit this, but try to pretend that this would never happen because people would not be capable of doing unethical things... but we are discussing the rule that must be followed to ensure exactly that! Once again you are required to reason in circles to make Lessans seem to make sense.

You are the one going in circles just so you can claim that you are right. This rule does not have to be followed to ensure ethical behavior. This rule is to be followed because it prevents arguments, and it only is followed if someone wants to follow it. There is no one that is going to tell you what to do. You are so confused, it's no wonder you don't believe Lessans has anything worthwhile to offer the world; you understanding nothing. It's really sad that a simple formula has taken on such huge proportions in your eyes, because you want Lessans to be wrong, but he's not wrong. That's the bottom line.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In peacegirl's lifetime, very few drugs have been pulled due to being carcinogenic.

I'm glad I did not take the drug that was prescribed. Later I found out that it can cause liver failure and it was on one of those television ads where it said that if you were hurt by this drug to call the law office mentioned for representation. There are many suspect drugs on the market where they don't yet know the long term side effects whether it is cancer or some other unfortunate side effect. Fosomax is now implicated for causing necrosis of the jaw and demur fractures; the very thing it was meant to help. Here's another one right off the press:

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/03...betes-drug.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong again. Gravity is a universal law, but it is still a contingent rather than a necessary truth. Obviously you still don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about when it comes to these terms.

Determinism is not a contingent truth. It is not based on a particular circumstance. It is true in every circumstance.

A necessary truth is one that could not have been otherwise. It would have been true under all circumstances. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true.

necessary/contingent truths: Definition from Answers.com

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I would ask why you keep posting shit you don't understand, only I can see that you have no choice in the matter. If determinism is true at all, it is a contingent truth, as there is no contradiction or absurdity in the notion of an uncaused event.

Uncaused events do not imply freedom of the will Spacemonkey. And there is a contradiction in terms if you use the standard definition of determinism. If something is caused, then it can't be uncaused.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Necessary truths are not those which are true merely across all actual circumstances (i.e. universality alone does not establish necessity), but are rather those which are true across all possible counterfactual circumstances. Of course you still won't understand what I'm saying because (i) you don't want to; and (ii) you lack the capacity anyway.

The definition of determinism that Lessans proposes is true in both actual circumstances and all possible coutnerfactual circumstances, so it is a necessary truth, even though you could never entertain the thought that Lessans is right.

[davidm]

This thread remains captivating because, in addition to the rubbernecking-at-the-scene-of-an-accident aspect of watching with bulging eyes and dropping jaws the relentless idiocy that peacegirl posts, idiocy that it is indeed difficult to tear one's eye from, the thread really has spawned a lot of interesting scientific and philosophical content, just none of it from peacegirl or Lessans, alas!

Take the following three propositions:

It is true that determinism reigns supreme, and that there is no free will and that there are no uncaused causes anywhere in the universe.

It is true that there are no talking donkeys anywhere in the universe.

It is true that there are no four-sided triangles anywhere in the universe.

Which of these statements IS true, and, if true, are necessarily true or merely contingently true?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad I did not take the drug that was prescribed. Later I found out that it can cause liver failure and it was on one of those television ads where it said that if you were hurt by this drug to call the law office mentioned for representation. There are many suspect drugs on the market where they don't yet know the long term side effects whether it is cancer or some other unfortunate side effect. Fosomax is now implicated for causing necrosis of the jaw and demur fractures; the very thing it was meant to help. Here's another one right off the press:

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/03...betes-drug.pdf

You said you decided to not take a specific drug that was later shown to cause cancer. Now you are talking about various drugs that were pulled for various reasons. Why? Just support your statement with factual information.

I know that drugs are withdrawn, and I know that some cause major health problems. I donated a kidney to a friend because his were destroyed by a prescribed drug. I am well versed in this subject.

I asked you about the specifics that you, yourself, introduced to the conversation. I ask again, which specific drug did you choose not to take that was later shown to cause cancer?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You, unsurprisingly, miss the point of my little parody.

None of us here, except for you, has any stake in how reality actually is. If it turned out someday that scientific evidence for ID emerged, for instance, I'm sure The Lone Ranger, a biologist, would tentatively accept that evidence and would actually want to learn MORE about it. He is not wedded to evolution, any more than anyone here is wedded to special relativity or delayed time seeing. We are wedded to HONESTY, to an evidence-based exploration of the universe. We are wedded to REALITY.

You keep saying that but your words and hostility toward Lessans is a dead giveaway.

Originally Posted by Davidm

Thus nothing can come back and bite us in the ass. We go where the evidence leads, and we let the chips fall where they may. If it turns out we are wrong about something, we admit it, and go on to further explore new evidence that may contradict our old views. That's just part of science.

What about you, though?

Well, for you, this is all PERSONAL -- the exact opposite of the way it is for us. But what you do not consider -- and this is the point of my parody that you so spectacularly missed -- is that your never-ending and always unavailing efforts to promote this crap might eventually succeed, in the following sense: there is always the possibility, given the nature of the Internet, that Lessans' works will go viral. They could be known all over the world.

Whether it goes viral or not is insignificant if this knowledge is inaccurate. But if it's accurate and it can actually promote global peace and brotherhood, all I can say is thank God for the internet.

Originally Posted by Davidm

What then? In your boundless self-delusion, you believe that if this happened, he would acquire legions of admirers and the New World would be ushered in. But what would ACTUALLY happen, on a grand global scale, is the same thing that has happened at this tiny forum, and all the other tiny forums where you have given your song and dance: Lessans would be a laughingstock. Only, instead of us few here at FF laughing at him, he would be a laughing stock from Boca Raton to Beijing.

Well, that might be your interpretation. Mine is that finally there will be people who actually see the significance of this work, and help spread it to where it is brought to the attention of true scientists who can validate it. Then people will be dancing in the streets, but not for the reasons you wish it were.

Originally Posted by Davidm

This is what would happen. I know that you think it impossible, even hypothetically, that Lessans could be wrong; but if you really cared about your father's memory, that is the hypothetical you ought to force yourself to entertain; you ought to ask yourself: "what if my father were wrong -- even laughably wrong, as so many people have told me?"

So many people? Are you talking about these relatively few philosophy forums I've come across in my online travels? No one but no one has actually read the book. That's why I refuse to engage with people on my forum who have not studied the book or listened to the audio.

Originally Posted by Davidm

Then you would know the risk you take.

There's more risk if I don't take it. Have you noticed our world is in trouble?

Originally Posted by Davidm

That Lessans would become famous, but for reasons precisely the opposite of the reasons that you assume. His name would become synonymous with "fool." That is the risk you are putting your father's memory at, in continuing to try to make this nonsense go viral. Is that what you want? I suggest you think hard about it, if you can muster any remaining contact at all with that hard place called Reality.

David, with all due respect, you are not saying this to protect me. You are threatened by this knowledge and want to put a lid on it. And you certainly would hate to think that I actually made a cent off of my hard work to get this knowledge in print and online.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Uncaused events do not imply freedom of the will Spacemonkey. And there is a contradiction in terms if you use the standard definition of determinism. If something is caused, then it can't be uncaused.

Who are you arguing against? I've never said that uncaused events imply free will, or that something can be both caused and uncaused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The definition of determinism that Lessans proposes is true in both actual circumstances and all possible coutnerfactual circumstances, so it is a necessary truth...

Which is what renders it a tautology of no relevance to free will or the accepted definition of determinism. It fails to rule out any form of free will worth having (as it doesn't rule out any form of free will which is even coherently possible). What are not necessary truths are the conclusions he invalidly infers from his tautologous premise.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're fighting a losing battle because I'm not trying to convince you to yield to another if you think you're right about demanding that others do for you even when they don't want to.

Arguing with a lunatic is always to fight a losing battle.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you want Lessans to be wrong, but he's not wrong. That's the bottom line.

We've noticed. For you the bottom line is that Daddy is right, no matter what. And everything else is secondary. For the rest of us the bottom line is intellectual honesty and integrity, and following the evidence (of which you have none) wherever it leads.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here's another one right off the press:

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/03...betes-drug.pdf

LOL hot off the presses...their website doesn't even work

http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm259150.htm

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

<snip reply>

I no longer read your replies to me, or your posts. I did read your return post, a post made after promising (how many times?) that you were gone for good.

I do continue to pick up snatches of your snot-nosed idiocy in the quoted material from you by others, and I will continue to address those, but not you directly. There is no reason for you to reply to any of my posts, because I won't reply to your replies. I will try to steer the discussion to fruitful grounds that are beyond you, such as the current discussion of necessity v. contingency. But that is beyond you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still have no idea what the words you are using mean. Posting a definition isn't understanding

Posting a definition isn't understanding, but it's necessary to have a clear basis for communication which can only come about if you post a definition that both parties agree upon.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From 2010 This guy summed it up to you nicely

It makes a huge difference LadyShea if the choice I must make can only be the choice that would never desire hurting others. You're missing the entire point of this discovery, and why we are compelled, under certain conditions, to choose not to strike a first blow as the best possible choice. If will was free, we would be able to hurt others in spite of the new conditions that prevail, but it's impossible, which proves conclusively that man's will is not free.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In that circumstance, it really doesn't make any sense to talk about a "best choice," as "best choice" and "choice" are synonymous terms. No matter what I choose, I choose the best alternative. And how do we know which is the best alternative? We know because I chose it. It's Pangloss writ small.

I think I explained quite clearly why this is not just an intellectual debate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That brings up a problem which is common to most deterministic theories: we can only know what is determined ex post rather than ex ante. In other words, we can't know which alternative was "determined" until that alternative is chosen. At that point, we can say "that's the way it had to happen." But we can't say "this is the way it's going to happen." I don't know if I am determined to go to the dentist or to the circus until I go to either the dentist or to the circus. And if we're just left with saying "that's the way it had to happen," then there's really no point in bringing in all of this business about "choosing the best alternative." "Choice," in that scenario, is simply a meaningless term, and should therefore be dropped. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

You're right that no one can predict what will give someone greater satisfaction before it happens, which is the standard definition of determinism so that we can alter the trajectory beforehand, if this trajectory leads to criminal behavior. The only reason you are determined to do something is because it gives you greater satisfaction after comparing possible alternatives. The key here, and why this discovery is so important, is because it prevents someone from desiring to cross that line as the best alternative, under changed environmental conditions. That's the only prediction it can make with accuracy. It can't predict what someone is going to prefer when there is no hurt involved. I don't even know what I will desire to do in the next moment, but I am certain that I would never desire to hurt another without any justification because I could never derive satisfaction from doing so.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That kind of ex post determinism really ends up being an explanation of what happens based upon what happens. It has no explanatory power because, in a Popperian sense, it can't be disproved. What happened happened because it had to happen, and we know that because it happened that way and no other. But if what happens happens because it had to happen, then we might as well say that god willed it or that invisible fairies made it happen as say that it was "determined" because people lack free will. It's all the same.

But you're missing the implications entirely. Determinism can't be disproved but it can be proved. That's why Lessans gave the example that we cannot prove free will true, which means we can't prove determinism false. But that doesn't mean we can't prove determinism true and free will false, which is what he is doing. You are looking at this very superficially, which is why you keep concluding that it's a moot point, when it's an extremely significant point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL hot off the presses...their website doesn't even work

FDA Drug Safety Communication: Update to ongoing safety review of Actos (pioglitazone) and increased risk of bladder cancer

Both links worked for me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I no longer read your replies to me, or your posts. I did read your return post, a post made after promising (how many times?) that you were gone for good.

I do continue to pick up snatches of your snot-nosed idiocy in the quoted material from you by others, and I will continue to address those, but not you directly. There is no reason for you to reply to any of my posts, because I won't reply to your replies. I will try to steer the discussion to fruitful grounds that are beyond you, such as the current discussion of necessity v. contingency. But that is beyond you.

Thank God. I was praying for the day ou stopped replying to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're a nutjob, Janis. You can't even break your addiction to posting at a forum where everyone's already convinced you're out to lunch. Everyone can see your mental illness but yourself, yet you keep on parading it around like a badge of honor. I really do hope you eventually find the professional help you need.

Please stop posting to me Spacemonkey.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop posting to me Spacemonkey.

No. If you don't like my posts then don't read or reply to them.